McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[forty-two]

I think Macca are suffering a mild form of Mp4-18itis. At least they're putting the flow-vis in the right places this year.

In contradiction to all the nay sayers, I think Mclaren are being very adventurous with their design. If you remember, the Mp4-18 was only conceived as a reaction to the almighty and dominant Ferraris. Mclaren were the only team that realised that they had to come up with something totally radical to compete. The problem was it was so new from and engineering perspective that they found it was very difficult to get it to work. In short, the technology didn't exist at Mclaren to make the18a work. They had bonding issues galore and when that happens you can forget the other problems.

Anyway, the 18A was the embryo of the car that eventually brought Hamilton his title. Mclaren obviously feel the need to go radical again order to catch Red Bull. So, perhaps this year the 26 will become respectable but a have a feeling the overall concept, once refined will be very good indeed.

BTW, the flow vis on the air box is fine. The heavy flow into the channel is acceptable as long as its not cyclonic. Why? Well, that's because it's designed to cool their weird exhaust which doesn't work yet but it will by Race 3.

Hopefully they'll figure out that the front wing needs to tilt longitudinally to circumvent the regs rather than just flex down!!!

Excellent first post Coefficient, welcome to the forum.

I think you have a point about the departure from the norm embodied in this car, it might take some time to get it going, but if this works, I suspect we'll see similar shaped cars from other teams in the future, look how they all copied the F-Duct for example!

As a concept, I like it. It looks to me like something which at least on paper should give them an advantage, providing they can overcome the packaging issues it presents, which I feel if any team can, McLaren can.

As for the FW issue, I think the reason they had four rods instead of two was likely precisely as you predict. One appears to be positioned approximately centrally, and the other is toward the front.

While I am on the topic, contrary to the bulk of the media reporting, they weren't "telescopic" rods, rather they appeared to be solid rods, with carefully spaced cable-ties anchoring a cable along at least the rear stay.

[boci]

I suppose, there would not be much of high speed air getting in there. The entry is relative close (distance, height wise) to the airbox, air right at the edge of the airbox gets disturbed/deflected and turbulent, sort of 'death stream' area, probably even Vortex.
Well, but maybe it still does, see on the outer edge of it the flow viz moves pretty well, just not on the inner surfaces. But the inner surfaces a retracted slightly, therefore there would not be high velocity on these surfaces, but overall air might still stream in very well.

That is why they use wind tunnels / CFD. If they managed to even get that wrong then there must be something very wrong with their design team.

I think Macca are suffering a mild form of Mp4-18itis. At least they're putting the flow-vis in the right places this year.

In contradiction to all the nay sayers, I think Mclaren are being very adventurous with their design. If you remember, the Mp4-18 was only conceived as a reaction to the almighty and dominant Ferraris. Mclaren were the only team that realised that they had to come up with something totally radical to compete. The problem was it was so new from and engineering perspective that they found it was very difficult to get it to work. In short, the technology didn't exist at Mclaren to make the18a work. They had bonding issues galore and when that happens you can forget the other problems.

Anyway, the 18A was the embryo of the car that eventually brought Hamilton his title. Mclaren obviously feel the need to go radical again order to catch Red Bull. So, perhaps this year the 26 will become respectable but a have a feeling the overall concept, once refined will be very good indeed.

BTW, the flow vis on the air box is fine. The heavy flow into the channel is acceptable as long as its not cyclonic. Why? Well, that's because it's designed to cool their weird exhaust which doesn't work yet but it will by Race 3.

Hopefully they'll figure out that the front wing needs to tilt longitudinally to circumvent the regs rather than just flex down!!!

That is possible but considering that the rules will again radically change for 2012 there won't be much time to reap the benefits of this wasted season.

[RedTzar]

I thought changes to the regs were being considered for 2013, mainly the engine? I can't believe the teams will be given just 3 seasons to perfect one design and then have to make a completely new one. The general concept will remain.

