McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[onewingedangel]

I've been wondering about the central rear wing pylon - would this be compromising the concept of making the most effective use of the beam wing (which itself doesn't 'seem' as developed as others).

With Red Bull and Mercedes among others using a full length beam wing with endplate mounted adjustable rear-wing controls, is there any benefit to having the centrally mounted pylon?

[McG]

Doesn't look like it would cause any problems, it's very thin. Maybe they could use the vertical force at high speeds on the rear wing to push it onto the beam wing to make it flex

Also it might make the rear wing stronger, McLaren will need it when they are the fastest in a straight line again!

[Muulka]

Does anyone have any idea where McLaren are losing time? Do the strange sidepods actually help? Or is the double-floor idea better?

I expect that for the time I'm on these forums I'll be answering more questions than answering, but we're all here to learn, I suppose.

[JB2011]

Does anyone have any idea where McLaren are losing time? Do the strange sidepods actually help? Or is the double-floor idea better?

I expect that for the time I'm on these forums I'll be answering more questions than answering, but we're all here to learn, I suppose.

I think they are losing time because they are struggling to balance the car. Other teams (RB and Ferrari) have evolved last years car so I think they already have a pretty good idea of how to set it up, but the MP4-26 is a totally new design.

Also reliability has compounded any issues they have by taking track time from them, which will hurt the times.

[Muulka]

Does anyone have any idea where McLaren are losing time? Do the strange sidepods actually help? Or is the double-floor idea better?

I expect that for the time I'm on these forums I'll be answering more questions than answering, but we're all here to learn, I suppose.

I think they are losing time because they are struggling to balance the car. Other teams (RB and Ferrari) have evolved last years car so I think they already have a pretty good idea of how to set it up, but the MP4-26 is a totally new design.

Also reliability has compounded any issues they have by taking track time from them, which will hurt the times.

So it doesn't appear to be a fundamental issue? Unless it's one that causes that lack of balance....

[bot6]

Have McLaren been testing their KERS these last 2 tests ? I saw nothing about that (I might have missed completely). If they haven't... Well, then. The future looks even more bleak for them

Shouldn't be a problem, as they are using the co-designed McLaren / Mercedes one this year I believe.

The rear end looks much more tightly packaged... There might still be hope for the MP4-26 yet!

[Coefficient]

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.

The general aero regs (with the exception of the still under debate return of ground effect) will remain, as will the mandatory dimensions of the vehicle. As such, the aero research done today will be of use tomorrow. This is something the teams have been keen to instill in the new regs to save money as the new drive train will be very expensive to R&D and could even see some smaller teams throw the towel in.

[McG]

There's a lot of hope, it looks promising, we know last years car was a quick race car, and what are they... less than a second off the top times with half the testing milage. And as I believe, a car that will allow more development than the other top teams e.g Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari.

I think it's too much to hope for that Renault, Torro Rosso, Force India and Williams will be fighting for wins, hell, we will be lucky if Mercedes are up there.

[Coefficient]

I've been wondering about the central rear wing pylon - would this be compromising the concept of making the most effective use of the beam wing (which itself doesn't 'seem' as developed as others).

With Red Bull and Mercedes among others using a full length beam wing with endplate mounted adjustable rear-wing controls, is there any benefit to having the centrally mounted pylon?

The Pylon is mostly structural. However, it does limit the effectiveness of the beam wing because it splits the airflow in two which generally means that the air will lose some energy during the process of traveling from the leading edge of the pylon to the wing. It also prevents the the team designing any flex into the wing because of the bonding regs.

The sims must have told them that they can sacrifice this NL opportunity.

[forty-two]

Interesting observation.

Wouldn't the increased thickness of the RW endplates also result in a drag increase? Or do you think that centreline turbulence is more critical?

[Hangaku]

If we are to believe that McLaren were running a front wing that wasn't symmetrical, they were doing so for one reason - to get twice as much data from half as much running.

Also, if we are to believe that the airflow all around the car is affected greatly by the air coming from the front wing, it would therefore be fair to assume that this asymmetrical front wing was causing the car to be unbalanced, and therefore ensuring that McLaren weren't able to put a fast lap down in the last couple of days of testing...

... a long shot, I understand. Still seems like as fair an assumption as anyone else's though Really does go to show though, that nothing is as simple as read, in F1.

[forty-two]

If we are to believe that McLaren were running a front wing that wasn't symmetrical, they were doing so for one reason - to get twice as much data from half as much running.

Also, if we are to believe that the airflow all around the car is affected greatly by the air coming from the front wing, it would therefore be fair to assume that this asymmetrical front wing was causing the car to be unbalanced, and therefore ensuring that McLaren weren't able to put a fast lap down in the last couple of days of testing...

... a long shot, I understand. Still seems like as fair an assumption as anyone else's though Really does go to show though, that nothing is as simple as read, in F1.

+1 IMO

If that's what they were doing, it's very clever (call it simple if you like, but simple ideas are usually the best).

[Hangaku]

Interesting observation.

Wouldn't the increased thickness of the RW endplates also result in a drag increase? Or do you think that centreline turbulence is more critical?

If the thickness of the rear wing end plates caused any serious drag issues, every team would have them wedge shaped

[forty-two]

Not sure I follow you there.

How would a wedge shape be advantageous?

What I meant was that in order to run an ARW actuated only by the endpplates and not have a central pillar must require thicker endplates than with the central pillar idea.

[Owen.C93]

I can't imagine thicker endplates would be much of a deal. They have slots in them as it is.