McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[Mchamilton]

I'm not satisfied with where the car was on reliability or performance in the test," he said. "We have made some fairly dramatic changes, and those changes we will see in Australia. There's some risk in that, but I think it was the right thing to do and we're hopeful that that risk comes off and the car is a lot more competitive in Australia."

He said the exhaust and floor were the headline elements in a major change to the car.

"We have a completely new floor and a new exhaust system. There are a lot of other bits and pieces, but they're the clear and obvious ones that people will see in Australia."

Whitmarsh acknowledged that the original exhaust design had been too complex and had created too many reliability issues.

"I'd say it is a simpler design than we've had before," he said. "I think the exhaust systems have become quite extreme on quite a lot of the cars. I think we in particular had very extreme solutions.

"But I think that they were not delivering, in my opinion, sufficient benefits for their complexity.

"I believe that the car isn't fundamentally a bad car. I believe that we need to unlock the exhaust-blowing potential.

"We had some very creative ideas, some of which could have worked spectacularly well. But if they were to work spectacularly well then they had to be sufficiently durable to be raceable, and frankly some of our solutions weren't, and that's why I think we had to go back on it. But I think in doing so we found some interesting performance."

Whitmarsh admitted that going straight into the opening race of the season with such major changes on the car was a risk, but felt it was worthwhile given the performance gain he expects to see.

"I think it will still be a challenging weekend, but I'm hopeful that we'll put on more than a second in performance," he said.

"That's not what you like to do after a test like that, but I think it's the right decision, and if it wasn't then I'll have to put my hand up."

While unwilling to make firm predictions about where the revised McLaren could stand in Australia, he said the team would be aiming for victory.

"I can't make any predictions, but you always have the target of going to win races," Whitmarsh said. "I'm not predicting we're going to win it, I'm saying we're aiming to win it."

[raymondu999]

I wonder if, actually, there could be a drag value in the "licking" or "surface" drag of the troughs within the sidepods. Willem Toet has already mentioned this as a reason why he wasn't entirely sure of the Toro Rosso double floor concept

[ben_watkins]

So the "octopus" waves all eight arms goodbye

Is this due to the reliablity as MW says? As I thought their problems were due to hydraulics, not exhaust failure..

Or is it due to the 'octopus' and the exhaust exits/pirosyl not being legal should the car be scrutineered in that config by the FIA in Melbourne?

[Holm86]

If this IS the goodbye of the "octopus"??

They could be doing some work on it back at MTC and then maby introduce it again later ...

[scarbs]

Scarbs isn't a reliable source, he's just another guy drawing things.
.

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

[Ferraripilot]

Scarbs isn't a reliable source, he's just another guy drawing things.
.

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

=D> bravo!

[volarchico]

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

+1
I, for one, appreciate when you do give us a little insight here and there when you can! Thanks.

[ringo]

So Marshy has admitted the solution was too complicated to be reliable. However he did not give a clue about the effectiveness or even the geometry.
Is it an octopus or a squid?

Sounds like they'll be reintroducing it at some point.

If it relates to the side pods, then it has to do either with the higher speeds to the beam wing compared to the other cars, and then compensating the lower more choked air speeds to the sides of the pods.

can't wait for free practice.

[raymondu999]

Is it an octopus or a squid?

It's a squid, not an octopus! (a la it's a slot, not a hole)

[fsliv]

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

+1
I, for one, appreciate when you do give us a little insight here and there when you can! Thanks.

I too appreciate your work but I also hope you dont take such criticism personal as don't they come with the territory

[speedsense]

Scarbs isn't a reliable source, he's just another guy drawing things.
.

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

McG, go watch The Pitlane, episode 7, with Scarbs and Willem Toet, I didn't see even a pencil in Scarbs hand and not one disagreement from Willem on Scarb's opinions or observations....

Scarbs, With Mclaren shelving the octopus (for now), what have you heard about how the pyrosic ruling will affect Ferrari, RB and Brawn? All three seem to be exhaust ducting with enclosed chambers (obviously made out of pyrosic). With the current ruling ducting is now considered "piping" and can't contain pyrosic...
Kinda does away with the ducting doesn't it? Unless it is shielding an exit of the
actual exhaust pipe.

[PlatinumZealot]

So as we all suspected the exhaust is too unreliable for the benefits it produces. Seems mclaren has decided to copy the RedBull and whip something up for AUS.

