Front End Downforce - McLaren

[beerbellybob]

Do you think McLaren have front end downforce issues this year. Why? The last time they had the narrow nose cone thing going they had serious problems in generating front end aero grip. Now I know that this year they had some issues with front end mechanical grip which required a modified suspension but the 3 - element wing used in Monza (they did use the 3 element wing right?) makes me wonder if they actually still have some issues with front end aero grip.

[Scuderia_Torque]

i think this year has mostly to do with tyres, the mclaren package was not using the tyres to there potential to say what the renault was. But front end grip i can agree with you, i was watching kimi's onboard from monza and i notice that he coped some oversteer, i dont think the mclaren is lacking front end grip, i just think on some tracks it is hard to find that perfect balance.

[Saribro]

Ferrari were running their upper element on the front wing in Monza aswell, and look who came in 1 and 2 :).
It's possible that overall airflow management on the MP4-21 is more dependant on the front end than on most other cars. Or it could be that a triple element wing was actually more efficient compared to a twin element in creating the front end downforce that the drivers prefered.
That's the first couple of things that come to mind.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Well I've said in other posts that I've heard many many reports and comments from people incliding:

Juan Pablo Montoya
Pedro De La Rosa
Alex Wurz
Gary Paffet

That the MP4-20 and the MP4-21 both have inherant understeer. A feature of the car that only Kimi likes. The other drivers (Montoya for example) have had to drive around this or compromise thier own setup in order to rectify this.

[peroa]

Kimi doesn`t like it, infact he hates understeering.
But yes, he can deal with it.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I'd heard from all of those sources (Altho Kimi not being one of them) that he approves of the cars front end numbness as his driving style is such that he can deal with the understeer.

I didn't mean he like understeer (who does?! lol) more that his driving style is more suited to it than most.

[boban-mk]

I heard that McLaren create new front suspension by Montoya wishes, but with that change Montoya has even bigger difference from Kimi. Kimi still use the old suspension. That means that front suspension is not the problem of Montoya. It is a Kimi sindrom, nobody can be close to his spead. Not DC, not Montoya, nor any current third class drivers in McLaren.

[DaveKillens]

To me, this season has been one of steady improvement in the front end. McLaren needed such radical improvement from the beginning of the season they went with two completely different schemes in each car. It appears all this trial and error experimentation is paying off, in the last few races both McLarens have shown respectable pace.
McLaren was the first top rank team to commit to the zero keel front end, and obviously, it takes a lot of time and money to make it right. Toyota have improved too, but the pace of their development is too slow.
A three element wing should be more efficient than a two at lower speeds, but generate slightly higher drag.

[peroa]

Kimi said that the car is much better since they introduced the new frontwing in Hockenheim, less understeer.

[beerbellybob]

Heres what I think. McLaren has had to try and compensate for the inherent lack of downforce of their narrow nose cone chassis configuration, thoroughout the year. I do think they have some prior knowledge of the characteristics of such chassis from their earlier mistakes (i.e. MP4-18 and MP4-19) which is why they have been able to make the narrow nose cone work better this year. But I think the fundamentals don't change and the narrow nose cone makes it difficult to generate the needed front end aero grip. Also the only reasons they didn't develop an entirely new car this time is partly because of the cost and partly because they have been able to mitigate for the lack of front end grip.

I look at the McLaren side on and it just doesn't look okay. The abrupt angle at the bottom (looks boxy) of the front end, doesn't make sense aerodynamically (which should be all about curves). Next year's McLaren I predict is going to have a broad nose cone, minimum change and a smoother flowing bottom front end profile (which is not going to be easy, considering suspension requirements). What will be good maybe is if they follow the Renault example and go for a V keel, get cleaner airflow below the nose and keep a narrow nose cone. Going back to the single keel, aka Ferrari, may also give them some improvements (because of increased chassis stiffness) but once you have explored twin keel and no keel designs it seems like a backward step in terms of aero efficiency.

New to this so forgive me if I don't make sense.

[joseff]

I look at the McLaren side on and it just doesn't look okay. The abrupt angle at the bottom (looks boxy) of the front end, doesn't make sense aerodynamically (which should be all about curves).

Many if not most of this year's car have abrupt transitions from the nosecone to the tub. It's due to the minimum tub dimensions regulation. I this has been discussed on the forum before, with pics of Toyota, McLaren, Williams and BMW. I can't find that thread now, but it's there.

So it's a balancing act between a slimmer nose to avoid disturbing the front wing, but somehow transitioning as smoothly as possible to the tub.

[Apex]

A three element wing should be more efficient than a two at lower speeds, but generate slightly higher drag.

Dave, please explain

[Tom]

beerbellybob wrote:

The abrupt angle at the bottom (looks boxy) of the front end, doesn't make sense aerodynamically (which should be all about curves).

Thats not true. It is impossible to see what is aerodynamically correct and what is not, and certainly it is not all about curves. Part of the equation for drag is frontal area, which obviously cannot be seen from the profile as you suggest. Perhaps increadably a brick is surprisingly aerodynamic. Another part of the drag equation is velocity squared, so, no matter what boy racer idiots tell you, if you want to increase drag alot speed up a little. A stationary object has effectively no drag, whereas a car going at 5km/h has far far less drag than one going at 10.

I was amazed to find my AX is more aerodynamic than an F1 car at low downforce settings, whereas a Lamborghini Diablo is a long long way up the list. The most aerodynamic road car used to be a Citroen GSA, which frankly looks like it might have been driven into a wall at some point. Check this out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient


This has less......Oh, yes...than this...

[mini696]

The narrow nose has little to do with downforce. I suggest the narrow nose actually helps with it, by having a larger area of undisturbed air above the front wing. The narrow nose also goes hand-in-hand with the no-keel setup, by 'opening' up the surrounding area.

The fat noses create a more 'stable' front end.

[DaveKillens]

A three element wing should be more efficient than a two at lower speeds, but generate slightly higher drag.

Dave, please explain

Look at aircraft, and especially the planes of WW1 and WW2. Biplanes and triplanes were terrifiic at aerobatics, but they had high drag. A modern fighter is monoplane, less frontal area. As well, just look at the landing flaps of modern airliners. Tucked away at cruise, but they stick out in the wind for landing conditions, low speed.
Aero drag is determined by many factors, of which coefficient of drag of the shape, surface area, and frontal area are important. Reduce frontal area, reduce drag. As well, there is an interaction between elements, which also contributes to drag. Multiple element wings can really control and move the air more than a single element.