McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[mep]

Will they even need low downforce wings when there are 2 DRS zones on this track?
You can gain from them when you go for medium downforce in corners and still get low drag on the straights.

[ell66]

they have got a new rear wing for this weekend, its not s deep as the standard wing, i saw the pics over on the autosport forums.

Last year mclaren could run more wing due to the f-duct, that advantage is obviously gone.

[raymondu999]

*slightly* off topic here, but IIRC last year in Canada so many teams were afraid of graining due to slipping/sliding that they slapped barn door wings on. And McLaren did that too, plus they had the f-duct so just slammed on massive wings for the added downforce.

Except Lewis didn't. Although that may have not been the best decision.

I would be surprised not to see a low downforce package from McLaren though.

That was Monza. I'm talking about Canada.

[gridwalker]

Will they even need low downforce wings when there are 2 DRS zones on this track?
You can gain from them when you go for medium downforce in corners and still get low drag on the straights.

Cars likely to run at the front of the pack will need low downforce wings to stand a chance of maintaining their lead. Cars in the midfield, not so much (and they might think it is worth the gamble).

The cars at the back probably aren't generating enough downforce to have a need to change their package

[Owen.C93]

*slightly* off topic here, but IIRC last year in Canada so many teams were afraid of graining due to slipping/sliding that they slapped barn door wings on. And McLaren did that too, plus they had the f-duct so just slammed on massive wings for the added downforce.

Except Lewis didn't. Although that may have not been the best decision.

I would be surprised not to see a low downforce package from McLaren though.

That was Monza. I'm talking about Canada.

Oh yeah, sorry.

[astracrazy]

hmm there running the barn door (or so i just see on lewis' car)

could there car produce that much less drag that they could afford to run such a wing?

edit: or will most teams run such a wing because there will be more benefit from the drs?

[alelanza]

... you can crank up the wings and not face the drag penalty.

That's impossible

Verizon?

How does that work, with team Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes?

EDIT: Forget it , they own 45% of Verizon and since there is no Vodafone in Canada or the US, it's Verizon.

They also had verizon since at least Monaco i think

[astracrazy]

Verizon?

How does that work, with team Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes?

EDIT: Forget it , they own 45% of Verizon and since there is no Vodafone in Canada or the US, it's Verizon.

They also had verizon since at least Monaco i think

yep, thats right

Always was surprised they hadn't filed that space sooner

[Alexgtt]

Anyone know if McLaren are running something new on the rear wing? Failure of DRS today very un-McLaren.

[hardingfv32]

beelsebob

I would not think that the two styles of rear wings would not have the same size main element. The AoA that they stall at could be different.

While the gap opening does represent an equal reduction in surface area hitting the air, those surfaces should all be at different AoA.

Brian

[PlatinumZealot]

... you can crank up the wings and not face the drag penalty.

That's impossible

Comparing with cars without U side-pods obviously.

You can run higher AoA on the flap because the body of the car has less drag than cars without U sidepods. Very straight forward.

From Drag increases with the square of speed, and is proportional to the CSA. So it is easy to cut a big azz chunk out of the Cross sectional area of the car to lower the drag.

A nice graph from Wiki (I know, right?) This is from an aeroplane so you have to do some interpretation as the wings of an F1 car are fixed in normal circumstances.



Just subtract whatever percentage you want from the green graph, and you see the effect on the total drag. ESPECIALLY at high speeds the biggest difference is seen. (look how high the form drag is at high speeds! much higher than induced drag). So you can see the U-pods is a very potent weapon.

Now with that done - and you car is accelerating pretty fast down the straights and you have the perfect balance of speed through the turns... Why take away the down-force?

[shelly]

n_smikle, the graph you posted is relative to an airplane which has to sustain its weight with lift. It can then use lower cl at higher speed, thus reducing induced drag.
So it can not be interpreted for f1 cars: it just does not apply to them, because as you said, their wings are fixed.

Agree that if your bodywork has less drag, you can use that bonus for adding downforce via the wings.

U shaped sidepods have less frontal area, but that does not automatically imply that they are less draggy than conventional shaped sidepods, being Drag= S*c_d.

By the way I agree that they are probably less draggy than ferrari's for example.

On interesting aspect is that u sidepods could also produce less lift than a conventional shape, because of the limited low pressure zone on the top leading edge.

Mclaren worked a lot in this zone also last year with "normal" sidepods, introducing that upper slot that ferrari has recently copied (see f150 thread) and that should have the main function of destroying lift generated by the upper part of the sidepod

[PlatinumZealot]

From the side. *need to cross check with previous wings.

[speedsense]

n_smikle, the graph you posted is relative to an airplane which has to sustain its weight with lift. It can then use lower cl at higher speed, thus reducing induced drag.
So it can not be interpreted for f1 cars: it just does not apply to them, because as you said, their wings are fixed.

DRS use, ends this statement

Agree that if your bodywork has less drag, you can use that bonus for adding downforce via the wings.

U shaped sidepods have less frontal area, but that does not automatically imply that they are less draggy than conventional shaped sidepods, being Drag= S*c_d.

By the way I agree that they are probably less draggy than ferrari's for example.

Considering that Mclaren tops or is around the top in straight line speed in most section speeds, I would say...compared to ALL F1 cars, yet produces downforce numbers comparable to Red Bull, who BTW doesn't put themselves in the top five for sector speeds hardly ever.

On interesting aspect is that u sidepods could also produce less lift than a conventional shape, because of the limited low pressure zone on the top leading edge.

Mclaren worked a lot in this zone also last year with "normal" sidepods, introducing that upper slot that ferrari has recently copied (see f150 thread) and that should have the main function of destroying lift generated by the upper part of the sidepod

Scoop generated lift??? I don't get it, are you talking lift generation from the top of the L shape entrance of the sidepod? Have you forgotten that the entrance is in the wake of the front wheel? And that the venturi effect of the scoop shape will change that..?

[SiLo]

Why do they not have a gurney flap on their rear wing? The one on RB is quite prominent.