McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[rifrafs2kees]

I rate the car an 8 out of 10. That said, I think it will be a mistake to maintain the U shaped pods going into next year. While the u shaped pods expose the beam wing to clean flow, I do not think it contributes enough to the effectiveness of the diffuser. I am inclined to think that the tear drop shape of the RB 7 allows more flow over the top of the diffuser hence pulling more under the under it as well. If we go by the past 3 years, I would say the car with the most effective diffuser has won the championship each time. This year's car was massively flattered by the blowing of the diffuser. I bet you if the system was banned mid season it would have fallen behind the ferrari. I expect mclaren will have no choice but copy the newey design this time around.

[NonNewtonic]

I rate the car an 8 out of 10. That said, I think it will be a mistake to maintain the U shaped pods going into next year. While the u shaped pods expose the beam wing to clean flow, I do not think it contributes enough to the effectiveness of the diffuser. I am inclined to think that the tear drop shape of the RB 7 allows more flow over the top of the diffuser hence pulling more under the under it as well. If we go by the past 3 years, I would say the car with the most effective diffuser has won the championship each time. This year's car was massively flattered by the blowing of the diffuser. I bet you if the system was banned mid season it would have fallen behind the ferrari. I expect mclaren will have no choice but copy the newey design this time around.

Agree! The McLaren has put on quite in a lot of resources to develop the exhaust design so I think their blown diffuser could match the effectiveness of the RB's design

[ell66]

And what actually makes you think that?

I base my opinion on the fact that we have no scientific way to separated the wondrous U pod's performance from the rest of the car, thus no way to support our opinions. My unsubstantiated comments are just as valid as your. You simply can not prove me wrong. Of coarse you have every right to express your unsubstantiated opinions.

I simply got tired of hearing about the U pods and thought I would call someone out on the subject.

Brian

No need to through your teddies out the pram....
Fact is mclarens side pods are vastly different to anyone elses on the grid, every design has its strengths and weaknesses, and mclaren obviously thought that design was best to go, funny thing is that in my post i never mentioned that they were great or the holy grail, I simply said I was curious to see what they did to them next year......

[ell66]

I'd rate the MP4-26 a 8,5 out of 10, the same score I have in mind for the RB7.

Why so? - Both the 26 and RB7 had their moments of superior performance over the rival car. Both cars had flaws, so none of them was perfect.

The huge difference in WCC points came from very little experience with the car, driver blackouts and strategic mistakes at McLaren.

The car was a very good one, albeit a different concept. I bet you, had McLaren had the experience with the car they have now after the season beofre the season started, they would have taken the fight up to the last race with RedBull.....carryover concept from 2010 gave RedBull the edge!

Interesting but theres no logic behind the post, there wasnt one track where mclaren were clearly quicker than red bull, the rb7 also scored every single pole position bar 1, quite often the gap was over half a second...the fact mclaren had a slow start certainly didnt help, but even by the end you it was crystal clear the redbull was still superior, just look at india, korea and brazil as evidence, heck they were even quicker on so called power trakcs like canada, spa and monza.

[hardingfv32]

funny thing is that in my post i never mentioned that they were great or the holy grail, I simply said I was curious to see what they did to them next year......

You are correct. I just could not take another acknowledgment of the U pod yesterday. I have it out of my system now.

My thought is that the U pod is assumed successful because the MP$-26 was reasonably successful, when in fact there is no way to verify assumption.

Brian

[wesley123]

funny thing is that in my post i never mentioned that they were great or the holy grail, I simply said I was curious to see what they did to them next year......

You are correct. I just could not take another acknowledgment of the U pod yesterday. I have it out of my system now.

My thought is that the U pod is assumed successful because the MP$-26 was reasonably successful, when in fact there is no way to verify assumption.

Brian

No it is not and I have stated why I thought so, that uou disagree fair enough, but give arguments why you think it is not. Yet because the Red Bull is faster doesnt mean their sidepod is better. Afterall it is an overall design and one part can't make the car, but it can break the car, and that is what in my opinion was the crashbox that 'broke' the MP4-26.

[ringo]

The U is not equivalent to the redbull sidepods. Neither is this car almost equal to redbull.
A 7 out of `10 is as high as i would go with this car. Take away their understanding of the tyres and their ability to cleverly map the ebd, and this car would be nowhere near the redbull.

I think i've posted some results from an investigation of the U pod, a tear dropped shape one at that, and it's still not better than the redbull side pods; for 1 reason.

Because of the exhaust regs next year, there is no telling if they will retain the U pod.

[aral]

The U is not equivalent to the redbull sidepods. Neither is this car almost equal to redbull.
A 7 out of `10 is as high as i would go with this car. Take away their understanding of the tyres and their ability to cleverly map the ebd, and this car would be nowhere near the redbull.

I think i've posted some results from an investigation of the U pod, a tear dropped shape one at that, and it's still not better than the redbull side pods; for 1 reason.

Because of the exhaust regs next year, there is no telling if they will retain the U pod.

So, do you believe that McLaren have not done their homework? There is no reason for the principle of the u-pods not to work, given certain aero parameters. And it does not mean that the Red Bull sidepods are any more efficient. Both cars utilise differing aero principles, but both are equally effective.
In fact,the McLaren is faster in a straight line, so the u-pods are certainly no disadvantage.

