Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[simieski]

you were actually right bee..i repeated it for a test day photo and it has to deflect it by 30 degrees...the question now is if it can be deflected by 30 degrees

Amouzouris, with ref to this picture, http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/gall ... ev/391.jpg the 'burning' appears to start much further forward than the rear wheel which you have taken the 20 degree line to, so in reality the angle of deflection is much steeper in places. In the picture it even looks like the exhaust gas travels further down than it does aft, seems far fetched that a gas stream with a velocity in the region of 600km/h could be deflected so much in such little distance , unless Macca now employ witchcraft instead of aerodynamics

[Owen.C93]

you were actually right bee..i repeated it for a test day photo and it has to deflect it by 30 degrees...the question now is if it can be deflected by 30 degrees
[img]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2369 ... 30.jpg[img]

Amouzouris, with ref to this picture, http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/gall ... ev/391.jpg the 'burning' appears to start much further forward than the rear wheel which you have taken the 20 degree line to, so in reality the angle of deflection is much steeper in places. In the picture it even looks like the exhaust gas travels further down than it does aft, seems far fetched that a gas stream with a velocity in the region of 600km/h could be deflected so much in such little distance , unless Macca now employ witchcraft instead of aerodynamics

That's almost definitely a reflection and some marbled rubber.

[ledzep4pm]

Please Delete

[PlatinumZealot]

Burn marks on the floor in front of the rear wheels:

Is that exhaust hole legal? What do the rules say?

[kilcoo316]

Is that exhaust hole legal? What do the rules say?

What do the rules on surface contour radii say? (the ones to avoid all the hideous flip-ups etc)


Are there exceptions around the exhaust area?

[Hail22]

Charlie Whiting has already reported in to the FIA stating all vehicles exhausts are "Legal".

He is still observing aero parts, ride height, front wings, possible F-duct breach (can you guess the team?).

[kilcoo316]

Charlie Whiting has already reported in to the FIA stating all vehicles exhausts are "Legal".

Forgive me if I take that with a large pinch of salt.


Charlie Whiting's decisions are half the reason for F1 rules being terrible! If he'd acted logically and banned the double diffuser, most teams would have been saved millions and a season would have been saved.

Same for Lotus' braking work - how much money down the toilet 'cos Charlie said "ye" then changed his mind and said "ne". It should have been a "ne" from the word go - or still be "ye".

[Hail22]

There has been a call for him to be dropped the problem is, who is willing to take his job its a damned if you do damned if you don't position.

You think Kirby would do a good job?

[wesley123]

Charlie Whiting has already reported in to the FIA stating all vehicles exhausts are "Legal".

Charlie Whiting's decisions are half the reason for F1 rules being terrible! If he'd acted logically and banned the double diffuser, most teams would have been saved millions and a season would have been saved.

If the teams did actually listen when Brawn showed the loophole to them you wouldnt have to blame Charlie Whiting by now, just saying.

[PlatinumZealot]

Is that exhaust hole legal? What do the rules say?

What do the rules on surface contour radii say? (the ones to avoid all the hideous flip-ups etc)


Are there exceptions around the exhaust area?

I recall rules about maximum area of the exhaust opening in the side pod.. maybe mclaren are within it.. but Ii am a bit in the dark in regards to how much the exhaust protrudes. I'm too lazy to read the regs again.

[Shaddock]

Maybe they thought heat shielding would attract more suspicion?

I think they wanted or were happy for the floor to burn. If they put heat shielding on that part of the floor, with a lets say a contentious exhaust at best, it does look like their intention was to blow the floor and seal the diffuser from day one. If they don’t protect the floor, then they can claim that the exhaust was designed to be blowing under the beam wing, and something has gone terribly wrong (like last year). In other words, they didn’t intentionally set out to break the spirit of the exhaust rules, it just happened that way.

[CHT]

How difficult is it for team to copy this exhaust system?

[Shrieker]

Maybe they thought heat shielding would attract more suspicion?

I think they wanted or were happy for the floor to burn. If they put heat shielding on that part of the floor, with a lets say a contentious exhaust at best, it does look like their intention was to blow the floor and seal the diffuser from day one. If they don’t protect the floor, then they can claim that the exhaust was designed to be blowing under the beam wing, and something has gone terribly wrong (like last year). In other words, they didn’t intentionally set out to break the spirit of the exhaust rules, it just happened that way.

This =D>

(We should be giving credit too to another fellow member for stating something along those lines a page or two ago though).

Although I now do think that some of the stuff we see in the pics are tyre marbles rather than burn marks.

[Owen.C93]

How difficult is it for team to copy this exhaust system?

Not the end of the world. I'd imagine they would do some compromise and have something like a Ferrari or a Sauber depending on their current packaging.

[Robbobnob]

Burn marks on the floor in front of the rear wheels:

Is that exhaust hole legal? What do the rules say?

I cant see how this solution can be "in the spirit of the rules"

to me there is a clear attempt at improving the aero around the exhaust exit for some sort of benefit, which is clearly against the technical directive.