McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[marcush.]

true ,scarbs.
I implied mclaren was ditching the thing due to rule clarification wich is apparently not the case (at least officially).
even if it´s a bit nitpicky I´d say that neither f-duct or double deck difussers made use of /exploited new regulations .

[ringo]

Oh come on McG : you've not been around here for very long, but there is no need for you to be so disrespectful to one of our more openly well connected members.

Time to do a bit of research ... google for Craig Scarborough and see what you get.

Notice the articles written for autosport on page one of the search listings?

If you can't be bothered to do that, how about this video, posted on veteran journalist (and failed USF1 sporting director) Peter Windsor's blog :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPqjFZ28 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Please, treat one of our more valuable contributors with a bit more respect. Scarbs deserves it.

Don Scarbs, pay your respects!!!

Nothing wrong with having an opinion or doubt. It's seems normal now to strong arm and intimidate anything counter to to the opinion of the Don.

Until there is proof like pictures or quotations then everything is fair game.

1 track thinking is not healthy. Suppose he is wrong, or misinformed by Mike Gascoigne ? We would be deliberating on something completely nonexistent. The Kraken or Loch Ness exhuast.

Whitmarsh thought redbull were using adjustable suspension last year. He was wrong, and may have even told any journalist about adjustable suspension at the time. We went on a wild goose chase last year becuase of that.

Until evidence pops up, there is no harm, in fact it's better to have more than 1 opinion.

[speedsense]

]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....

Hey. Sorry, I've never heard of the Pitlane before. Do you perhaps mean the Flying Lap? If I'm mistaken maybe you could give the rest of us a link?

Duh, you are right, The Flying Lap,....my rented brain without coffee...

[raymondu999]

Aha. I beg your pardon. No embarrassment intended

[gridwalker]

Nothing wrong with having an opinion or doubt.

I can't argue with this, not one bit (my opinions on geopolitics often land me on the minority side of debates), however I don't think that it is right to simply dismiss one of our most well connected contributors as "just a guy who draws pictures".

I won't say the man is infallible (who is?), but he certainly is a much more credible source of information than the vast number of pundits around the web. I'd take his word over most of the BBC crew, that is for certain!

[speedsense]

Aha. I beg your pardon. No embarrassment intended

None taken, I should know better than to drive a keyboard without coffee .

With Scarbs providing the rules clarification that changes a lot of things for this weekend for Ferrari and Red Bull, Mclaren isn't the only one.

So far in testing Ferrari and Red Bull's fastest times, both with Vettel and Webber have come with the NOW illegal parts on their cars in the following pictures

Though the fastest times for Brawn and Mclaren (on Button's day) have come with "conventional" exhaust exits. And IF Whitmarsh is correct and the car can go 1 second faster from what they learned, it puts them behind Brawn..

Ferrari and Red Bull could be the ones in trouble, as these two have not set fast times with conventional exhausts And will have to run them this weekend:




and




Both will have to change this weekend... Maybe, just maybe Mclaren isn't as far off as everyone thinks...IMHO

[ringo]

why are 2 these illegal again?

material or geometry? They don't seem to be breaking any regs that the renault wont be breaking.

[l4mbch0ps]

I think the implication is that those channels are made from pyrosic, and therefore would no longer be legal under the clarification. Venting exhaust gas into a pyrosic chamber is illegal, a la octopus and presumably a la RB and Ferrari. Renault run exhaust gas through an exhaust pipe all the way to atmosphere, not venting into any chambers - appearantly.

[marcush.]

any decent fabricator can build something like this from a sheet of inconel .so where is the problem? connecting it with zero gap to the floor ?

[GTO]

If there is exhaust pipe under there, IMHO it is acting as a heat sheild.

[l4mbch0ps]

Yah that's an excellent point - it doesn't even seem to be a horrendous location to gain the weight in (nearly as low as you could put it). However, it seems to me that creating the channels out of pyrosic is somewhat of a risk in that, as we've seen, it was a grey area at best regulations wise. It would logically follow that there was a tangible payoff to that risk. It would also logically follow that they have possibly prepared a contingency design.

You could be right though, there could be exhaust pipes under there that we just can't see.

[raymondu999]

why are 2 these illegal again?

material or geometry? They don't seem to be breaking any regs that the renault wont be breaking.

+1. I don't get why they're illegal either

[GTO]

any decent fabricator can build something like this from a sheet of inconel .so where is the problem? connecting it with zero gap to the floor ?

Yes, the contingency can already be seen. The suspected parts are bolted on, therefore can be replaced if found illegal.

[ringo]

Nothing wrong with having an opinion or doubt.

I can't argue with this, not one bit (my opinions on geopolitics often land me on the minority side of debates), however I don't think that it is right to simply dismiss one of our most well connected contributors as "just a guy who draws pictures".

I won't say the man is infallible (who is?), but he certainly is a much more credible source of information than the vast number of pundits around the web. I'd take his word over most of the BBC crew, that is for certain!

Dismissal is probably too much in truth. Scarbs does get some stuff we wouldn't have known or seen otherwise. That should be appreciated somewhat.
I don't take his word faithfully but i consider it more than the other media guys. I just prefer horse's mouth quotations and pictures better.

about exhaust, we need the regs on use of material.
Those materials on redbul and ferrari look much different than the mclaren.

[timbo]

I think it came from here http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/03/1 ... -analysis/

Ferrari wanted to produce the exhaust in glass ceramic composite (such as Pyrosic), but this request was denied by Charlie whiting who clarified the exhaust must be made of materials on the permitted materials list. Such composites, while allowed to be used in some exceptions, are not allowed to be the actual material of the exhaust pipe.

Somebody apparently taken it a bit too far and thought that the whole solution was banned.