Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Mr.G]

I was looking for F2012 pictures, but I found this and just noticed that McLaren use two colors for flowis (green & red) together. Probably they need to see how two flows interact or so.

Is this common to use two colors? Because it's first time for me to see that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferferferfer/6874013775/

[Mysticf1]

I raise you 3 colors of flowvis

[Mr.G]

OK, thanks, obviosuly from the same test day. But question is, was this used first time, or it's common?

[kebab]

quote="Mr.G"]OK, thanks, obviosuly from the same test day. But question is, was this used first time, or it's common?[/quote]
Haven't seen teams using this much flowvis during test recent years. Teams use different flowvis to see how the air flow around different part of the car. Different flowvis will not mix with each other so they would help engineers to see the result better.

[MIKEY_!]

I've never seen it before. Actually I've only ever seen the yellow flowvis. Why would the two colours not interact kebab? I'd have thought it would just make it easier to see if air from under the nose was going where it should. P.S. why does the red appear on the splitter but not the lower sidepod?

Never thought I'd ask a kebab about flowvis

[Mysticf1]

if you look close enough there is some red on the front of the undercut

[kebab]

I've never seen it before. Actually I've only ever seen the yellow flowvis. Why would the two colours not interact kebab? I'd have thought it would just make it easier to see if air from under the nose was going where it should. P.S. why does the red appear on the splitter but not the lower sidepod?

Never thought I'd ask a kebab about flowvis

I didn't say they wont interact. I said different flowvis wont mix, at least they have different color hence engineer will see where they go.

[allstaruk08]

its a good idea using three colours that way you get to see where the air from the front wing goes, then when the air from the splitter goes, then the rest of the car

[kalinka]

I think they used so much flowvis here, because (as someone mentioned here) they put it on on their las run, so they didn't had enough time to do it on separate runs. Other thing is - you can't put flowvis on the front wing, and then wait to it to appear on the rear of the car. If I understand it correctly, flowvis is good only for relatively short distances ( I'd say 50-80cm max). So if thet want to see the whole picture they must apply a lot of it on different places. Maybe I'm wrong of course.

[Pup]

Is it possible that the flowvis around the wheel is being dried by the exhaust, never getting the chance to 'flow'? Just a thot.

[Just_a_fan]

Or that the flow is impinging on that area of floor plate and the flowviz is being deposited. There is evidence of flow viz splatter on the car suggesting some is being carried in the slipstream. If this is the case, then some might be being deposited where the airflow hits the floor plate.

[Robbobnob]

i didnt know Jackson Pollock was employed at McLaren

[Pierce89]

I know in 2010 they were using it a lot, not just RRA related. They had correlation issues and used Toyota when fixing theirs. Since seeing how much better it was must have opened their eyes.

Ferrari did the same last year. I remember reading that they had to shut down their tunnel for a considerable time to correct some issues. In fact, I think I remember that the F150 was largely designed in the Toyota tunnel. Lot of good that did them.

I don't get the joke( I do its just not very funny)

on topic: I think both Mclaren and Ferrari will be good, and I quite like the crisp clean simple lines of the Mp4-27. I also think that as usual, it'll be fairly mighty in top speed(looks quite sleek to my organically powered cfd) and I'm hoping that won't hurt the quest for RBR-like DF levels

[hakan439]

Two side view comparisons. There is a lot more room under the nose of the Ferrari and the Bull and McLaren look pretty similar.


http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=24&a=62&b=63

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=24

The angle can be deceptive on these side by side comparisons, but looking at those it's also interesting to note the difference in rake/rear ride height. The Ferari being noticeably lower than the Mac and the RB, perhaps related to the relative speeds each car seemed to show at Jerez.

Also ferrari drivers are sitting way back compared to MAcca and RB's.
RB and McLaren drivers are located almost identical

[beelsebob]

Two side view comparisons. There is a lot more room under the nose of the Ferrari and the Bull and McLaren look pretty similar.


http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=24&a=62&b=63

http://mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=srs&s=24

The angle can be deceptive on these side by side comparisons, but looking at those it's also interesting to note the difference in rake/rear ride height. The Ferari being noticeably lower than the Mac and the RB, perhaps related to the relative speeds each car seemed to show at Jerez.

Bear in mind that the McLaren appears to be under heavy breaking there which will make the back rise naturally.