[Muulka]

The U is not equivalent to the redbull sidepods. Neither is this car almost equal to redbull.
A 7 out of `10 is as high as i would go with this car. Take away their understanding of the tyres and their ability to cleverly map the ebd, and this car would be nowhere near the redbull.

I think i've posted some results from an investigation of the U pod, a tear dropped shape one at that, and it's still not better than the redbull side pods; for 1 reason.

Because of the exhaust regs next year, there is no telling if they will retain the U pod.

So, do you believe that McLaren have not done their homework? There is no reason for the principle of the u-pods not to work, given certain aero parameters. And it does not mean that the Red Bull sidepods are any more efficient. Both cars utilise differing aero principles, but both are equally effective.
In fact,the McLaren is faster in a straight line, so the u-pods are certainly no disadvantage.

And when they were running barn-door rear wings.
Though the fact that they needed those wings says something...

[wesley123]

Like said it is a different principle. The McLaren itself was much lower drag, and yes then you have to add wing to get enough df. Doesnt mean the U-sidepod is any better.

But sure since Red Bull is winning their car is perfect and every piece of the car is vastly superior to the other cars, yet it isn't that much copied. Just because the Red Bull is the fastest car doesnt mean that the U-sidepods are wrong.

Like said before the car was designed around an exhaust system that was never ran, comprimising the whole rear end not the U-sidepods.

[ringo]

So, do you believe that McLaren have not done their homework? There is no reason for the principle of the u-pods not to work, given certain aero parameters. And it does not mean that the Red Bull sidepods are any more efficient. Both cars utilise differing aero principles, but both are equally effective.
In fact,the McLaren is faster in a straight line, so the u-pods are certainly no disadvantage.

We need to get out of this "did their homework" mentality.
Everyone can do homework, but they don't have to score the same when that work is evaluated.
We've seen williams, ferrari and renault lament certain choices that they have made for 2011. Not to say these were mistakes, just that they weren't good enough.

The U side pod is better than a typical sidepod, but it is nowhere as good as the redbull's. Don't let redbull fool you either, the teardrop is not the secret behind the sidepod. It's not something you can see with the naked eye. Their side pod is conventional but it's not at the same time.

The U side pod simply cannot generate the same lift to drag ratio as the rb pods.
Keep in mind the U pods have much less drag, so you can see where i am getting at with the L/D ratio.

You can't just say they are equally effective, that is unfounded. I have tested them myself with all things being equal, and the U pod is better than conventional, but it is simply inferior to what redbull are using. Don't ask me how i know what redbull are using; i'll spill the beans next year. It's quite fundamental but hardly visible.

The Mclaren has a mercedes engine, you can't isolate that from the top speed. And even non U pod cars were faster in a straight line on certain tracks. The 26 is not like the 25 with the F duct. It's not a speed king like it's predecessor.

I hope they ditch the U pods, it requires to many work arounds in other departments on the car to reap the benefit. It's a distraction.
It must only be retained if the exhuast complement it, which is possible, but only if the exhuast shape has more freedom. The circular crossection aint going to cut it for the U pods.

[wesley123]

Excuse me but it is the same as a regular sidepod but it is not at the same time? WTF?!

One just have to admit that the overall package of the red bull is jsut better, not only the sidepod, it is an piece that makes the whole car, it isnt the thingy that makes the car fast.

We have seen it multiple times before, first the Flexi wing is the thing that makes the car so fast, then it is the EBD, then the splitter and now we seem to head to the sidepod. It seems one can simply not imagine that it is the whole package that makes the car so good. And that also means just as much that the McLaren Sidepod can be better, the Ferrari bargeboard can be better as well as an Sauber rear wing that can be better than Red Bulls, just because some peices on other cars are better doesnt mean they immediately are faster, no it is the whole package of an car and Red Bull is just better in that.

[ringo]

Excuse me but it is the same as a regular sidepod but it is not at the same time? WTF?!

You have demonstrated that your level on analysis is not at the resolution that would allow you to understand my comment.

The overall car is better, but there is a lot of it in the body of the car, a lot.

The other things like flex wings etc. are too dificult to put a value on, and are less objective.
A side pod doesn't move and it is what it appears to be in all instances. Therefore it is easier to evaluate. It's tempting to reveal why, just to alleviate your befuddlement, but i promise not to until next year.

All i can say it's more than eyeballing. Some serious theory is involved.

[wesley123]

or my level of language is not.

furthermore I agree and have been saying the same, there is more than a simple sidepod that makes a car good.

Further discussion is just based on opinion and what we ourselves think, it is ot proven on real data. Sure the results say the Red Bull is better, but that doenst mean a certain component is etc. etc.

[aral]

or my level of language is not.

furthermore I agree and have been saying the same, there is more than a simple sidepod that makes a car good.

Further discussion is just based on opinion and what we ourselves think, it is ot proven on real data. Sure the results say the Red Bull is better, but that doenst mean a certain component is etc. etc.

I quite agree that it is the overall package that counts, and also the management of airflow. But to say that one particular item is a mistake and is no use, is denegrating all the relevant experts employed by Mc Laren and other teams. Yes, the u-pods could be ditched next year, but this could be due to the revised aero management required for the new exhaust exits. Conversley, you could find that other teams adopt them to allow the exhaust gasses to be channelled through and diverted to the rear wing?