Is McLaren really off the pace?

[Richard]

the car has a very, very clear and fundamental aerodynamic instability.

Source?

[hollowBallistix]

Yes, seriously. I've responded multiple times over what I think is wrong with them and certain people then simply got upset and wanted to stop any further discussion. Read what I wrote and read the quote from robbobnob.

Saying it over and over won't make it true. You've also declined to make firm predictions on form. So let's try again, seeing as you're so confident in your eyeball CFD. Do you think a car with L shaped sidepods win a race this year? If you cannot honestly predict the answer to that to be no then we can drop talk of ditching the car and coming up with a new concept.

Like it or lump it, the car has a very, very clear and fundamental aerodynamic instability.

Like it or not, we just don't know that yet.

Try and think what's happening over and around those sidepods, and then think about what's happening as the car is going through corners, flow off the front wing etc. It's an insanely complex set of variables, all to cut a chunk out of the sidepods to get more airflow to the rear of the car.

And the other F1 cars are all so simple with the undercuts, double floors, sharp waists, front exhausts, etc....

Trying to pick people up on their 'qualification' is utterly irrelevant. If we're armchair critics then we're armchair critics that were right. Just accept it. That kind of 'discussion' track won't make the obvious problems go away so I don't know where that's going.

It's not irrelevant at all, it shows whether you're informed but with an agenda, or if you're just a fan boy with an agenda. You make so many claims about different cars, slagging off anything that doesn't have a drinks company as it's owner, claiming that you know better than some of the most successful teams in the history of the sport, that you will by default call it right occasionally. Hell I can make a prediction about every single team saying they'll struggle and be in the bottom half of the grid and I'll be right 50% of the time. That doesn't make that prediction of any use or prove me right as a whole.

+1

even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while

anyway, it's only 2 weeks until the start of the season, so we will see then

[CHT]

Does anybody know what is the top speed of MP4-26 at Barcelona in comparison to the others?

[CHT]

Im just gonna go ahead and say it, the L shaped sidepod is a dud idea.

increasing the surface area perpindicular to the flow will just create more of a boundary layer and more drag... look to see mclaren fighting it out with FI and sauber for 10th place at melbourne

You could be right on that. I think the U shape cut away on the Mclaren side pod does generate extra surface friction hence slowing the air before hitting the rear wing.
This is similar to what Willem Toet say about the double floor on the STR.

I think the instability might come from inconsistency of airflow mass and speed through the U-channel, hence unsettling the rear end of the car.

[manchild]

I think that just as walrus nose on the Williams wasn't the reason why it wasn't the top car, same can be applied on L shaped sidepods and Mclaren. Perhaps they work perfectly but extremely strange front end of the chassis or something else doesn't.

From visual observation, I think that new Mclaren is simply to big relative to other cars. Too big and too complex. If it was complex as the result of desire to make it compact and light that would be logical, but that car is gigantic.

As it is now, it seams like the ugliest Mclaren ever, the biggest Mclaren ever, the most complex Mclaren ever and the most unsophisticated Mclaren ever.

It looks like spaceship toy, or as a movable lab with disregard for aerodynamic efficiency and severe cooling problems.

[raymondu999]

Well if anything McLaren's porpoise nose is trying to rival Williams' old Walrus one, I guess?

[Robbobnob]

anyway, it's only 2 weeks until the start of the season, so we will see then

I dont know about you but 2 weeks is 2 weeks too long!!! getting blue balled from the anticipation

[CHT]

The MP4-26 does reminds me of typhoon fighter jet, especially the engine cover section. Maybe thats also the reason why it is so unsettled.

[speedsense]

I'm struggling to see where the "compression" is for a start...

Please tell me you're not that.....oh, you're deliberately doing it? When you get something fast moving interacting with something that is slow moving you've got yourself a compression.

You mean, boundary layer, correct? How many boundary layers on Torro Rosso, using your terms of compression ALA boundary layer, The Torro would be the worse for this as far as reaching the diffuser...
The RB has three top, side, and "additional" lower sculping (larger than the standard.."keep air from spilling under the floor"), near the floor and are three separate boundary layers for reaching the diffuser,
The Mclaren, has one boundary layer, as the bend of the L shape, top of the pod, is gradual and continuous boundary until the top of the L, where you would have a separate boundary layer (due to the sharpness of the curvature at the top of the pod. However none of this air is directed at going to the diffuser. And to point out, the side pod doesn't have added sculping outside of the "norm" for spilling prevention. Air to the diffuser, is intentionally coming from the top of the pod, directed at the diffuser, with one boundary layer.
The Mclaren with one boundary layer vs cars with multiple boundary layers for air going to the diffuser.
Sorry Seg, I don't get your thinking, maybe a raindrop isn't an efficient aero device to you, with it's one continuous, uninterupted boundary layer.
If the Mclaren had a sharp turn up the L shape (where the top of the pod meets the sides} then I would fully argee with you, However the pods shape at this point is a very gentle curvature and keeps the boundary layer from becoming two separate boundary layers, instead of one continuous one, like it is now.
One aero engineered I worked with in a windtunnel, told me something that has stuck with me " once you think you understand everything there is to know about aero, your probably wrong...!!!" AA IMHO..

