Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[beelsebob]

Could you place the DRS flap under the main plane, or am I spouting utter rubbish yet again

You couldn't – rule 3.18.1 – The incidence of the rearmost and uppermost closed section described in article 3.10.2 may be varied whilst the car is in motion...

3.10.2 also seems to ban it, as the two have to be close to each other at their closest approach, meaning that you couldn't flip your rear wing otherwise.

[Nickel]

Could you shape the actuator in such a way as to bypass the rules regarding 2 elements rear wings?

[Pup]

F1 Fanatic is not one of the best websites, i agree. I don't go on it at all.

Anyway, what are people expecting McLaren to come out with for the next test? Perhaps a refined exhaust layout?

The pre-season rumors were that they had a "revolutionary rear wing" that would be introduced at the final test or first race.

Scarbs posted earlier this week that he's been told to pay attention to their DRS.

[Owen.C93]

Could you shape the actuator in such a way as to bypass the rules regarding 2 elements rear wings?

I think that style of actuator is only allowed in the central 150mm section

[hardingfv32]

Could you shape the actuator in such a way as to bypass the rules regarding 2 elements rear wings?

And how long before they banned that idea? Need to be a little more clever than that. Your trick idea needs to be politically acceptable to last more than 3-4 races these days.

Brian

[SiLo]

Interesting, I'm pretty sure the rules governing the rear wing are fairly tight, although they did come up with the F-Duct so I suppose they know where the grey areas are. Does the DRS have to be only the top plane of the wing moving? Could you move the whole thing?

[Pup]

Funny, I was just checking the regs for the same thing - I don't see anything that says you can't have a single wing section; and if you only have one, I don't see anything that disqualifies it from being the section that's moved.

I'm not sure what you'd gain from that, though. Or rather, I'm not sure if what you gain wouldn't be grossly outweighed by what you'd lose.

I'm more curious if something clever couldn't be done with the location of the pivot point. The regs seem to assume that the pivot is always located within the section itself, but I don't think they specifically state that it has to be. That is, you might be able to bracket the wing at the endplates and set the pivot point farther back or higher than the regs assume you could. Again, without having put much thought into it, I don't know what the benefit would be.

[Nickel]

I'm more curious if something clever couldn't be done with the location of the pivot point. The regs seem to assume that the pivot is always located within the section itself, but I don't think they specifically state that it has to be. That is, you might be able to bracket the wing at the endplates and set the pivot point farther back or higher than the regs assume you could.

What about further down? If the pivot was located towards the center of the wing section. I believe the rules specify the maximum allowable travel for the leading edge of the wing section, which is why a shorter element yields greater drs effect, but if it pivoted in the center, this would allow a much bigger section while still lying flat when the drs is activated.

[PhillipM]

The pivot point is restricted.

[beelsebob]

Funny, I was just checking the regs for the same thing - I don't see anything that says you can't have a single wing section; and if you only have one, I don't see anything that disqualifies it from being the section that's moved.

3.18.1 third dash demands that if you want to move part of the wing, you must have exactly 2 closed sections.

I'm more curious if something clever couldn't be done with the location of the pivot point. The regs seem to assume that the pivot is always located within the section itself, but I don't think they specifically state that it has to be. That is, you might be able to bracket the wing at the endplates and set the pivot point farther back or higher than the regs assume you could. Again, without having put much thought into it, I don't know what the benefit would be.

That's an interesting point, I don't see anything banning having an upper flap that's essentially long chord, in that it's a long way from the pivot to the front, but also short chord in that there's not much surface on it. I don't know what you'd gain though – it would seem that would get all the disadvantages of both wouldn't it?

[beelsebob]

I'm more curious if something clever couldn't be done with the location of the pivot point. The regs seem to assume that the pivot is always located within the section itself, but I don't think they specifically state that it has to be. That is, you might be able to bracket the wing at the endplates and set the pivot point farther back or higher than the regs assume you could.

What about further down? If the pivot was located towards the center of the wing section. I believe the rules specify the maximum allowable travel for the leading edge of the wing section, which is why a shorter element yields greater drs effect, but if it pivoted in the center, this would allow a much bigger section while still lying flat when the drs is activated.

Nope, it has to be positioned within 20mm of the top-rear of the wing.

[Pup]

3.18.1 third dash demands that if you want to move part of the wing, you must have exactly 2 closed sections.

Ahh, I see it now. I was having trouble parsing that sentence out of FIA speak, until I realized it was part of the 'provided' above.

[Pup]

Nope, it has to be positioned within 20mm of the top-rear of the wing.

To the front and beneath, at least. I don't see any limits on placing it above or behind, but then you've already revealed the extent to which I've studies these regs.

[beelsebob]

Nope, it has to be positioned within 20mm of the top-rear of the wing.

To the front and beneath, at least. I don't see any limits on placing it above or behind, but then you've already revealed the extent to which I've studies these regs.

Indeed – sorry, that was meant to be refuting Nickel's suggestion of moving it further down – not your suggestion of having it on a long lever.

[Pup]

I guess the problem is that the tail end of the upper element is probably already at the upper and rearward limit of the regs, so you couldn't really hinge the wing from behind without moving it outside of the allowable area when activated. From above maybe, but the possible locations would be limited.

Moving on then...