There's some amazing pictures of the McLaren flo-vis at this blog. Note the 3rd and 4th one as well which shows some hints of the exhaust plume.
http://formula12012testjerez.blogspot.com/
Wow, you can really see the air directed down low at the floor in front of the rear tyres -Owen.C93 wrote:There's some amazing pictures of the McLaren flo-vis at this blog. Note the 3rd and 4th one as well which shows some hints of the exhaust plume.
http://formula12012testjerez.blogspot.com/
I don't see why not. If I remember correctly that's how the McLaren, and the Mercedes, f-ducts got ratted out. The McLaren through use of flow-vis on their rear wing, and the Merc on dust (IIRC) getting on their front tyres and weird patterns showing.Shakeman wrote:Will other teams be looking at these flo images looking for hints?
Shakeman wrote:Will other teams be looking at these flo images looking for hints?
Is there anyone here that can give an analysis of these images? Perhaps giving an indication where flow could be better etc?
Cheers
I think the first two photos where there is a collection of paint must have been early in the lap because in the later photos the paint is being pushed back a lot more.Coefficient wrote:
It’s difficult to say for sure but to me those flo-vis images don’t look too promising. Notice how the green paint appears to collect on top of the floor ahead of the rear wheel rather than continue to flow over the diffuser, I mean there is a really heavy deposit of paint collecting their suggesting that the downwash exhaust is causing a blockage to the flow from the undercut.
Or, when this photo was taken Lewis may have literally just set off after the team sprayed a mother load of paint right there to see what happens to it.
I have my own leanings here, suffice to say that teams don’t tend to use this much flo-vis unless they have some concerns.
I am really not sure that is true. Every team that relies on advanced CFD and simulation technology validate wind tunnel and simulation data with flo-vis nowadays, IMHO.Coefficient wrote:Shakeman wrote:Will other teams be looking at these flo images looking for hints?
Is there anyone here that can give an analysis of these images? Perhaps giving an indication where flow could be better etc?
Cheers
It’s difficult to say for sure but to me those flo-vis images don’t look too promising. Notice how the green paint appears to collect on top of the floor ahead of the rear wheel rather than continue to flow over the diffuser, I mean there is a really heavy deposit of paint collecting their suggesting that the downwash exhaust is causing a blockage to the flow from the undercut.
Or, when this photo was taken Lewis may have literally just set off after the team sprayed a mother load of paint right there to see what happens to it.
I have my own leanings here, suffice to say that teams don’t tend to use this much flo-vis unless they have some concerns.
They certainly do but last time a saw a team spray it on this thick was Mclaren in 2009 winter tests. Normally a thin coat is sufficient. My comment was not intended to relate to the frequency of flo vis use. Apologies for the confusion.Schulteiss wrote:I am really not sure that is true. Every team that relies on advanced CFD and simulation technology validate wind tunnel and simulation data with flo-vis nowadays, IMHO.Coefficient wrote:Shakeman wrote:Will other teams be looking at these flo images looking for hints?
Is there anyone here that can give an analysis of these images? Perhaps giving an indication where flow could be better etc?
Cheers
It’s difficult to say for sure but to me those flo-vis images don’t look too promising. Notice how the green paint appears to collect on top of the floor ahead of the rear wheel rather than continue to flow over the diffuser, I mean there is a really heavy deposit of paint collecting their suggesting that the downwash exhaust is causing a blockage to the flow from the undercut.
Or, when this photo was taken Lewis may have literally just set off after the team sprayed a mother load of paint right there to see what happens to it.
I have my own leanings here, suffice to say that teams don’t tend to use this much flo-vis unless they have some concerns.
Don't think it is a question of thickness. Mc has this low front-end concept thingy, I think if they are validating airflow data from the front to the rear,it needs a bucketful of this stuff. It just freaks Mc fans out genetically when they see the green/yellow on the car since 2009. That car seems pretty solid to me.Coefficient wrote:They certainly do but last time a saw a team spray it on this thick was Mclaren in 2009 winter tests. Normally a thin coat is sufficient. My comment was not intended to relate to the frequency of flo vis use. Apologies for the confusion.Schulteiss wrote:I am really not sure that is true. Every team that relies on advanced CFD and simulation technology validate wind tunnel and simulation data with flo-vis nowadays, IMHO.Coefficient wrote: It’s difficult to say for sure but to me those flo-vis images don’t look too promising. Notice how the green paint appears to collect on top of the floor ahead of the rear wheel rather than continue to flow over the diffuser, I mean there is a really heavy deposit of paint collecting their suggesting that the downwash exhaust is causing a blockage to the flow from the undercut.
Or, when this photo was taken Lewis may have literally just set off after the team sprayed a mother load of paint right there to see what happens to it.
I have my own leanings here, suffice to say that teams don’t tend to use this much flo-vis unless they have some concerns.
Don't think it is a question of thickness. Mc has this low front-end concept thingy, I think if they are validating airflow data from the front to the rear,it needs a bucketful of this stuff. It just freaks Mc fans out genetically when they see the green/yellow on the car since 2009. That car seems pretty solid to me.[/quote]Schulteiss wrote:
They certainly do but last time a saw a team spray it on this thick was Mclaren in 2009 winter tests. Normally a thin coat is sufficient. My comment was not intended to relate to the frequency of flo vis use. Apologies for the confusion.
It's 8 years old. Just because they want a better one doesn't mean that their existing one isn't up to the task.Crucial_Xtreme wrote:As for the McLaren WindTunnel, it is old & aging.
I mentioned this a few pages back. I do think it's possible that the exhaust isn't doing what they'd hoped, but you can't conclude anything from the photos.Coefficient wrote:Notice how the green paint appears to collect on top of the floor ahead of the rear wheel rather than continue to flow over the diffuser, I mean there is a really heavy deposit of paint collecting their suggesting that the downwash exhaust is causing a blockage to the flow from the undercut.
I never said it wasn't. Doesn't change the fact it is old and they are replacing it.Pup wrote:It's 8 years old. Just because they want a better one doesn't mean that their existing one isn't up to the task.Crucial_Xtreme wrote:As for the McLaren WindTunnel, it is old & aging.