Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Raptor22]

@horse: I think it is the other way round: it is mclaren relying on the snowplough to develop flow features. High nosed car do not have one (maybe force india had snowplough last year?).

But I agree with you on that is a bit more complicated than the higher the better. It would be nice to see what structrures does the snowplough develop and how they interact with the other parts of the car

+1,

The higher noses provide more potential to speed up the flow around the side pods because there a bigger volume of it coming through.

The low nose with front splitter (snow plough) probably does something similar through;
1) diverting airflow to the barge boards
2) creating a low pressure under the nose to pull air over the wing and onto the splitter.

Would love to see some flow diagrams that compares the two concepts

[Mr.S]

@sAx: I understood what you meant the first time, you explained it very well I think. The proxy thing was just my way to ask if he said something else.

What I meant with the nose is that McLaren has a well build front which worked very well the last 2 years. If they kept it this year, it implies that their nose met their 2012 objectives and was the best to do it.
I would have been more septical if it was a new nose concept but it isn't, it is a proved one. So why be worried? Because of what Anderson said?
We all know F1 is made of trend. Someone found a trick, everyone jump in. Another one found a better thing, everyone follow.
Blown diffusors wasn't a RBR innovation, neither pullrods nor high noses. But they found a great way to use them so everyone did the same. 10 years ago everyone follow Ferrari on low nose + periscope exhausts.
McLaren are certainly more aware of what they're doing than Anderson and if limit there is - which is plausible - if they are far from it or not (unless calculation errors of course).

You cant compare apples & oranjes. Last year they had EBD & they were the team that suffered most. Their Octopus Exhaust & U pods & the LWB were all build around on the EBD. Red Bull's overall car in each respect was aerodynamically better with or wthout EBD.

Anyways this year everyone is looking for a higher nose & that is the most efficient way as that gives much bigger airflow than a lower nose. I doubt if Mclaren can get the same airflow as Ferrari with their Ridiculously high nose.

[Lurk]

a well build front which worked very well the last 2 years.

So 2010 and 2011. No blown diffuser for McLaren until Silverstone 2010 and 4 victories in the 9 races they haven't. Their concept works, EBD or not.

[foxmulder_ms]

I think Force India have a much better car this year & can beat Mclaren.

Please.... think again.

[Henning]

It strikes me that airflow to the sidepods has a lot cleaner path on the McLaren than on the Ferrari. I hope this leads on to some of the extra outlets on the sidepods and airflow-through-the-sidepods theories being true.

[raymondu999]

Is it really? Parallax looks like a huge issue there. Just compare the air box to the trailing edge of the rear wing.

[Henning]

I wondered whether these could be rapid-prototype parts. Why you would put those on a launch car without painting them is beyond me. Maybe a double bluff to draw attention to them and make the other teams wonder whether they really are a good piece or not.

[tkulla]

It's easy to think of aero as the be-all-end-all of F1, but there are other considerations. Even if the higher nose is worth a tenth, that has to be balanced against the benefits of the lower bulkhead and nose. Namely better sight lines for the drivers (especially in close quarter combat) and a car that doesn't have a broken beak (wouldn't look great in a Hugo Boss ad, would it?).

I'm sure Jenson & Lewis will be happy for the visibility advantage (however slight) over their competitors.

[raymondu999]

a car that doesn't have a broken beak (wouldn't look great in a Hugo Boss ad, would it?).

Teams would more probably go for aero over a photogenic car any day.

[timbo]

a car that doesn't have a broken beak (wouldn't look great in a Hugo Boss ad, would it?).

Teams would more probably go for aero over a photogenic car any day.

Well, I was told by the folks who do know, that sometimes the changes in the shape was requested by marketing department. Probably not at critical areas, but anyway...

[Holm86]

This McLaren really is beautifull ...
Its just a bit more simple than i believe everyone was expecting.

So far its the best looking solution to the new nose regulations. But i cant really see what the advantage is to this design?? Other than it looks good but thats of course not why they choose this design.

To me it looks like they get alot less air underneath the car than etc the Ferrari??

I really expects this car to change alot before the first race.

[yace]

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srch&ch1=23&ch2=22

comparison with the ferrari

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Not sure if it's been posted yet, if so I apologize.

Sky interview with Jonathan Neale

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0 ... 67,00.html

[PlatinumZealot]

I wonder if this is just a conceptual thing coming through. The McLaren nose looks like it will push flow out towards the bargeboards, using them more aggressively than the high nose cars, whereas the high nose cars rely on the snowplough to do the work with the oncoming air. Anyway, I think its a little more complicated than just saying a high front end is better. It's what you do with it that counts.

Perhaps McLaren think they can get more airflow by working the air wide towards the barge boards with the nose and then entrain more air in behind nose to be worked with the snowplough. IDK, looks complicated to me. Perhaps worthy of it's own thread.

This part =D>

All the present day F1 designs are high nose designs with the aim of sidesweeping the air that goes under the nose. This helps to give a good quality airflow, as the most important thing for the splitter is quality over quantity.

If we look at a CFD plot we can see that no matter the design only up to a certain amount of air will go under the car. The rest just damns up infront of the car and drag or smoothly "glides to the side." So that only means that these nose designs are based on maintaining the energy of the air going under the car by creating the most smooth transfer of flow to both under and to the sides of the car.

I think Mclaren has realised that their snowplow and barge boards creates just a good side sweep as the "ultra high" nose and bargeboard.

What do you think?

[kalinka]

If nothing else, I could imagine they had enough time+resources to build a half-scale model with high nose to try it in the wind-tunnel. So probably they had seen what benefits and compromises brings a high nose.