McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[Formula None]

Frankly, I think with what we've seen from the Pirellis so far, you could strap them on a brick and not be too far off pace.

Let's keep the Mercedes comments in the Mercedes thread.

[Pup]

Will do.

[CHT]

A REMINDER:

This thread is to talk about the elements of the car, not to field your opinions on how good or bad you think Mclaren are at developing and testing their chassis.

I think the first 25 pages of this thread arent really focusing on the elements of the MP4-26 but rather personal opinion on Mclaren and their capabilities.

[CHT]

Quote from Jonathan Neale http://en.espnf1.com/mclaren/motorsport ... 41437.html

"Everybody is concerned about pace at this time because you've got no firm ground," he says. "Job No. 1 for us is to make sure the car will go down and do the mileage, make sure there are no gremlins and that the numbers in the windtunnel correlate with the car on the circuit. If you've got a problem, particularly if it's an aerodynamic one - if you've got a yaw issue or you've got a stall issue - not only have you got to go backwards and try to fire fight the issue itself, you've then suddenly got a whole series of question marks about the upgrades you are bringing, because you are no longer on firm ground. I think the job for all of us is to get on to firm ground, which is happening."

Unpicking the tyre and car data from one another was one of the main reasons McLaren sent last year's car to the first test.

"Both drivers, having driven the MP4-25 on the same tyres, were able to feel the difference between the two cars - I think that was a smart thing for us to do," Neale explains. "Given that there are so many changes going on, it would be very difficult to disentangle and reengineer what was tyre, what was car, what was aerodynamic and what was mechanical."

Not quite sure what JN is saying. On one hand he talks about the importance of mileage and finding out if numbers in the windtunnel correlate with the car on the circuit, while at the same time he say it was a smart move to use the MP4-25 during the first test, instead of the new car. By doing so, I would think that Mclaren might have wasted about 2 weeks or so to find out if their windtunnel reading is correct.

With so much changes to the aero regulation this year, I also wonder how much use is there to test the tyres on 2 different cars. Didnt they did the tyre test using the MP4-25 at Abu Dhabi last year??

[ringo]

I'm thinking the car is unfortunately going to be a dog. Brundle and Gary anderson have said the car is lacking grip. Also, a few people from another forum who have attended the test have commented on the car is visibly struggling to get on the power through corners and looks disastrous at some points.

Mclaren have went to radical. I'm no expert but i think there's to much 'going on' at the back rather than concentrating on a clean smooth back end like RB and Ferrari. I'm not looking forward to this season.

I agree, too radical.
So much space could have been freed up with copying the redbull bolt for bolt.

They have a few weak facets on the car, like the beam wing fused into the crash structure. That should have been changed to the new implementations we see with the low crash structure and the freer beam wing.
The nose is high, but it's not high enough like the other 2011 cars. These little weaknesses add up.
This doesn't say the car is a dog though, the car can come to the first race and go on pole. But looking at it looks a little to cluttered and doesn't seem as focused as the ferrari or redbull.

I hope it's quick though. Mclaren have been wasting Hamilton's time the past 2 years going on to 3.

[pipex]

I am with you CHT, Neale wasn't very clear in his comments, it looks like he is mixing two different things, but in the end the main idea is clear, which is to try to decouple the possible unknowns this year. On one hand we have the tires, and for that reason they tested the 25 with the Pirelli's. And on the other hand they say that the it is important to validate the aero results with this year car. Testing with the 25 allowed them to check to what extent the tires affect their performance. I don't think that it was wasted time, instead it looks like solid engineering to me. Imagine if the car doesn't perform as it should, how they could identify the origin of the problem? it is aero or suspension?. To what extent is the data they gathered no one knows. Well, if the tires worked properly in the new car, then it is wasted time, but no one knows a priori the answer to that question.

[CHT]

I am with you CHT, Neale wasn't very clear in his comments, it looks like he is mixing two different things, but in the end the main idea is clear, which is to try to decouple the possible unknowns this year. On one hand we have the tires, and for that reason they tested the 25 with the Pirelli's. And on the other hand they say that the it is important to validate the aero results with this year car. Testing with the 25 allowed them to check to what extent the tires affect their performance. I don't think that it was wasted time, instead it looks like solid engineering to me. Imagine if the car doesn't perform as it should, how they could identify the origin of the problem? it is aero or suspension?. To what extent is the data they gathered no one knows. Well, if the tires worked properly in the new car, then it is wasted time, but no one knows a priori the answer to that question.

I understand the importance of running and comparing Pirelli wear rate using a 2010 car, which is why teams have be testing them at Abu Dhabi last year. However what puzzle me a little is why is Mclaren doing the comparison test (again) when they should be like other teams learning the tyres using 2011 aero specs.

