Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Caerdroia]

which in turn is homologated to be kept for a year, no?

The homologation rules were changed last year. They could develop a new chassis but it'd have to pass the crash tests again.

[raymondu999]

Ah. I missed that. I thought that was only for the nose

[Shakeman]

The thing to bear in mind is that McLaren had a close approximation of this nose last year while the other cars had high noses. It wasn't an issue last year so why now?

The high nose running teams are the ones with arguably the most change enforced on them with the ungainly step.

Are we in danger of over stressing the importance of high nose vs low nose while forgetting about the total package and the importance of a low CoG too.

I'd be interested is seeing some figures that back up high nose, high CoG vs the McLaren approach.

What effect with high CoG have on tyre wear? With softer compounds this year and anticipated higher wear rates the tyre performance is critical so could McLaren be looking towards that with their lower nose/chassis?

[dren]

The Mclaren snow plow seems to do what other teams are doing further back. Mclaren has a few years of experience with the plow. They have made two race winning cars with it. I don't see why they will not do the same this year.

[Mr.S]

A major nose change like from this one to a step break of whatever you call that nose is going to be huge. Not only because the weight distribution is fixed but also because it will require huge changes in the front.

We dont the exact packaging,how it works here & how it will work there. Mclaren have probably bases their car around this nose & stuff. A change might cause a change in pattern of the air flow or whatever.

I dont they will panic & go for a different nose unless they planned it well ahead. Anyways this will cause huge focus in R & D for the new nose,manufacturing 2 sets of noses for both cars & designing the front wing around it. Even if it were to take place I think it is VERY Unlikely to take place before Mugello.

I dont think Mclaren will give up. They will try their best with this nose & opt for a new nose only when are 100 % sure that a stepped nose will work better with their car.

[Bernie Eccelstone]

Has anybody seen pictures of the car that ran in the shakedown on Saturday?

[Mr.S]

The thing to bear in mind is that McLaren had a close approximation of this nose last year while the other cars had high noses. It wasn't an issue last year so why now?

The high nose running teams are the ones with arguably the most change enforced on them with the ungainly step.

Are we in danger of over stressing the importance of high nose vs low nose while forgetting about the total package and the importance of a low CoG too.

I'd be interested is seeing some figures that back up high nose, high CoG vs the McLaren approach.

What effect with high CoG have on tyre wear? With softer compounds this year and anticipated higher wear rates the tyre performance is critical so could McLaren be looking towards that with their lower nose/chassis?

Last year they had EBD. Hence they could run a lower nose. This year no EBD everyone is out there to exploit whatever downforce they can salvage.

Last year teams could run huge rake because of the EBD. I doubt if that is the right to go this year. I think in general running such a huge rake makes the car too much oversteery & unstable. IMO That is another area where Mclaren probably got wrong this season. RED BULL are running very little rake compared to last year.Again that is IMO, from a complete technical novice.

[dren]

I don't think the EBD enables teams to run a lower nose. Red Bull has had a high nose with EBD for the last two years. There should be no reason why the MP4-27 doesn't win races this year based on the last few years. It is clearly an evolution.

[Onch]

I guess we will only know about the actual rake teams are running once the cars will be on track...

As for the difference in nose treatment between McLaren & the rest, here is hoping that the car will be competitive. This would prove that not all cars have to be clones of each other...

[ianwit]

There will still be 20% ebd available and it was generally agreed that the mercedes/ilmoor engine was the best at exploiting this. I don't think we will see the Merc till tomorrow but Mr Haug has already declared that the most beautiful car will be the fastest one; a hint that they may follow the McLaren route perhaps

[Gerhard Berger]

There will still be 20% ebd available and it was generally agreed that the mercedes/ilmoor engine was the best at exploiting this. I don't think we will see the Merc till tomorrow but Mr Haug has already declared that the most beautiful car will be the fastest one; a hint that they may follow the McLaren route perhaps

Don't think so. He's saying the most beautiful car will be the fastest one, not the one that is most aesthetically pleasing.

Everyone going for a high nose, adn Mclaren going for a lower nose makes me think that they have found some way of recreating the effects of EBD.

