McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[Donuts]

if it were engine ,why is W02 struggling?

MercedesGP has introduced the state of the art exhausts in Silverstone and has not made significant steps forward since then.If the engine mapping would help with this exhaust configuaration the jump of W02 to the front should be first and most significant and then Mclaren followed by FI.
To me it looks more like Mclaren dragged FI with them to the fore and Mercedes gets left behind a bit ...and that would make sense if it were a development of Mclaren engineering .

We have to remember the W02 is the Igor of F1. It's chassis is a foot dragging hunch back compared to the civil and conventional design of the Force india.

The engine mapping is actually making them look pretty good staying in 7-8th position.
They also have pretty good traction on corner exit, so they do benefit. Under braking though, i don't think any amount of engine mappings can help their poorly balanced car.

I agree, everyone with a Mercedes Benz engine has taken a step forward, but it's not showing as much on every car. Ross Brawn said that they had closed some of the gap lately, but I has'nt been showing in the races for various reasons.

[PlatinumZealot]

if it were engine ,why is W02 struggling?

I think because they have only just adopted the RBR style diffuser. Not enough experience with it.

[ell66]

is it just me, but looking through pitures of tis yars cars, the 26 seems to have a much lower centre of gravity, everything from the nose to the driver seems noticably lower.

[marcush.]

is it just me, but looking through pitures of tis yars cars, the 26 seems to have a much lower centre of gravity, everything from the nose to the driver seems noticably lower.

this is also augmented by the ultra long wheelbase .So they place a lot of components lower in the car and have more planarea to spread out the bits.(at the expense of some added weight due to more structure (longer floor,longer tub ,longer engine cover ,more plumbing length and added harness length.)

[PlatinumZealot]

The tip of the nose is actually about the same height as last year's.. there is a photo-comparison somewhere in the thread.

[raymondu999]

I think the side pods could be interesting in that sense. Does anyone know of the CofG (relative to chassis & ride heights) of the -26 side pods relative to that on the -25?

[beelsebob]

I think the side pods could be interesting in that sense. Does anyone know of the CofG (relative to chassis & ride heights) of the -26 side pods relative to that on the -25?

Significantly earlier in this thread various people did a quick and dirty comparison, and showed that the CofG of the -26's side pods should be significantly lower than those of the -25's.

That could go a long way to explaining the -26's stability under breaking, and traction in slow corners.

[raymondu999]

I get the point on stability, but why would a lower CofG benefit traction? Mark Hughes also says lower ride height would benefit traction, but didn't mention if this was due to the change in rake, or in CofG.

I just hope the side pod design doesn't become commonplace; I still think it's ugly

[beelsebob]

I get the point on stability, but why would a lower CofG benefit traction? Mark Hughes also says lower ride height would benefit traction, but didn't mention if this was due to the change in rake, or in CofG.

I just hope the side pod design doesn't become commonplace; I still think it's ugly

If your car is tilting less on the corner exit it can transfer more power into the rear wheels without spinning them up.

[Holm86]

I get the point on stability, but why would a lower CofG benefit traction? Mark Hughes also says lower ride height would benefit traction, but didn't mention if this was due to the change in rake, or in CofG.

I just hope the side pod design doesn't become commonplace; I still think it's ugly

If your car is tilting less on the corner exit it can transfer more power into the rear wheels without spinning them up.

Plus lover CoG = less roll = more weight on the inside wheels in a corner = more grip.

[Tim.Wright]

1. You cant really say anything about a cars CoG height based on external pictures. There is nothing to suggest that the McLaren this year has a lower CG than last year.

2. A low CG doesnt necessarily help stability. Certainly not as a primary effect. The benefits of a low CG are less load transfer which results in more grip under cornering and braking situations. It is actually a disadvantage under acceleration because there is less load transferred to the rear tyres.

Another characteristic (Im not prepared to say advantage) of a low CG is that there is less of a rolling moment on the sprung mass, so for the same spring rates you will have less roll.

Lower roll could be an advantage on these cars because I have seen a lot of pictures from the rear showing terrible camber angles on the rear wheels. I believe this is a knock on effect of the wear characteristics of the tyres, rather than a deliberate design characteristic.

Tim

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not a Top fuel dragster; you only need as much traction to sustain the torque and the torque is small in an F1 car. Doubt you would want a hihger CoG to help accel. not worth it.

[beelsebob]

1. You cant really say anything about a cars CoG height based on external pictures. There is nothing to suggest that the McLaren this year has a lower CG than last year.

No, but you can make some pretty good estimates of where the radiators are, and they dominate the weight distribution on the side pod.

2. A low CG doesnt necessarily help stability. Certainly not as a primary effect. The benefits of a low CG are less load transfer which results in more grip under cornering and braking situations. It is actually a disadvantage under acceleration because there is less load transferred to the rear tyres.

On the contrary – low CofG means less transfer of gravity into outward force when in roll, and hence less roll out of a corner.

Another characteristic (Im not prepared to say advantage) of a low CG is that there is less of a rolling moment on the sprung mass, so for the same spring rates you will have less roll.

Exactly – this contradicts your statement about stability.

Lower roll could be an advantage on these cars because I have seen a lot of pictures from the rear showing terrible camber angles on the rear wheels. I believe this is a knock on effect of the wear characteristics of the tyres, rather than a deliberate design characteristic.

An interesting hypothesis, that could greatly contribute to better traction if you can limit roll.

[Tim.Wright]

2. A low CG doesnt necessarily help stability. Certainly not as a primary effect. The benefits of a low CG are less load transfer which results in more grip under cornering and braking situations. It is actually a disadvantage under acceleration because there is less load transferred to the rear tyres.

On the contrary – low CofG means less transfer of gravity into outward force when in roll, and hence less roll out of a corner.

I said the lower CG results in less load transfer so more grip. Its not clear what you are saying when you refer to "transfer of gravity into outward force".

Another characteristic (Im not prepared to say advantage) of a low CG is that there is less of a rolling moment on the sprung mass, so for the same spring rates you will have less roll.

Exactly – this contradicts your statement about stability.

No it doesn't - I was speaking of grip above, not stability. You seem to be using the term stability incorrectly. Less roll is not automatically an advantage and certainly does not have a first order effect on stability.

Lower roll could be an advantage on these cars because I have seen a lot of pictures from the rear showing terrible camber angles on the rear wheels. I believe this is a knock on effect of the wear characteristics of the tyres, rather than a deliberate design characteristic.

An interesting hypothesis, that could greatly contribute to better traction if you can limit roll.

Yes, could. Limiting roll comes with its own disadvantages.

[Jersey Tom]

Backing up what Tim said earlier... gauging a change in CG height from external pictures is silly.