And one more thing, in the rain, you put as much downforce as possible on the car to make it stick, WHY IS THIS CAR RUNNING IN THE RAIN WITH ONE WING second element flat (RF)? If the car was an AERO mess at you say, why wouldn't the wings be at full effect?

[Just_a_fan]

For pity's sake, the wing is not flatter on one side than the other!!!

[Just_a_fan]

You need a uniform airflow going through there in order for things to be stable. Think about what's happening when you've got airflow coming from different directions. The higher parts of the sidepods act as boundary layers slowing the airflow and then airflow from elsewhere interacts with it. Just think about it for a second.

Nah, still struggling. How about drawing me a picture - you know what they say about pictures = 1000 words...

The car's reliability issues are a completely separate and additional problem to its obvious stability issues.

Ah, I see. I'm still not seeing the "obvious stability issues" though. I'll look for some you tube videos of testing to see I can help us all with that...

At a fundamental level the car needs changed - from the chassis on upwards. The chassis materially affects the aerodynamics (I do wish people would stop using the non-word 'aero' - it's a chocolate bar).

At a fundamental level? You mean they need to go back to the way the carbon is laid in the moulds and everything from there onwards? That would seem to be "a fundamental level".

Why is "aero" a non-word? Would you be happier with the word "aero."? (The 'period' indicates an abbrevation if that helps settle your mind.)

Or is the use of "aero" annoying because you don't really understand aerodynamics; do you hope this little straw man will deflect from your attempts to denigrate every other team who might challenge your beloved drinks purveyor in the title races?

[bot6]

Trying to pick people up on their 'qualification' is utterly irrelevant. If we're armchair critics then we're armchair critics that were right. Just accept it. That kind of 'discussion' track won't make the obvious problems go away so I don't know where that's going.

I think that says it all really...
translation:
"I think I know more about aeroDYNAMICS than someone who has two master's degrees and a doctorate and 10 years of experience in the field. Because I am right, just accept it."

Just_a_fan, I don't think things need to be demonstrated further. You'll wear out your keyboard for nothing... This needs to stop so the thread can go back to its normal purpose.

And speaking of that purpose, I think McLaren are not as far off as we might think. The whole front of the car is basically carried on from last year, and last year's car was far from bad. The rear certainly needs some refinement. But I think the main things that will change the game are reliability and the exhaust. Once these two elements are set (it might not be for a couple of races, but the Mackie Boys will get there), they will be able to have a proper setup benchmark for the rest of the year and will at least come back above the midfield teams. And if they don't, they will just switch back to last year's rear end design.

The thing is, I'm not too worried for McLaren. They always try to innovate to find the "trick" that will win the championship, and sometimes they go in a wrong direction doing so. But we must at least thank them for keeping it interesting. Never a dull moment with them. Also, they seem to have the humility to accept to rethink their technological choices when they end up behind, as is shown by the enormous amount of B-spec cars they have made. So I'm pretty sure that even if they are behind now, they won't spend the whole season there.

[speedsense]

For pity's sake, the wing is not flatter on one side than the other!!!

There is no doubt in this picture, the right side element is flat, the left side is up....

[myurr]

@speedsense - I'll maintain that it's an optical illusion until you show me a picture from in front of the car where it is 100% clear that the wings are at different levels. I can think of no aero reason for wanting to have an asymmetrical front wing, these cars are hideously complex and it isn't as easy as splitting the aero on the two halves of the car. By having radically different front wing angles on each half of the car you'd create all kinds of weird air flows from one half of the car to the other due to the air being directed to different places.

Perhaps, if a picture that proves beyond doubt that they're doing it cannot be found, then someone (ringo?) could knock up a quick CFD output to demonstrate whether it works in principle or not.

[Pup]

For pity's sake, the wing is not flatter on one side than the other!!!

There is no doubt in this picture, the right side element is flat, the left side is up....

I think we have the makings of an Atlas "transparent bodywork" argument.