Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Forza]

[Hangaku]

If in doubt, claim reflection.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Are there any pictures from Melbourne that clearly show whether Mclaren is using the snowplow or not?

McLaren won't be using the snow plough in Melbourne. Whitmarsh confirmed they removed it because a lack of rear downforce. He said that if the team recovers a lot of downforce at the rear they may go back the other way(running snow plough) but right now, the development suggests no snowplough is the way to go.

[Jef Patat]

A peek under the hood
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... ow_item=66

[Holm86]

Are there any pictures from Melbourne that clearly show whether Mclaren is using the snowplow or not?

McLaren won't be using the snow plough in Melbourne. Whitmarsh confirmed they removed it because a lack of rear downforce. He said that if the team recovers a lot of downforce at the rear they may go back the other way(running snow plough) but right now, the development suggests no snowplough is the way to go.

So then its definitely not a negligible amount of frontal downforce the sow plough adds?
People have been talking in here earlier that the snow plough didnt add that much downforce.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

So then its definitely not a negligible amount of frontal downforce the sow plough adds?
People have been talking in here earlier that the snow plough didnt add that much downforce.

Exactly. It adds more DF to the front end than people are giving it credit for, that's for sure.

[Shakeman]

So then its definitely not a negligible amount of frontal downforce the sow plough adds?
People have been talking in here earlier that the snow plough didnt add that much downforce.

Exactly. It adds more DF to the front end than people are giving it credit for, that's for sure.

Or just enough to imbalance the car.

It'll be interesting to see if/when it returns as that would indicate the clawing back of rear down force

[raymondu999]

I think it's not quite that it just makes so much downforce at the front that it imbalances the car - but that it robs the rear of downforce no? Because the air is worked in front rather than towards the rear; as it were.

Mind - the McLaren nose would probably be better suited to the snowplough; and undernose vanes should theoretically be more suited to high(broken?) noses.

[raymondu999]

But during the second half of the Barcelona test, McLaren tried out underbody aerodynamic modifications similar to those used by teams with high chassis.

This surprised AUTOSPORT technical correspondent Gary Anderson, who said: “Last year, people started putting the on- board cameras down low behind the centre section of the front wing to make this area into a slight downforce-producing device, combined with vertical turning vanes at the nose-to-chassis interface to accelerate that air.

“McLaren has now gone down this route, which is designed to drag the air through the front-wing central section to the leading edge of the sidepods as fast as possible. This system works far better when you have the maximum chassis height, because it allows you to make these turning vanes taller, giving bigger gains in this area.”

Whitmarsh insists that the modifications to McLaren’s nose and splitter section are not an admission that the concept is wrong, and cites the requirement to maximise rear downforce even with an orthodox nose height.

“We removed the under-nose splitter, which probably enhances the efficiency of the rear end,” he said. “If we get a lot of downforce at the rear end then we may go back the other way, but where we are in the development cycle suggests that this route is beneficial.”

McLaren is set to run this design in Melbourne this weekend.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I think it's not quite that it just makes so much downforce at the front that it imbalances the car - but that it robs the rear of downforce no? Because the air is worked in front rather than towards the rear; as it were.

Mind - the McLaren nose would probably be better suited to the snowplough; and undernose vanes should theoretically be more suited to high(broken?) noses.

Right. I think it helps the front, but as you said more importantly robs the rear of airflow/DF. And removing it brings the balance more towards the central part of the car.

[kalinka]

A peek under the hood
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... ow_item=66

Now how the hell that exhaust could exit rearward when all the pipes are pointing toward the front of the car Or it's not even mounted ? Please, not another "reflection"

[Unc1e_M0nty]

Hello all, long time lurker and first time poster

I thought the same but look how sharp the final bend is on the red bull.

[kalinka]

Yeah, that was easy to spot for me, but not on McLaren. maybe exactly that's what is missing there > the final bend....maybe

[Gridlock]

As per Scarbs' post, teams are trying to get the exhaust gases to exit in as flat a plane as possible, ie not uniformly across the surface of the exhaust port. This is (just) one area where the posted CFD diagram falls flat, as it assumes a uniform exit.

Having a rollercoaster of an exhaust path is how you'd achieve this, probably coupled with fins inside the pipe? This is why teams bodywork is singing in funny places, the exhaust is now not optimised just for engine characteristics but also for exit plume shape and velocity.

[Francesc]