McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[kakogohrena]

I agree, but unfortunately I do not have the best photos for comparison. Perhaps after a Melbourne will have more information.

[FemiA]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I just read an interesting statement in an article on a german F1 news site reguarding this FW setup. The basic statement of the article was that Alonso believes that McL will be fighting for podium finishes. But what caught my eye was a rather side note on the FW bulb nose:

I know we were discussing how this setup should work and what it's purpose was. In this article they state that this is not to measure anything, but to actually deform the front wing using actuators in a way that RB/Ferrari does naturally. That explains the stiff rods in comparison to the ropes that RB used. McL supposedly have no clue (maybe that was a bit hard) how to use the flex in an appropriate manner, or better are lacking the knowledge as to where they need the wing to flex to to maximize the advantages. So seeing them starting the tryouts and measurements so late I guess it will be another while before we can see a new FW that will incorporate a flex like the others. But it is good to see that they are on the right track... even if it is a little late.

source:
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 31515.html

It will not surprise me a bit if motorsport is reporting a wishful thinking rather than fact.

[bot6]

There is no way those rods put pressure on the wing. To put enough pressure on it to bend it, they would have to be much stiffer, therefore much bulkier.

Or be made out of ceramic, but then they'd shatter on the first bump.

This is clearly a measuring device.

[Hangaku]

There is no way those rods put pressure on the wing. To put enough pressure on it to bend it, they would have to be much stiffer, therefore much bulkier.

Or be made out of ceramic, but then they'd shatter on the first bump.

This is clearly a measuring device.

Indeed, if the rods could flex the wing, the wing would already be flexible enough to do so under it's own weight.

[Just_a_fan]

Indeed, if the rods could flex the wing, the wing would already be flexible enough to do so under it's own weight.

Er, no. If the wing only generates X downforce but needs X+Y force to deflect then the rods would need to supply force Y in order to give the necessary deflection.

That is to say, McLaren might only be able to design and build a wing that deflects at 1deg / X+Ynewtons but the wing never generates more than Xnewtons at the required speed and thus gives less than the required deflection. Thus the rods would provide the supplemental force.

However, the device is obviously a measuring device if for no other reason than active front wing aero is illegal...

[David1976]

I read on another forum that there are rumours that McLaren's exhaust problems centre around their use of a specialist material for the exhausts "PyroSic"

It may explain the long lead-in times for manufacturing alternatives if their original design experienced failures.

[Hangaku]

Indeed, if the rods could flex the wing, the wing would already be flexible enough to do so under it's own weight.

Er, no. If the wing only generates X downforce but needs X+Y force to deflect then the rods would need to supply force Y in order to give the necessary deflection.

That is to say, McLaren might only be able to design and build a wing that deflects at 1deg / X+Ynewtons but the wing never generates more than Xnewtons at the required speed and thus gives less than the required deflection. Thus the rods would provide the supplemental force.

However, the device is obviously a measuring device if for no other reason than active front wing aero is illegal...

That's not the point I was trying to make. My point was that I don't believe such a thing could be achieved in such a small package.

I'm not questioning the laws of physics, but I am questioning that if this was nose bump was doing what is alleged in the "article" (that motors were extending and retracting the rods) exactly how much torque do you think those little motors would need to generate to do so?

[Just_a_fan]

@hangaku

Oh, fair enough, I see what you mean now.

As I said, though, the main point is that it would be illegal anyway...

[Just_a_fan]

I read on another forum that there are rumours that McLaren's exhaust problems centre around their use of a specialist material for the exhausts "PyroSic"

It may explain the long lead-in times for manufacturing alternatives if their original design experienced failures.

There is also the suggestion that the material is banned by the FIA anyway because of cost issues.

If that is so then why isn't inconel also banned? It's hardly cheap but widely used.

Looking elsewhere (Autosport) there is a suggestion that the FIA "clarified" the use of PyroSic and said it's not allowed other than as protection applied to the floor etc. If McLaren designed the thing using PyroSic somewhere else and then that use was "clarified" as illegal, no wonder they were struggling to get the clever exhaust to work - they'll have had to put it together using suboptimal materials hence the failures.

Thinking about it, perhaps this is why McLaren were talking about the car being different before the launch - only to have it "clarified" out of the running. Interesting if so and one wonders why this clarification came when it did and why it was prompted...

[David1976]

I read on another forum that there are rumours that McLaren's exhaust problems centre around their use of a specialist material for the exhausts "PyroSic"

It may explain the long lead-in times for manufacturing alternatives if their original design experienced failures.

There is also the suggestion that the material is banned by the FIA anyway because of cost issues.

If that is so then why isn't inconel also banned? It's hardly cheap but widely used.

Maybe it has only been clarified recently? Brawn was saying this week that there "had been clarification" about the materials used. Perhaps McLaren were forced to building a less than desirable exhaust, or one they had not originally envisaged in their design - there by causing failures?

[thestig84]

Yes the drag is lower and the velocity to the rear, at a certain height, of the car is higher.

I don't know how the behavior is in yaw. But i don't think yaw angles are high for F1 cars.

Interesting. I don't think yaw is an issue - it has been very vocally raised by one forum member but other than that...

I think it was on a recent episode on the flying lap webcast where they said most of the windtunnel work now days is done at an certain angle of yaw. I agree dont think its any sort of issue.

[ringo]

Ringo -> Did you keep the same frontal area for each sidepod shape or just cut out the top bit to make the L shape?

Frontal areas are different. I tried 3 different L side-pods as well, each with varying width cuts and edge fillets.
The L side pod has to have a lower frontal area, that's the benefit. But remember this L sidepod is the hypothetical side pod they would have if they trim down the rear.

[bot6]

The thing is the main use of the sidepod is to channel air to the radiators for cooling, and frontal area is the main parameter deciding how much air gets to those radiators. If you want a realistic L-pod VS normal pod comparison, you need to have the same frontal areas for both.

Otherwise, if the L shaped pod is just the normal one with a bit cut off, of course the drag will be smaller (the pod will be a smaller obstacle to the flow). But your engine will overheat, making the whole setup useless.

[onewingedangel]

Or you would have to move some of that cooling air intake capacity elsewhere - like air intakes below and behind the airbox?

[Just_a_fan]

@bot6

Look at this comparison:

you'll see that the -26 has slightly larger openings than the -25 and that the shape of the sidepod's lower shape is less undercut in the -26 than the -25. Thus the sidepod is shaped to keep the radiators functioning correctly whilst allowing the cutout in the top surface to give the L-pod.