Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[PlatinumZealot]

Well... the dilemma was recently answered by Paddy Lowe and Tim Goss.

They chose a medium height nose because they prefer the riding characteristics that come with mounting the suspension members at that nose height.

Simple answer isn't it?

I wish I could find the quote now.

[wesley123]

Possibly the snow plough also has some effect on the mandated central section, creating downforce there too.

The McLaren of the past few years are known of their really strong front end, and the snow plough and lower nose has quite a big effect on this.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Well... the dilemma was recently answered by Paddy Lowe and Tim Goss.

They chose a medium height nose because they prefer the riding characteristics that come with mounting the suspension members at that nose height.

Simple answer isn't it?

I wish I could find the quote now.

"McLaren's technical director Paddy Lowe explained that this approach places the mass of the nose lower and enables it to fit its preferred front suspension geometry."

Must be a subscriber to see. I posted the comment earlier in the thread on launch day.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/featu ... ren-mp427/

[bhall]

Earlier in the thread, I noticed the resemblance of the McLaren nose to that of the Renault from 2009-10. Wasn't the aim of the Renault design to produce low pressure area under the nose?

[tkulla]

I thought I heard someone at the McLaren launch mention interior aerodynamics, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know much about this? I've often wondered whether there might be some benefit to having larger side pod inlets (possibly even partitioned) and using that extra air internally for more than cooling (i.e. downforce generation and air channeling).

[Owen.C93]

I thought I heard someone at the McLaren launch mention interior aerodynamics, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know much about this? I've often wondered whether there might be some benefit to having larger side pod inlets (possibly even partitioned) and using that extra air internally for more than cooling (i.e. downforce generation and air channeling).

Interior aerodynamics refers to cooling flow. So this year they went for RB style exit of channeling air up from the sidepods to an exit above the beam wing. Something they couldn't really do with U-pods.

[McG]

It looks like Mclarens use of a low nose over the years has paid off this year, at least aesthetically.

[raymondu999]

I wonder though - how much would reverting to a "tight rear" concept have set them back? Surely a lot of airflow data and setup info that they did up with the U-pods is somewhat useless now?

[beelsebob]

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

My intuition says that the low pressure under the nose may be what allows the concept to work for McLaren:

Suppose you gain a little downforce from that low pressure zone and the snow plough. This allows you to run slightly less front wing angle than the other teams, or a slightly smaller front wing. This in turn 1) opens up a small area next to the front wing where air mass can get through, and 2) means that the air flowing over the front wing is less turbulent, and more easily diverted into a nice smooth flow around the side pods.

I honestly don't think it's as simple as "there's a hole here, it must be providing more air mass."

[ianwit]

Would I be right to say that the McLaren is better at riding the kerbs and this might be a feature the drivers prefer and would that be down to their front suspension geometry?

[Shrieker]

I thought I heard someone at the McLaren launch mention interior aerodynamics, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know much about this? I've often wondered whether there might be some benefit to having larger side pod inlets (possibly even partitioned) and using that extra air internally for more than cooling (i.e. downforce generation and air channeling).

I'm thinking of something sinister regarding this:


(This is Scarbs' drawing btw, also posted earlier in this thread)

Suppose you somehow could plug the exhaust outlet, make an opening inside the fairing bulge where the exhaust gasses exit, make the incoming air from the side pod join the flow and carry it under the engine cover to the back exit (or the openings near the gearbox that were pointed out by a fellow member earlier in the thread) to blow the diffuser. This could very well be "octopus: part2". The only problem is, it would be illegal. You can't carry the exhaust gasses through the car.

But there still is a way. You could use these:

Shape-memory alloy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A shape-memory alloy (SMA, smart metal, memory metal, memory alloy, muscle wire, smart alloy) is an alloy that "remembers" its original, cold-forged shape: returning the pre-deformed shape by heating.

What do you have in abundance in an exhaust pipe ? Yes, HEAT! You could basically use the heat in the exhaust pipes to warp it's shape so as to create a hole in a desired location which pumps the fumes out. We come across another problem here: Exhausts can only be made from allowed materials; inconel iirc. But you could overcome that by heat wrapping. Heat resistant materials allows you to use different materials in a desired location under the guise of "heat-shielding".

Another point worth mentioning here: Last year, McLaren's exhaust solution in testing was rumoured to cause problems because of warping under heat. I wonder whether they can put the experience gained there (if any) to use in a solution like the one I'm suggesting above.

The toughest challenge in this solution is to make the exhaust return to it's original (legal) shape when it cools down to a certain temperature, so it can actually pass the scrutineering.

Now I hear many of you say "This would be blatantly illegal". So are flexing wings, which visibly flex on track(probably a lot more than the max. allowed amount) but actually pass the FIA's flexing tests with flying colors. As long as the car can pass the scrutineering (as long as they aren't caught in other words) this will be entirely legal.

On another note, are the FIA stupid enough to actually buy such a thing ? One thing that the "flexi wings" row showed us was that the FIA were very much inadequate when it comes to policing some of their very own rules. If a team can take advantage of their incompetence, then by all means they should. Remember back in the day(in 2009) McLaren played the "Mr. nice guy" abiding to the "spirit of the rules" and they lost a lot. The politics involved in F1 meant that a number of rival teams were allowed to run devices on their cars which were very much against the spirit of the rules. From a technical pow, they weren't completely illegal, but they were illegal with regards to the spirit of the rules; which will be the case in an exhaust solution I've tried to explain in this post.

Ps: Jenson said in the lauch that the car(in the simulator) was parcitularly good in fast corners. So I'm thinking maybe they've already got something like this (or maybe that's too much reading between the lines, idk).

[kalinka]

I think that bulge is there only because they don't want the exhaut to be exposed and cause some unwanted aerodynamic effect. In this way they could choose a preferred shape that least disturbs the flow around the sidepod. Also they need a bit of space in that bulge to be able to warp the exhaust in desired position + heat shielding.
Just to speculate > Would it be effective to run air from the radiator trough that bulge down to the hot-air exit in the back, to minimise need for heat shielding + to energise the flow somewhat ?
I think the exhaust would heat that air too much, so it's not so plausible option too.

[chepoi]

McLaren MP4-27 v McLaren MP4-26

[raymondu999]

Would I be right to say that the McLaren is better at riding the kerbs and this might be a feature the drivers prefer and would that be down to their front suspension geometry?

McLaren have traditionally been good at mechanical design. Kerb riding, traction, low speed responsiveness, braking.

[timbo]

McLaren have traditionally been good at mechanical design. Kerb riding, traction, low speed responsiveness, braking.

Last year Vettel grabbed at least two poles by being better over the kerbs than everybody else. Don't know how much of that is him or RB7, though.