I'm wondering whether the L-pod channels need to extend so far back to direct the air to the beam wing or they do this because of packaging problems. Either way there will be some development of this through the year to improve performance

[Goran2812]

It's an optical illusion caused by the angle that the inner end of the flaps is cut relative to the longitudinal axis of the car. Look at the wing from the front or above and you will see the angle.

look at the red circle... the black edge of the upper plane is risen higher than the side of the wing...
if we look at the white circle, that is not the case...
if the two wings were to be angled the same, the black edge of the plane would be visible on the right side from this angle, and it's not...

[Just_a_fan]

Look again. The endplate is split in to a silver and a black piece. The flap is in the same place on each black piece. The "different angle" is just down to the viewing angle of the camera. Move on.

[forty-two]

Goran, J.A.F, I think both of you could be right.

It definitely looks at first glance like it might be asymmetrical, but it could equally be just a deceptive photo as a result of the angles involved.

Let's wait and see if any other images turn up?

Either way, that FW is a work of art!

[Just_a_fan]

So, perhaps this year the 26 will become respectable but a have a feeling the overall concept, once refined will be very good indeed.

Perhaps so. So many people on here forget that the RB6 and 7 are just the refined results of a process that started under the old regs. If, and I accept it's a big if currently on testing form, the -26 concept can be proved and developed then McLaren might be on to a winner for a couple of seasons hence.

Indeed, there is historic precedent for this sort of thing c.f. Lotus 78.

Of course, the -26 could just prove to be a dog. Time will tell.

[Shrieker]

Barcelona has more right hand corners. Could it be that the wing is set up in such a way so the left side of the FW will get closer to the ground (flex), generating more DF for the left hand side of the car in effect giving more grip to the left tyres ? If you could get bonus grip for the tyres, you'd want them on the left tyres in a track likes Barcelona, no ?

They've been doing tests on the front wing with that bulbous measuring device on the nose, so I thought it could be related...

[forty-two]

McLaren have a history (rightly) of testing things out on one side of the car only. With the current testing restrictions, allowing them to only run one car at a time, this is arguably a good way of making a comparison between two setups simultaneously.

That being the case however, I would have guessed that if that's what they were up to, they would have run the supposed asymmetrical FW with the "red nose" fitted in order to compare the forces being felt by the wing.

However, since the FW has an impact for the rest of the car's aero, they might well have been monitoring things downstream from the FW and we just haven't seen any images indicating the instrumentation?

[Poleman]

McLaren have a history (rightly) of testing things out on one side of the car only....

The pic is already posted so i just quote it.Proof that maybe they do actually trying things on the one side of the wing.

[forty-two]

I hate to stamp on my point! but if you look at THAT picture, the R/H (L/H as you look at it) side of the wing looks just as high, if not higher than the L/H side.

[onewingedangel]

The two sides have the same attitude, it's just that the curved U-shaped flaps that are throwing you off.

With the circled parts in the earlier picture you have to realise there is a gap between the curved black and silver endplate components. If you logically imagine what the other side would look like it based on what you can already see it should become clear.

[forty-two]

Welcome to the forum onewingedangel, great first post.

For what it's worth, my hunch is that you're right, but we don't know if this most recently posted image was of the same wing as the previous one, so we don't know for sure.

[boci]

I thought changes to the regs were being considered for 2013, mainly the engine? I can't believe the teams will be given just 3 seasons to perfect one design and then have to make a completely new one. The general concept will remain.

I'm wondering whether the L-pod channels need to extend so far back to direct the air to the beam wing or they do this because of packaging problems. Either way there will be some development of this through the year to improve performance

Yeah, sorry you're right its for 2013, but I believe the cars will be drastically different then. They are also implementing ground effects, and if they just put them on the current cars they would have way too much downforce. I think the 2013 cars will have way smaller and less deeper wings.

Also yes, McLaren have a history of racing assymetrical cars but I think the wing is the same on both sides.

[Ratatouille]

Didn't Mclaren say they'd be testing a "radical" rear wing in this Barcelona test?

I haven't seen any closeup pictures of the rear wing Button used today, but it seems to me its the same wing they began testing with.