I wonder if that was simply a sexy excuse for delaying the launch of MP4-26

[ringo]

Mclaren seem to care more about their simulator models than reality.
They keep updating it and calibrating, but fail to realize it's not the time to be looking at that when you've got the real car to develope. They'll be forever updating their models till kingdom come, waiting for the year it will all tell them everything they need to know.

The CFD and wind tunnel is only as good as the engineers conceptualizing the car, no matter how true to reality they get.
All the data they were collecting on the bridgestones with the pitot rakes didn't even give them an edge last year on the other teams. Redbull and Ferrari were better at keeping the tyres.
Mclaren only seemed to learned how to get more top speed by studying the wake, but that didn't help with how the car used the tyres.
I hope 2011 is not another year of " the car has massive potential, so we'll collect data for next year".

[Formula None]

Exhaust details:





Note exhaust slit position relative to u-bend:



Some eye candy:

[Raptor22]

Quote from Jonathan Neale http://en.espnf1.com/mclaren/motorsport ... 41437.html

"Everybody is concerned about pace at this time because you've got no firm ground," he says. "Job No. 1 for us is to make sure the car will go down and do the mileage, make sure there are no gremlins and that the numbers in the windtunnel correlate with the car on the circuit. If you've got a problem, particularly if it's an aerodynamic one - if you've got a yaw issue or you've got a stall issue - not only have you got to go backwards and try to fire fight the issue itself, you've then suddenly got a whole series of question marks about the upgrades you are bringing, because you are no longer on firm ground. I think the job for all of us is to get on to firm ground, which is happening."

Unpicking the tyre and car data from one another was one of the main reasons McLaren sent last year's car to the first test.

"Both drivers, having driven the MP4-25 on the same tyres, were able to feel the difference between the two cars - I think that was a smart thing for us to do," Neale explains. "Given that there are so many changes going on, it would be very difficult to disentangle and reengineer what was tyre, what was car, what was aerodynamic and what was mechanical."

Not quite sure what JN is saying. On one hand he talks about the importance of mileage and finding out if numbers in the windtunnel correlate with the car on the circuit, while at the same time he say it was a smart move to use the MP4-25 during the first test, instead of the new car. By doing so, I would think that Mclaren might have wasted about 2 weeks or so to find out if their windtunnel reading is correct.

With so much changes to the aero regulation this year, I also wonder how much use is there to test the tyres on 2 different cars. Didnt they did the tyre test using the MP4-25 at Abu Dhabi last year??

Please forgive me if I will come across as faecisious but I am growing tired of drumming this point home.
The biggest change of all for 2011 is the Pirelli tyre. It has a different characteristic to the Bridgestone in all performance areas. The tyre is also the most important aspect of the car since all the downforce, power, torque, and lateral forces move through the contact patch. This has a direct bearing on many decisions that determine the design philosophy of the car. THe designer needed to make certain assumptions last year on these tyres that would determine suspension geometry. Weight distribution is pretty much fixed to ensure a neutral car so thats one aspect the designer can work toward in comfort.

How the cars aerodynamic performance affects pitch and yaw needs to be isolated from the mechanical contributors to grip and pitch stability (Damping spring rate anti dive anti squat etc).
McLaren s approach was to first isolate the tyre performance and verify that. Then they introduced the new car to the tyre and ran know aerodynamic components for which they understand behaviour in pitch and yaw. Right so now they understand how the suspension contributes to grip and pitch and yaw control.
he last element they introduce is the fianl aerodynamic package for which they have modelled performance so they need to verify that performance on the track.

This is just plain and simple good scientific method and Mercedes ar using it too. However they fel that last years baseline was no good so they did not use last years car and instead have opted for a simple aero package consisting of last years front and rear wings blah blah blah.

If anyone feels they know better than McLaren how to test an Fq car then please do apply for a job there so that your voice can be heard.

[Poleman]

Im no expert at all but for what i see is that McLaren are trying to optimize the car for the Pirellis and try to find out the correct set-up for the car as well settle with the optimal exhaust position.Seems like they settled for the U-bent exhaust and all they did today was try to cure some small reliability problems they had going for some lomg run mileage.

Their lack of pace in testing doesnt look promising but that doesnt mean that the car is gonna be a dog.Im not sure of that,its just a guessing but i feel that if there was something fundamentally wrong with the car we would already see those gadgets and flow vis all over the car like last year.They seem to be quite confident that the car will deliver as soon they bring their new parts in.

Nothing technical here just my 2 cents about what those guys are doing.

