Comparison of all 2011 cars

[marcush.]

the splitter leading edge is coincident with the rearmost part of the front wheels.so the splitter=flat bottom is starting exactly 330mm behind the front axle.
Underneath the Flat bottom we got the plank wich is 10mm in height and has to be parallel front to rear-nowhere is written that the plank has to be flat!

If I remember correctly til 2010 there was a +/- 5mm in z tolerance in flatness of the flatbottom -to allow for manufacturing inconsitencies.This was reduced to 3mm for 2011.this rule effectively allows for a 10mm(now 6mm) hump ,bow ,kink in longitudinal direction in the flat bottom to which the plank is attached.
Using this tolerance cleverly there is a lot of scope to be able to run the front of the car lower to the ground ,as you can raise the teatray about 6mm and the leading edge will not be first to touch the ground.
the new rule saying the front portion of the plank has to be at least 1200(?)mm tells us were the kink in the bottom will be positioned in 2011..

[shelly]

Agree with you: tea tray tlerance (and flexing) is one of the keys.

Without diging into deatil, I think that we can roughly say that you have to raise 3mm the rear to lower 1mm the front if you pivot around teatray l.e.

[kakogohrena]

And another comparison, Melbourne on March 27, the first lap of the race. Cars are aligned and scaled at the wheels. Again, the rear wing RB7 higher than the MP4-26.


slider http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=9

[CyleB]

...
if you look in the background, the white lines dont match up which means one of the cars was closer to the camera which = bad comparison

[kakogohrena]

...
if you look in the background, the white lines dont match up which means one of the cars was closer to the camera which = bad comparison

It's good comparion, cars aligned and scaled at the weels, turning radius constant, impossible to find two absolutely identical photos.

Horner confirm rear of the car is higher:

"McLaren have developed a car that has a very low rear ride height, and therefore a low front wing for them doesn't work. We run quite a high rake angle in our car, so inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.

I do not understand why people do not want to admit the obvious.

[HampusA]

Horner is just playing mind games. Mclaren has nearly as much rake as RBR.
The picture above is not a good comparison even though tires and all is lined up.

I don´t understand how people can deny that their wing is indeed flexing.

[Formula None]

RB7/MP4-26 overlay, aligned at rear wheel:

[kakogohrena]

the first comparison from Malaysia
http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=14
Clearance RB lower on what was in Melbourne

[kakogohrena]

Malaysian Grand Prix, Qualifying Day, Sepang, Malaysia, Saturday 9 April 2011.

MP4-26
RB7
F150
W02
C30
R31
FW33

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=15

[kakogohrena]

Please note that the clearance at the rear wheels RB above, but the front fender of cars on the same level over the track

[kakogohrena]

today, China

[kakogohrena]

Melbourne:


China:

[Formula None]

[Formula None]

[raymondu999]

DC mentioned during his and Jake Humphrey's first gridwalk that sometimes, the car is even designed with styling decisions, rather than performance decisions in mind. Is that really true? Would a team really sacrifice some performance for style? I would've thought an extra hundredth, even if it makes it twice as ugly, would be preferrable