McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[feynman]

I wasn't talking about lap time. I specifically mentioned top speed. The previous quote was about how little drag the Maclaren has. So I just asked why, if the Macca has so little drag, the Merc is quicker on top end. Speaking about drag only.

And we were doing so well for a while there. Time for this again:

http://bigmsmallcbigl.com/


As to the rest of it, the amount of absolute drag or the absolute downforce on their own don't tell you enough.
The point is aerodynamic efficiency, how much downforce generated for a given amount of drag, and vice versa. It is therefore the plot of those two lines, and a calculated local maximum when fed through the simulator, that determines how any car will be configured.

You could certainly imagine a scooped-out, low-drag car body shape which then allows you to add significantly more wing than you otherwise would, such that you may in fact lose a little time on the straight, be middling in the speed traps, but gain back what you lost plus much, much, more in the corners, just because of where the radiators allowed you to shift the plots.

Saying low-drag or high-downforce without context is pointless, it is the combination and the efficiency of that combination that determines performance.
... I don't know, but from the vibe I got, I do not believe that McLaren had an "aero efficient" low downforce wing configuration available to them, trimming wings lost them more than they stood to gain, for them the numbers insisted on a barn door as the most efficient method for that car to circulate that lap.

When you then further muddy the water with tyre performance interactions from any chosen aero-load, good or bad, or from winter design decisions to bias DRS for qualification or race performance, or anything-else from the usual gaggle of omnipresent overlapping compromises that define any set-up ... then it rapidly becomes way too simplistic to say that a low drag radiator body shape must always automatically be at the top of the speed-traps ... it might, and it might not, you can't tell.

[Formula None]

[hardingfv32]

In the top photo:

1) What is the yellow item the mechanic seems to be working on below the rain light?

2) Is that the retention cable hanging below the axle and if so why is it not captured in something?

Brian

[i70q7m7ghw]

Is that a nose cone and wing assembly on that stand outside? And if so why is it not on the car?

[astracrazy]

Is that a nose cone and wing assembly on that stand outside? And if so why is it not on the car?

it looks like the front jack is on the car, which connects to the car where the nose would

[scarbs]

In the top photo:

1) What is the yellow item the mechanic seems to be working on below the rain light?

2) Is that the retention cable hanging below the axle and if so why is it not captured in something?

Brian

1) laser ride height sensor

2) floor stay, it will secure\stiffen the floor when its fitted

[shelly]

It seems there is an accidental flow visualization on the inside of the rear wing right endplate in the last of the three pictures

[Clausell]

Clausell_F1
http://yfrog.com/h8uaq6j Novedades en #MCLAREN, alerón trasero específico para el GP CANADÁ...

[Pierce89]

[...]

[l4mbch0ps]

Efficiency does not determine top speed, though drag does. I mentioned top speed not lap times. Yes, efficiency is important for lap time, but I wasn't talking about that. I specifically asked that: If the Mclaren is suppposed to have so little drag why does the Merc have a higher top speed.(See no lap times mentioned only top speed, hence why I asked about drag not efficiency.)

You're missing his whole point. The drag and downforce numbers are not fixed. With equal levels of downforce, your point would be correct, Mclaren should have higher trap speeds. His point is that the lower drag of the Mclaren may allow them to run higher levels of wing. Say, sacrificing 5mph in the straights for 10mph mid corner speed in comparison to the Merc - obviously i just pulled these numbers out of nowhere to illustrate the point. You're obviously taking his disagreement personally, and your education and experience have very little to do with the fact that his point is valid.

[hardingfv32]

Scarbs

I should have been more specific. Yes, I now see the floor cable you are talking about.

What about the metallic brown cable just below the control arms and drag link. Maybe .5-.75" round.

Brian

[Owen.C93]

Probably a wheel tether.

[SiLo]

Study some fluid dynamics and you'll understand just how much a butterfly can cause a hurricane.

That's Chaos Theory or Chaos Dynamics.

Also, if someone told you that you could either be the fastest car in qualifying, or the fastest car in the race, which would you choose? I'm pretty sure that both drivers don't mind having to overtake some cars if they want to win the race.

[beelsebob]

Study some fluid dynamics and you'll understand just how much a butterfly can cause a hurricane.

That's Chaos Theory or Chaos Dynamics.

Also, if someone told you that you could either be the fastest car in qualifying, or the fastest car in the race, which would you choose? I'm pretty sure that both drivers don't mind having to overtake some cars if they want to win the race.

I'm pretty sure that the position McLaren are in is that they can be fastest in the race, or they can be fastest no where, so it's even more of a simple decision.

[alelanza]

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

That's impossible

Comparing with cars without U side-pods obviously.

No, comparing anything with anything, that sentence is wrong. Doesn't matter if you put the wing on a teardrop shaped car vs a brick wall, that phrase is still incorrect. If you meant to say that the macca is overall less draggy (which i'm not sure is necessarily true) and thus can put more wing on, then yeah i can understand that

i think alot of you may have missed the fact that mclaren got there gearing wrong in canada. Lewis said they were so slow on the straights because they uped the wing levels for a wet race but couldnt lower the gearing to compensate. "drag issues" as they put it.

Why so interesting you say?.....FUEL. if you cant rev 100% your going to save a hell of alot of fuel in the race. Mclaren knew there would be alot of safety cars and probably already under fueled the cars by 20kgs...But will lowered RPM i would say jenson crossed the line with 15-20kgs less than anyone else. This has to be one of the reasons Jenson was so fast in teh end of the race with less load going through the tires ect... We already know they can run the merc engine on 4 cylinders so even if they got super critical on the fuel they could have saved loads under the safety car. I wouldnt have been suprised if mclaren only put enough petrol for 60% of the race at full speed

It seems to me you're thinking too much in road car terms. If a team wants to save fuel there are many other approaches they can take and still have top end speed when needed. These are cars going at WOT as soon as they can, not your normal car cruising at highways speeds on top gear and 20% throttle.