McLaren MP4-28 Mercedes

[Richard]

It is entirely feasible that the panel carriees the front wing while the crash structure carries the load

What do you mean by "the load"? Anything carrying the wing is carrying the load from the wing - gravity & aero.

[stefan_]

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsF1

Although bonded to the nose as one piece, this is effectively what the MP4-28 modesty panel and stepped nose look like

[aral]

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsF1

Although bonded to the nose as one piece, this is effectively what the MP4-28 modesty panel and stepped nose look like

I understood that the 'modesty panel had to be a removable panel, so how can it be bonded to the nose? If it can be bonded to the nose, then surely that makes any reference to a modesty panel. superfluous?

[timbo]

I understood that the 'modesty panel had to be a removable panel, so how can it be bonded to the nose? If it can be bonded to the nose, then surely that makes any reference to a modesty panel. superfluous?

Weren't the FIA supposed to provide guidelines for what it is?
I think the number of layers is specified and probably teams do crash tests without it.

[stefan_]

I understood that the 'modesty panel had to be a removable panel, so how can it be bonded to the nose? If it can be bonded to the nose, then surely that makes any reference to a modesty panel. superfluous?

Was it supposed to be "removable" or "non-structural" (as in not a part of the main nosecone structure itself)? Or both?

[Cam]

quote from F1.com

(Regarding stepped noses)
3.7 Front bodywork:
3.7.9 With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate (whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than 1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above the reference plane.
The external surface of any longitudinal or lateral cross section taken through the above fairing may contain no concave radius of curvature less than 50mm.

I cannot locate the 'Appendix' they are referring to.

[raymondu999]

You need to download the true regulations off the FIA website. The regs PDF has all the appendices and full regs

[Raptor22]

It is entirely feasible that the panel carriees the front wing while the crash structure carries the load

What do you mean by "the load"? Anything carrying the wing is carrying the load from the wing - gravity & aero.

There are many components to the "load" of the front wing. There is the direct downforce over the wing, there is a bending moment of that downforce on the load bearing structure.

For a light weight cover to carry the fornt wing load think of a scenario where table cloth is pinned to a table. Now hang the load off the end of the table cloth hanging off the end of the table.
Here the load is carried by the pins, the table (crash structure) and the tension in the table cloth fibres. Need to stiffenup the cloth fibres but you get the idea.
So if exploiting the cover design gains you additional height to the underbody of the nose then the design problem is how the crash structure carries the cover. Making the support pylons stiff enough to pass the deflection tests is pretty simple

[Cam]

You need to download the true regulations off the FIA website. The regs PDF has all the appendices and full regs

Yep. Looked there. Happy if someone else could verify. There is the 2013 & 2014 PDFs there.

[Blanchimont]

Appendix 2013, read page 2 for the plys allowed

[Bazza]

McLaren have done the smart thing.

By bonding it to the main structure (which would have passed the crash test on its own), you can indeed 'remove it', with such instruments as 'a chisel' or 'a hammer'.


Unless there's anything in the rules that specifically says it needs to come off cleanly, easily and in one piece and also needs to be able to be placed back onto the nose to form a structure of the same quality as before, then they're fine by actually building the panel into the front nose structure.


It's like the Toyota Le Mans program, they needed to make a car that could hold a lot of fuel, and a medium-sized briefcase, but not necessarily at the same time (guess where the briefcase ended up in scrutineering?).

[JMN]

I'm wondering if we with the ban on free DRS usage in qualifying will see the teams (and McLaren in particular considering their slow-ish adoption of the short chords) revert to longer chord lengths.
Were the shorter chord lengths prefered solely for their ability to become horizontal (or aero neutral anyway) with the limited DRS travel distance, or were they just as much prefered in unison with the deeper main planes to allow DRS usage in high speed corners?

[allstaruk08]

could they not hinge the long chord wing lower down like half way into the wing instead of at the back so when the DRS is activated it can still be aero neutral with the limited travel??

[Owen.C93]

could they not hinge the long chord wing lower down like half way into the wing instead of at the back so when the DRS is activated it can still be aero neutral with the limited travel??

Nope, hinge has to be at the top.

[stefan_]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gemszq50SM0[/youtube]