It's gonna be nice to see the '26 with the U-pods trimmed down round the back..

[Just_a_fan]

We've certainly managed to at least establish that yaw is a major problem for a Formula 1 car from someone who really does know, despite your best efforts to tell us that it magically isn't.

Er, when was that established? By whom?

Tilt the McLaren round and ask yourself what happens when you start blowing air over the car from your line of sight, when that air will hit the sidpods, engine cover, the rear wing or the shallow valley in those sidepods first.

Sure, if you stick the thing at a large angle, of course it's going to be an odd airflow. When was the last time you saw an F1 car at 45deg to the airflow (other than when spinning). Unless they're going to be racing in 50mph/90deg cross winds it's not going to be an issue.

Like Willem Toet said - "Can't do that in a wind tunnel" and "Always understand the limitations of you tools".

Maybe McLaren have set up their wind tunnel model to specifically test for this. And I think perhaps they understand their tools better than you do.

Mind you, if everyone could do that then Newey wouldn't be paid as much as he is so I understand your confusion to an extent.

Ah yes, the infallible Newey. Never designed a bad car in his life...

[scarbs]

For some clarity:

I have no "inside" knowledge of the McLaren exhaust, I know and respect Mark Hughes as a journalist, he appears to be the sole source of the "octopus" exhaust. Its not unusual for Haymarket (autosports publishers) to get 'inside' info from McLaren or indeed other teams.

McLaren have run at least four exhaust formats in testing.
1) the launch spec conventional rear exit exhaust
2) the "U" bend with no obvious exit
3) the outboard slit exit (ahead of the rear tyres)
4) the 2nd conventional more tightly packaged rear exit (last barca test)

Its my assumption that Hughes refers to the #2 "U" bend as the octopus. I can see some evidence for the systems existence, there being some grey heat shielding blanking off the boat tail section inside the diffuser, when other teams have run this area open. However I have not seen any exits to back up the claims.

I drew that scruffy picture to highlight where the ceramic box was supposed to sit for a twitter follower. Its was based on my presumption of what was explained in Hughes article.

From what I understood, the system must use a different interpretation of three rules. Firstly the number of exhaust exits, secondly the definition of an exhaust and thirdly the material used. I made the guess that they have split the exhaust from the bodywork and the differing materials some how circumvented the rules.

So I emailed several teams tehcnical directors for clarification of these rules. Based on Ross Brawns comments on exhausts the day before. Ross himself was flying to Australia, so coudn't answer. Sam Michael opened an email thread on the subject of Hughes Article and the rules as they were clarified the week before. Lastly Mike Gascoyne confirmed two points for me.

This is whats clear from the info given to me by these two Tech Directors:

* only two exits are allowed Article 5.6 Engine exhaust systems may incorporate no more than two exits

* Exhausts are considered anything that carry exhaust gas to another part of the car. You cannot use 'bodywork' to move an exhaust exit 'somewhere else'

* The exhausts must be made of permitted materials

* The only composite capable of acting as an exhaust are glass ceramic composites (GCC). These are not on the permitted materials list, with one exception.

* GCC can be used under heatsheilding as per Point #8 on the exceptions list in Article 15.1

* Ferrari requested a clarification that the exhaust itself could be made of glass ceramic composites, Charlie Whiting clarified that it could not.

* Using GCC as a heat sheild around exhausts is legal, as long as the exhaust itself is from permitted materials (typically inconnel)

* This is not a new issue, GCC material has been off the permitted list for some time.

In conclusion, we cannot be sure such a system exists. However as explained by Hughes, it does not appear to be legal. It is both made from banned materials and uses more than two exits. It could be legal if it were made from permitted materials AND the number of exits could be resolved. So such a system could be legal if it were made from inconnel and only used exhausts. The fabrication is achievable and as we have seen from sidepod outlets, two seperate outlets are permitted if they are joined by a common opening (re: Ferraris fishbone\gill outlets last year). Either McLaren have been caught out by the rules clarification or the system is different in reality to that described in the article.

[Dragonfly]

Many thanks, Scarbs.
So even if exhaust gasses mix up with air from outside in a kind of a chamber with multiple exits called "octopus" , it's illegal or at best on the very edge of the rules?

P.S. And please keep making drawings