PS: This pic is amazing

[CHT]

McLaren s approach was to first isolate the tyre performance and verify that. Then they introduced the new car to the tyre and ran know aerodynamic components for which they understand behaviour in pitch and yaw. Right so now they understand how the suspension contributes to grip and pitch and yaw control.
he last element they introduce is the fianl aerodynamic package for which they have modelled performance so they need to verify that performance on the track.

This is just plain and simple good scientific method and Mercedes ar using it too. However they fel that last years baseline was no good so they did not use last years car and instead have opted for a simple aero package consisting of last years front and rear wings blah blah blah.

If anyone feels they know better than McLaren how to test an Fq car then please do apply for a job there so that your voice can be heard.

Every team in F1 are doing that actually, the only difference is that the others team were doing that in 2010, while Mclaren is repeating the same test in 2011. I am sure Mclaren must have learn quite a fair bit of new information for their effort, but weather MClaren will be able to put those data into great use or weather they have time to make major changes to the car design before the first race that I am not sure.

Just wondering is there any reason why you think that Mclaren wont be better off testing the MP4-26 from start as that should give them more time to fix any surprises and time to do race simulation practice.

[myurr]

Well one reason would be the amount the car changes. Ferrari and Red Bull have brought very clear evolutions of last years cars with little new on them, just changes due to the rules and oodles of refinement. They already knew their cars in the real world before they turned a wheel as they will perform very much like last years cars.

McLaren went a different route and brought out a revolutionary upgrade to their car with a completely different rear end aero philosophy and significantly different suspension. It was much more important for them to establish a solid baseline with the old car so that they knew the benefits and disadvantages of their new car relative to the old. The 2010 test was on a different circuit with different weather and different asphalt and different drivers. To introduce a different car as well would have made their data collection that much more difficult.

[747heavy]

IMHO, The rear most "round" bar is the toe link on the Peugeot.
And in the same Long plane as the arm.
Think about the two Mclaren lengths, adjust one longer, the other one would resist the lengthening of it as there isn't a pivot point between the two. You would have to change both lengths to change toe.
As far as why it's that way (double arms)...can't say, never seen anything like it...

agree with the first assessment
not quite sure if I understand the "Long plane" discription of yours - appologize,
as to me it(the Peugeot toe-link) is not in the same longitunal plane on the upright)

even if the two links are parallel in this photo/perspective (in others they are not allways), I would not imply that they join the upright in the same "plane".

see in this perspective, the two links are not parallel, indicating to me, that the lower one is running forward and therefore optical closing the gap in this perspective.



to me (but I could be wrong) the lower wishbone is facing/heading forward (towards the upright) to join underneath the driveshaft while the "toe-link" joins behind the driveshaft.
very similar to the Peugeot position or older Renault F1 rear suspension layouts.
Therefore, I can´t see the problem with lengthing only the toe-link to get a change in toe.

A trulely parallel second link (double arm) (joining at the same plane onto the upright and chassis) would over constrain the suspension - IMHO (similar to a driveshaft without float), so how this should work !?!

Sorry at least to me, that does not look like anything special or out of the ordinary.
They run the "toe-link" parallel to the lower wisbone, while ohers run it parallel (or in plane - Williams Z-wisbone) to the upper.

I did not find a very good shot where the wisbones joint the upright so I guess we have to wait for a while, but to me this looks like what I try to explain above.



hi res photo can be found here

in principle this (at least to me) looks similar to this or this
note (in the first photo) that lower wisbone and "toe-link" look parallel in this photo as well, but dont joint the upright in the same plane.

Let´s wait and see, sooner or later there will be some more detailed photos from the upright or rear suspension.

[Raptor22]

Well one reason would be the amount the car changes. Ferrari and Red Bull have brought very clear evolutions of last years cars with little new on them, just changes due to the rules and oodles of refinement. They already knew their cars in the real world before they turned a wheel as they will perform very much like last years cars.

McLaren went a different route and brought out a revolutionary upgrade to their car with a completely different rear end aero philosophy and significantly different suspension. It was much more important for them to establish a solid baseline with the old car so that they knew the benefits and disadvantages of their new car relative to the old. The 2010 test was on a different circuit with different weather and different asphalt and different drivers. To introduce a different car as well would have made their data collection that much more difficult.

Correct, the degree of change in the basic layout and aerodynamic is key here.

The MP4/26 and W02 are the most changed cars of the top teams.

McLaren had a good baseline in 25 to understand tyres, Mercedes did not.

McLaren now are moving forward with aerorefinements but have been hampered by mechanical gremlins. They're a little behind the program here I suspect so now they will keep the aero program on schedule but work on Mechanial systems as well.