McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[muelte]

Well, don't know exactly the reasoning behind this, but anyway it seems it could cut a bit of drag away on straight, doesn't it?

Those photos are only showing reflections, with the changes only due to changing light. It is a rigid joint and cannot move.

That's definitely NOT just reflections, look at the size of the black gap. If you could see the video you would notice. I haven't seen anything similar in the Mac or any other car before.

Don't know exactly the benefit from it (drag reduction the most obvious) but regulations say that there must be NO DEGREE of freedom, and in this case, IMHO, clearly there is.

[Afterburner]

Moving only at that point doesn't seems naive to me, clearly 2 or 3 milimetres can make huge difference reducing drag at high speed.

[muelte]

Scarbs writes about this:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/06/2 ... -movement/

Video:
http://www.twitvid.com/NLDQ1

[i70q7m7ghw]

Don't know exactly the benefit from it (drag reduction the most obvious) but regulations say that there must be NO DEGREE of freedom, and in this case, IMHO, clearly there is.

Disagree. There is always a degree of freedom when it comes to parts flexing on the car. Front wings flex. If they didn't they would just snap/shatter all the time.

Flexible aero is only illegal when it's done on purpose and it clearly benefits the car.

[747heavy]

flex and "degree of freedom" in the mounting/fixing are two different things IMHO.
This looks more along the lines of Ferrari´s flap mount on the front wing, which was banned in 2006.




IMHO McL is sailing really close to the wind here, if this get´s permitted by FIA (stranger things has happend),then I don´t know.

That would be "card blanche" to bring moveable aero back.

Sure, they will pass the flex test with it, that´s not a problem, but it still contravenes the rules, not even the spirit, the rules as they are written right now.

- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

how will they argue the rigidly secured part?
That´s pretty lame IMHO, not much engineering inovation here.

[wesley123]

the whole flex rules are complete rubbish.

It states that it cannot flex more then 20mm when a load of 2000N is applied(something like that).

Then further the rulebook states that these parts have to be perfectly rigid.

1. We all know this perfectly rigid that is required does not exist.
2. both rules are completely contradicting to each other, it can flex for a certain amount with a certain load, but it also has to be perfectly rigid.

Nothing illegal going on here imo. The flex test is done on the whole wing an the rules describe a whole wing, not cerain parts of a wing, therefore this is perfectly legal.

of course I can be wrong, my brains are melting here(34 degrees in holland lol)

[muelte]

Don't know exactly the benefit from it (drag reduction the most obvious) but regulations say that there must be NO DEGREE of freedom, and in this case, IMHO, clearly there is.

Disagree. There is always a degree of freedom when it comes to parts flexing on the car. Front wings flex. If they didn't they would just snap/shatter all the time.

Flexible aero is only illegal when it's done on purpose and it clearly benefits the car.

But what we are seeying is not flex (that obviously always will happen, that's why there are rules that limit that flexing) it's movement between two parts that are not fully rigidly attatched.

A part flexing is not the same as a part moving due to some degree of freedom.

I've never seen something like that, have you?

The most similar thing (at least in concept) I can remember is the Ferrari 248F1 FW's top element connection with the nose
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5184 at the bottom)

Edit: I see somebody else mentioned it before posting (I forgot to press 'Submit' )

[marcush.]

i think the rules are very clear in their intentions:

FIA don´t want to see evidence of flexing bodywork intended at enhancing aero performance through the flexing itself.

Therefore it was written: no flexing at all.

In a further clarification -as teams read the rules a huge outcry was -it will break if we have to make it totally stiff-
there was definitions created what is allowed and what is not.

Now comes Newey into the game and asks his structural guys how to design a wing that is conforming to the allowance under pure static loads in z direction and voila we have the perfect mudhole in the making.

[PlatinumZealot]

Scarbs writes about this:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/06/2 ... -movement/

Video:
http://www.twitvid.com/NLDQ1

This is pulling at straws IMO. All wings do that only just that the carbon fibre skin is not a smooth transition at that point. I mean it's hundreds of pounds of downforce; something has to move, especially coverings and such.

[hardingfv32]

What seems very odd is that no effort was made to hide this movement from the camera. The metal mounting spacer could have very easily been machined with a very thin lip that extended over the exterior of the mounting pylons.

This movement probably reduces the down-force of the front wing, maybe to balance the car at high speed. Are there any other aero tools that might have the same desired result in regard to balance?

Brian

[McG]

......

[wesley123]

........

[wesley123]

What seems very odd is that no effort was made to hide this movement from the camera. The metal mounting spacer could have very easily been machined with a very thin lip that extended over the exterior of the mounting pylons.

This movement probably reduces the down-force of the front wing, maybe to balance the car at high speed. Are there any other aero tools that might have the same desired result in regard to balance?

Brian

This has nothing to do, they are flexing the whole wing, this reduces the drag on the straights, this doesnt hurt as there is only one high speed corner on the track to speak of.

[muelte]

Scarbs writes about this:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/06/2 ... -movement/

Video:
http://www.twitvid.com/NLDQ1

This is pulling at straws IMO. All wings do that only just that the carbon fibre skin is not a smooth transition at that point. I mean it's hundreds of pounds of downforce; something has to move, especially coverings and such.

All wings do that? Do you have any proof?

I can accept that a wing has to FLEX more or less under load, but this is clearly a not rigidly attached part MOVING due to having some degree of freedom. not directly flexing. Similiar to the Ferrari 248F1 fw that was banned (in this case, it was both flexing & not rigidly attached part what did the trick)

[kakogohrena]

slider:
MP4-26 FW 58kmh vs 292kmh