[Shakeman]

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... uestioned/

I hope these exhausts don't get banned as ingenuity, the thing we were all looking for in the new car designs, will soon be a thing of the past.

[beelsebob]

Being only a recent graduate of engineering, I feel almost not worthy of posting on this forum with my limited understanding, However:

I missed the part about how you suggest to heat the air. Whether it is using a heat exchanger heated by coolant or whatever, or an exhaust pipe for example - specifically NOT using exhaust gasses, as this has been established that it is not allowed by the rules - just the heat from the pipe/hot surface itself.

Taking the heat exchanger (radiator) for example, I would think that the flow of air through the fins of the radiator would be rather restricted and therefore slowed down, negating any benefit of heating the air and increasing its velocity?

Although I do not know much about the passing air flow properties of an F1 radiator...

Restricting air flow speeds it up, not slows it down – again – think what a turbo jet does – big intake, lots of cool, slow flowing air – small exhaust higher volume of hot air, ejected extremely fast through the tiny exit.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Huh? No – heating air doesn't magically make some of it's mass disappear.

Yes, it makes it less dense, but the mass remains constant – the volume increases, which causes the velocity to increase, especially when pushed through a tiny exhaust hole. This is the same principal a jet engine works on.

Who said anything about decreasing the mass of the air? I said I believe the mass-flow rate will not increase as flow velocity won't increase (in my opinion). You clearly understand the topic involved so please don't belittle me or my opinion by dumbing it down and suggesting I said that heating the air will decrease its mass. At no point did I say that.

That being said I think I've not made myself clear enough in my previous post. The reason I think the mass-flow rate will not increase (or at least not enough to provide enough velocity to blow the diffuser) is because I cannot see either of two things:
1.) A sufficiently small enough nozzle for these heated gases to be expelled through towards the diffuser at such speed. [Then again perhaps this has not yet been shown on the photos available]
2.) I don't believe that the exhaust pipes on the car will be able to heat the air sufficiently to expand the air enough to accelerate it through the nozzle (assuming there is one) which blows the diffuser.

The actual exhaust gases worked as they were being forced out by the engine at speeds far in excess of the free stream velocity (which clearly is what our starting point will be with this heat-exchanger idea).

Restricting air flow speeds it up, not slows it down...

While this is true, I would have thought that it isn't always quite so simple in terms of the overall design. An (admittedly rather extreme) example is a parachute. A parachute restricts flow, and there will be a point at which there is an accelerated flow through a small gap at the top of the chute...but the overall drag caused by this is great. Surely this "side-effect" would be undesirable on an F1 car.

As you say the theory works on Jet engines. But in the case of a Jet engine we are dealing with air that has already been compressed, mixed with fuel and combusted. The exhaust gases are being heated far more than this heat exchanger proposal will allow and are traveling at FAR greater speeds than they would in with the heat-exchanger idea. Which is why I believe the mass-flow rate won't be increased sufficiently for this proposal to have any determinable effect.

I hope I don't sound like I am "slagging off" the idea (tone of voice is very hard to convey over text) in fact I really do like the idea! It's just that I cannot see how it can work without some way of actually propelling this heated air over the diffuser as I just don't see the idea you are suggesting being capable of doing so.

But this is only my opinion.

[myurr]

Being only a recent graduate of engineering, I feel almost not worthy of posting on this forum with my limited understanding, However:

I missed the part about how you suggest to heat the air. Whether it is using a heat exchanger heated by coolant or whatever, or an exhaust pipe for example - specifically NOT using exhaust gasses, as this has been established that it is not allowed by the rules - just the heat from the pipe/hot surface itself.

Taking the heat exchanger (radiator) for example, I would think that the flow of air through the fins of the radiator would be rather restricted and therefore slowed down, negating any benefit of heating the air and increasing its velocity?

Although I do not know much about the passing air flow properties of an F1 radiator...

Restricting air flow speeds it up, not slows it down – again – think what a turbo jet does – big intake, lots of cool, slow flowing air – small exhaust higher volume of hot air, ejected extremely fast through the tiny exit.

Indeed various WWII fighter planes generated net positive thrust from their radiators by heating and accelerating the air.