Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Robbobnob]

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?

--- i'll do it, im sure it pays well and you get to see any of the f1 cars you want!!

[Pup]

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

Can the race stewards rule on the spirit of the rules? McLaren meet the rules by the letter, and Charlie has already ruled them in compliance with the spirit as he understands them - so I'd think that it would require a rule clarification from the FIA for Charlie or the stewards to act.

[Shaddock]

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.

How can you prove McLaren's intent? The counter argument could be that the slots primary role is to help the airflow over the side pod, and the general downward wash of the exhaust is an unintentional side effect, hence the burnt floor, which we didn't foresee.

[Hail22]

As much as its impossible, it would be preferred if the FIA be dropped and another body regulate Formula 1.

As to Mclaren it seems they are going as per their programme and not in the mood to follow the bluff/fast direction RBR are going. RBR has won two years in a row thus are feeling a sense of "Arrogance" where as Mclaren, Ferrari and Mercedes want to be on top again. (Mercedes was on top in the yester years give respect guys!)

[Robbobnob]

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

Can the race stewards rule on the spirit of the rules? McLaren meet the rules by the letter, and Charlie has already ruled them in compliance with the spirit as he understands them - so I'd think that it would require a rule clarification from the FIA for Charlie or the stewards to act.

I agree it is just my opinion and the final decision lies with Charlie, its just to me soo bloody obvious its for aero gain even though they meet the wording of the rules 100%, like the flexi-wing and the DDD

[bgroovers]

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".

your two arguments are totally opposite. Charlie has done with Lotus what you say he should have done with Brawn! By canning the reactive ride now hes preventing millions being spent by the other teams to copy it! Which way do you want it or do you just want to complain?
What the directive says is that channeling of the gases with a collector ie a brake duct to the diffuser is outside the spirit of rules. All the teams exhaust plumes will be interacting with the bodywork in some way, RB with beam wing, Sauber,McL and Ferrari with the floor. There is no way at this stage to say any are a differentiator.

[Chalke]

The problem is imho, the current rules clash with this (still not fully public?) technical directive. As I stated earlier with the current regulations, interaction between the flow over and around the sidepods and the exhaust stream is inevitable. The exhaust aperture needs removing far from the surface of the engine cover to even remotely eliminate this, or have a very specific location for all teams to minimize any potential advantage. While you may argue that McLaren or Ferrari are pushing the boundaries, each and every 2012 exhaust system takes the surrounding airstream into consideration with their exhaust design and therefore gains 'some' aerodynamic benefit. You might argue that they are simply making the best of the situation they are presented with.


With regard to the trail we're seeing on the McLaren floor, I initially took Ted Kravitz's eye-witness report on it being burnt - it certainly looked that way in the initial shots. However the super-high res shot a couple of pages back (nice find btw Owen.C93) makes it pretty clear to me that it's tyre debris that we're looking at. Which raises the question how and why is it gathering in such specific patterns on the McLaren when we're not seeing it on other cars?

Here's my theory - 'exhaust gas' is made up of more than the name simply implies. There's alot of crud mixed in there, oil, particulates, partially burnt fuel etc etc. I think that the slot restricts the exhaust from spreading and dispersing these in a more natural way and instead contains them along with the plume itself to a narrow stream. These are then being deposited in a narrow band across the floor under the path that the exhaust plume takes. Their chemical makeup combined with the heat of the stream that deposits them is leaving a sticky trail that tyre marbles are attaching to, instead of simply rolling off the chassis.

[Shrieker]

Very fair point chalke, but I'm thinking maybe the pattern we see might be a result of this(Credit Owen.C93) instead, or maybe a combination of both.

(Oddly enough, I recall a shot of an MP4-27 -which i couldn't find right now- showing the same wear pattern as the Sauber, or it's just my mind playing tricks)

yup...tire marbles....so now the question is...does the car destroy its tire sidewalls??

Well Sauber just introduced a similar concept and this is their rear tyres.



I wouldn't say that's too unordinary for testing and what not, but something to keep an eye on.

Screw that, it's just my imagination, the pic doesn't exist.

[aterren]

How can you prove McLaren's intent?

This references the intent of the rules rather than McLaren's. If something obviously violates what was intended by the rule.

[Robbobnob]

It shouldnt be about mclarens intent..
lets take another example

say i had a gun and i set it up to a set of rules so it is pointing south and an angle between 10 and 30 above horizontal. this so happens to line up with a person.

i may argue, but reality is even if it was not my intent if pull the trigger i break the law...

[dave34m]

It shouldnt be about mclarens intent..
lets take another example

say i had a gun and i set it up to a set of rules so it is pointing south and an angle between 10 and 30 above horizontal. this so happens to line up with a person.

i may argue, but reality is even if it was not my intent if pull the trigger i break the law...

WTF

[ringo]

Doesn't look like they're blowing the floor to me.
To bend the exhuast 40 degrees, then it shows that the free stream is a much stronger flow.
If this flow is so much stronger why bend another flow in the first place.

Really i have no clue what is going, just putting some thoughts out.

What is suspicious is the shape of the cut. It is a very nasty looking aperture. It almost looks as if they want turn the flow into a sheet of hot air to blow over the beam wing evenly.



So it's either a thin vertical sheet blowing the brake ducts above the brake inlet, or it's a horizontal sheet blowing the beam wing close to the end plate.

they could be even overheating the tyres causing the tyres to degrade rapidly and marble up on the floor. Who know what these guys are up to?

[bhall]

Are there any safety considerations to take into account due to the exhaust heating up the tires and brakes?

(And I don't know what Pirelli was going on about when they said the new, more square, profile of the tires would be unnoticeable. Not that it's a problem, it's just obvious.)

[mx_tifoso]

I don't think so, considering that there have been more extreme applications of where the exhaust is squarely aimed at the tires. It might have been the 2008 or 2009 Renault. And aside from being a proven method, I'm sure that the teams have run these heat parameters when evaluating the tires and breaks long before hitting the track.

[beelsebob]

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.

Typically, such rules are expressed talking about the aperture, not about the sculpting around it. The hole itself is pretty small.