McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[vall]

Paffett with drive the 26 on a track near Barcelona. I hope there will be someone there to take videos and pictures

[bonjon1979]

Been looking at the -26 and the rear end is interesting. A couple of things that caught my eye:



Looks the rear end was very far from the real deal. The diffuser each side of the starter hole has quite a complex shape.

Also of note is the attachment of the lower wishbone to the hub. It's almost at the same height as the drive shaft - this will improve airflow to the diffuser top. Note also that the toe control link is mounted below the rear lower wishbone mounting point on the gearbox. (The toe control link might be the higher of the two, but even so the whole lot is up out of the way of the airflow).

Be interesting to compare this with the representative car at the next test/first race. I think a whole lot of new stuff is going to be appearing here. I also think that the design of the volume below the crash structure points away from McLaren using a Renault style front exhaust.

The shape of things to come:

http://twitpic.com/3xebuu

If you notice the exhausts on the Virgin they pass underneath the drive axles on either side of the crash structure. It looks to me like Mclaren have left space on their rear to do something similar.

[delacf]

Also it was widely discussed last near that it's a bit of a myth that short wheelbase cars are more nimble than long wheel base cars.

Why? This is demonstrable. Physics, the mother of all sciences [-o< .

Your demonstrable proof being?

It was based on comment from the chief engineers of the teams last year at the launches of their cars where they said that the difference in wheel bases between a 'short' and 'long' car weren't that great relative to each other, and that there were other more important factors in determining the nimbleness of the cars. It was discussed at length last year with, I believe, the majority of the engineers concurring with the F1 guys that it was more myth than fact.

Hello, myurr

I guess that small differences in wheelbase may be hidden by other parameters but certainly, in my opinion, that the wheelbase does affect this fact.

Regards,

delacf

[timbo]

Hello, myurr

I guess that small differences in wheelbase may be hidden by other parameters but certainly, in my opinion, that the wheelbase does affect this fact.

Regards,

delacf

Yeah.
Of course wheelbase is not the single factor.
If you screw weight-distribution, chassis stiffness or aero or something else major it doesn't matter whether your car is long or short.
But having lower moments of inertia would make turning in easier.

[ajdavison2]

I agree with the fact that a longer wheel base makes the car less agile, if you think of it in the case of 2 extremes. A stretch limo is harder to get round a corner than a supermini, obviously this is an exaggerated example but I think the principle still stands.

[HHinklehoffer]

I agree with the fact that a longer wheel base makes the car less agile, if you think of it in the case of 2 extremes. A stretch limo is harder to get round a corner than a supermini, obviously this is an exaggerated example but I think the principle still stands.

You're looking at it the wrong way. F1 cars are defined by a certain mass, they shouldn't increase in mass as the wheelbase gets bigger. Therefore the analogy would be to compare your supermini with a stretched version with the same mass. If the supermini was stretched the suface area would also be bigger and it may the be possible to place more of the mass lower in the chassis.

Then again I may be talking b*ll*cks

Edit: Grammar.

[ajdavison2]

Ahhh yeah, that blows my theory out of the water haha, doesn't matter

[PlatinumZealot]

The wheels base differences are too small to make a significant difference. That's why redbull had no qualms about increasing it.

[SiLo]

But then you have a car that is a lot longer, meaning you can take less lines through a corner to compensate, but obviously, F1 cars don't differ too much so it wouldn't make so much difference.

[Richard]

Hhink - not quite!

A longer car would have its mass further from the centre on plan, so a greater polar inertia for the same weight.

The geometry of a shorter wheel base enables a sharper turn in, regardless of weight. That is were the mini/limo analogy works.

There will also be aero influences on turning a longer car.

However, there will be packaging (low CoG) and straight line advantages with a longer wheel base.

[Pup]

Isn't the car a bit shorter than last year's?

[Richard]

Great video.

What an odd low key launch. I can see why someone wanted to do a bit of performance art, but the silence was very strange. They needed some music to give it some life, it seemed funeral.

The slot for the Vodafone chap was amusing. They didn't even bother to translate to English. I don't speak German but got the gist, every other word was "Vodafone" or "McLaren".

Interviews are here ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL8Wx8P8 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEASKXNp ... re=related

Lewis "The car looks good, its a great paint job and the Pirelli tyres look nice ... have you seen my sidepods?" Shame the presenter didn't realise how odd they are.

Didn't realise Button is a leftie

[feynman]

Yes, if you bolted wheels and steering onto an oil tanker it clearly would have a greater turning radius than a unicycle. All the cars need to bolt on different suspension to get round Loews, but you don't ever design your car for that one corner.

Shortest to longest you're realistically looking at nothing greater than a handful of inches of difference in wheelbase. In the calculation of how fast to get round any set of corners it must be one of the least significant variables.


Two cars of identical wheelbase can be easily engineered to have have wildly different cornering abilities, and any specific deficit by one could be more than compensated by gains made elsehwere in different corners.

Weight distribution, car balance, lower CofG, more efficient suspension geometry, optimal use of tyres, favorable mechanical or aero characteristics directly facilitated by that extra length ... and all the other permutations of the inherent compromises that work together to get a car round a corner.
Over a race distance, it is not immediately clear that it is correct to say a shorter car turns better than a long one.

Wheelbase counts, but it needs to take its place alongside all the other (more) significant factors. It's a package.
The reason it seems to get so much, too much, attention, is that it is the most obvious, and easily regarded difference between cars ... but I don't think obvious should ever be confused for significant, especially not in the highly nuanced world of F1 vehicle dynamics.

[Raptor22]

again people are latching on one asect of a design and calling it the holy grail. Wheelbase is worthless unless you take the height and placement of the Ccenrte of mass, the centre of pressure, the track width and pitch sensitivy of the car into account. Wheelbase alone is nothing but a result of pacakging on a modern F1 car. The amount of downforce being produced makes it less of an issue.

[Richard]

Yes there are lots of factors which in some cases are only nuances from one car to another. Do we have to add that disclaimer every time anything is ever discussed?

edit to add - didn't Merc correct the weight distribution problems last year by changing the wheelbase?