McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[alelanza]

[

No, comparing anything with anything, that sentence is wrong. Doesn't matter if you

You know what I mean, and I know what I mean. You just want to drag stuff out, being all pedantic and stuff.
OBVIOUSLY THE DRAG WILL GO UP IF YOU CRANK UP THE WINGS ON ANY CAR! you think I'm stupid?

I don't think you're stupid, i think your statement was wrong. This is not about being pedantic or dragging things, this is a public forum and anyone can see what you type without necessarily 'knowing what you mean', and as such you should be prepared to be corrected, my not doing so would go to the detriment of the more casual readers that may think what you said was correct.

[PlatinumZealot]

Here is my statement, kind sir.

Maybe with the U shaped side pods they don't need one.. I am thinking they loved their drag reducing F-duct idea so much that the designers of the car pushed the U-pod Idea through. It is almost like permanent drag reduction, you can crank up the wings and not face the drag penalty.

My sentences are hardly every constructed in the best way, (I'm not the best writer!) but reading the post in whole, SURELY you must have realised that I was suggesting that the body of the MP4-26 has less drag than the MP4-25? That is, You can set the MP4-26 with more aggressive wings and the drag would be less than if you put the same wings on the MP4-25. No?



Trust me, I would have to be on crack to post what you think I posted.

[HampusA]

Would it be possible to sort of merge the Mclaren sidepods with the STR ones?
Or is it just not realistic in terms of space?

Maybe to much weight in terms of what you gain? (due to strengthening)

One of the biggest gains of McLaren's design is that it shifts the CoG of the radiators downwards. Combining it with the STR design would negate that.

But wouldn´t you gain alot in just aero efficiency? Maybe not efficiency but more air to the rear wing/diffuser?

[hardingfv32]

What compromises have been made to create the McLaren side pod?

As an example, is flow more restricted around the lower half of the side pod restricting flow to the top of diffuse or beam wing?

Brian

[Owen.C93]

The radiator is longer than it needs to be, and the manifold comes after it, whereas the RB practically builds it's manifold ontop of their radiator.

[hardingfv32]

That is hardly a compromise, where I put my radiator manifolds.

There is some kind of fundamental aero compromise.

Brian

[Owen.C93]

That is hardly a compromise, where I put my radiator manifolds.

There is some kind of fundamental aero compromise.

Brian

Sorry I'm an idiot, I should have specified exhaust manifolds. RB allows much tighter and shorter sidepods because their exhaust manifold is ontop of their radiator.

[hardingfv32]

So this is a negative for the McLaren side-pod design?

Brian

[PhillipM]

^Yes

The airflow to the beam wing is pretty good with the U-pods, but I'd imagine the red bull sidepods to feed cleaner air over the top of the diffuser and under the beam wing.
If you could combine the Red Bull sidepods with the williams gearbox/packaging it'd be interesting though...

[alelanza]

Here is my statement, kind sir.

Maybe with the U shaped side pods they don't need one.. I am thinking they loved their drag reducing F-duct idea so much that the designers of the car pushed the U-pod Idea through. It is almost like permanent drag reduction, you can crank up the wings and not face the drag penalty.

My sentences are hardly every constructed in the best way, (I'm not the best writer!) but reading the post in whole, SURELY you must have realised that I was suggesting that the body of the MP4-26 has less drag than the MP4-25? That is, You can set the MP4-26 with more aggressive wings and the drag would be less than if you put the same wings on the MP4-25. No?



Trust me, I would have to be on crack to post what you think I posted.

Fair enough mate, just wanted to clarify, but yeah, i agree with you overall.

[beelsebob]

So this is a negative for the McLaren side-pod design?

No one's really spotted any really – I would be surprised if it wasn't the common design by next year.

[marcush.]

is it really as simple as reducing cross section is the equivalent of reducing drag?
as I understand the u shaped sidepods will inevitably add a considerale amount of surface area to the sidepods ...this will induce added surface drag and counter some of the benefit at least? Sure the airflow to the rear looks better at first sight ,no question but some teams ,notably Ferrari have build quite bulgy cars in recent years with bigger crossections than others but seem not to suffer drag penalties.

Is there no optimum relationship of length versus crossection distribution for optimum drag ?

[beelsebob]

is it really as simple as reducing cross section is the equivalent of reducing drag?

No, but it's a half decent aproximation.

as I understand the u shaped sidepods will inevitably add a considerale amount of surface area to the sidepods

I'm unconvinced by this – remember – side pods normally curve underneath, McLaren's don't so much.

...this will induce added surface drag and counter some of the benefit at least?

Possible, but that depends on the air flow through them.

Sure the airflow to the rear looks better at first sight ,no question but some teams ,notably Ferrari have build quite bulgy cars in recent years with bigger crossections than others but seem not to suffer drag penalties.

Someone up-thread did some naïve modelling in a CFD suite and showed that at least at first glance the U-pods created significantly less drag, though also slightly less downforce from the body of the car. They also found that they generated significantly higher flow-speeds hitting the beam wing though, compensating for the lost df.

[horse]

Is there no optimum relationship of length versus crossection distribution for optimum drag ?

Sure, there are Sears-Haack Bodies.

I have to agree with you tho marcush, I don't think drag reduction was the USP behind this sidepod design. After all, the intake must be of similar overall area to the other cars. The design has not mitigated the requirement of the side pod vanes, either, so I guess this is indicatives of the flow still requiring some help in turning the corner about the sidepods. And the car is long, it will have a drag penalty from simply being one of the longest in the field.

I'm much more in the "better rear end flow" camp, where they have tried to use this design to avoid raising the rear ride height of the car (like RB) and thus they can improve the performance of the diffuser (with the big Gurneys) while keeping the CoG low.

Would it be fair to say that this car looks like it has the lowest CoG of the field?

EDIT: I noticed that the discussion is about possible disadvantages. Well, there is obviously the difficulty of getting good quality of the flow into the radiators. I should imagine that McLaren had to work quite hard on the front end to make this configuration work. My concern with it might be if these low-nose regs come into force - will they still be able to supply the low intakes properly without as much "undernose" flow?

[PlatinumZealot]

I think all our questions will be answered in Monza. We will have to see the size of their wing!