McLaren MP4-28 Mercedes

[Owen.C93]

Based on whitmarsh and button, talking about the ride of the car and inconsistency. I feel this car has too much anti dive in the front suspension. Pull rod is not an issue it's the geometry itself.
I don't understand why they put the A arms so high up the side of the chassis, which basically goes where the push rod would be aerodynamically anyway.
There was some narrow minded view for going to this extreme, maybe to make some kind of gain based on simulation, but it didnt work out in real life on a bumpy track.
It's quite likely they were trying to make a car less sensitive to fuel load, when they did the suspension the way how they did it.
Because even in the rear, you will see that the geometry is quite different.
The car ended up being to rigid i think. It may very well ride almost as low with low fuel as it does high, but it's probably putting the forces into the control arms more than the dampers resulting in unchecked vibrations and disturbances affecting the aero.

I was watching the on board of the merc and the redbull, the suspension seems to have more movement.
Not to say my speculation is the problem with the car, but i'm just trying to work off what has been said about the car, and what is visually different between it, the other cars and the 2012 car.

http://www.motorsport-magazin.com/image ... 478790.jpg
Looking at this picture, the dang a arms are where the pushrods used to be, so the aero benefit in that regard is canceled.
I mentioned earlier an aero benefit based on the shape of the arms themselves and also brake fairings aero but that is a side story.
Any other reasons as to why the A arms are placed so high and which so much anti dive?

Here's the Ferrari for comparison. The arm further back is pretty much in the same place as the McLaren but as you said the front one is much higher for the anti dive.

[bhall]

[...]

Looking at this picture, the dang a arms are where the pushrods used to be, so the aero benefit in that regard is canceled.
I mentioned earlier an aero benefit based on the shape of the arms themselves and also brake fairings aero but that is a side story.
Any other reasons as to why the A arms are placed so high and which so much anti dive?

I'm still of the mind that the aero benefit relates to airflow into and/or around the sidepods. (Which means it's probably something else entirely.)

I wonder if the "odd" development path they chose - or was forced upon them - last year has returned to haunt them this year. The MP4-27 was essentially a (relatively) low-nose chassis that had a high nose mounted to it anyway. That means the car was inherently compromised, as was its development throughout the season. That it was nonetheless a quick car might have been the kiss of death.

Was it genuinely quick, and if so, why? How do you build upon it? Or was it only relatively quick, the beneficiary of other teams' struggles with PirelliPutty tires or their own design issues? If so, where do you turn to make it better?

Beyond that, what is the state of their development infrastructure given the myriad designs its been asked to churn over the last few years? Every car they've built since 2008 has been radically different than the one before. There's been no continuity.

[Forza]

F1 Malaysian GP - Thursday - 21/3/2013

[Coefficient]

Based on whitmarsh and button, talking about the ride of the car and inconsistency. I feel this car has too much anti dive in the front suspension. Pull rod is not an issue it's the geometry itself.
I don't understand why they put the A arms so high up the side of the chassis, which basically goes where the push rod would be aerodynamically anyway.
There was some narrow minded view for going to this extreme, maybe to make some kind of gain based on simulation, but it didnt work out in real life on a bumpy track.
It's quite likely they were trying to make a car less sensitive to fuel load, when they did the suspension the way how they did it.
Because even in the rear, you will see that the geometry is quite different.
The car ended up being to rigid i think. It may very well ride almost as low with low fuel as it does high, but it's probably putting the forces into the control arms more than the dampers resulting in unchecked vibrations and disturbances affecting the aero.

I was watching the on board of the merc and the redbull, the suspension seems to have more movement.
Not to say my speculation is the problem with the car, but i'm just trying to work off what has been said about the car, and what is visually different between it, the other cars and the 2012 car.

http://www.motorsport-magazin.com/image ... 478790.jpg
Looking at this picture, the dang a arms are where the pushrods used to be, so the aero benefit in that regard is canceled.
I mentioned earlier an aero benefit based on the shape of the arms themselves and also brake fairings aero but that is a side story.
Any other reasons as to why the A arms are placed so high and which so much anti dive?

Here's the Ferrari for comparison. The arm further back is pretty much in the same place as the McLaren but as you said the front one is much higher for the anti dive.

http://formula1.com/wi/enlarge/sutton/2 ... us3146.jpg

Just looking at the geometry of the front of this car suggests quite strongly that the Roll Centre is just too high to be workable which is why they are running so much anti dive.

[Owen.C93]

Lotus style brake ducts this time.

[JimClarkFan]

Based on whitmarsh and button, talking about the ride of the car and inconsistency. I feel this car has too much anti dive in the front suspension. Pull rod is not an issue it's the geometry itself.
I don't understand why they put the A arms so high up the side of the chassis, which basically goes where the push rod would be aerodynamically anyway.
There was some narrow minded view for going to this extreme, maybe to make some kind of gain based on simulation, but it didnt work out in real life on a bumpy track.
It's quite likely they were trying to make a car less sensitive to fuel load, when they did the suspension the way how they did it.
Because even in the rear, you will see that the geometry is quite different.
The car ended up being to rigid i think. It may very well ride almost as low with low fuel as it does high, but it's probably putting the forces into the control arms more than the dampers resulting in unchecked vibrations and disturbances affecting the aero.

I was watching the on board of the merc and the redbull, the suspension seems to have more movement.
Not to say my speculation is the problem with the car, but i'm just trying to work off what has been said about the car, and what is visually different between it, the other cars and the 2012 car.

http://www.motorsport-magazin.com/image ... 478790.jpg
Looking at this picture, the dang a arms are where the pushrods used to be, so the aero benefit in that regard is canceled.
I mentioned earlier an aero benefit based on the shape of the arms themselves and also brake fairings aero but that is a side story.
Any other reasons as to why the A arms are placed so high and which so much anti dive?

Astute observations, the key comparison of onboards would surely be the Mclaren vs the Ferrari though? Given that they have the same suspensions systems but vastly different placements.

[PlatinumZealot]

Huge anti-dive.. and huge difference to the Ferrari. Mclaren design arrogance at it's best.

Look how all the aero benefit of the pull-rod is instanly negated with the control arms mounted so high on the Mclaren. The Ferrair has lower arms and a cleaner flow over the side pod. Pat fry himself said it is one of the major benefits, so why Mclaren wouldn't make theirs like the Ferrari's?

[aral]

Huge anti-dive.. and huge difference to the Ferrari. Mclaren design arrogance at it's best.

Look how all the aero benefit of the pull-rod is instanly negated with the control arms mounted so high on the Mclaren. The Ferrair has lower arms and a cleaner flow over the side pod. Pat fry himself said it is one of the major benefits, so why Mclaren wouldn't make theirs like the Ferrari's?

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8982/d13mal151.jpg

http://formula1.com/wi/enlarge/sutton/2 ... us3146.jpg

Are you assuming that top of bulkhead is at the same height as Ferrari?
Comparing photos of the bulkhead seems to show that the Ferrari one is taller than the Mclaren one. A lower bulkhead can lead to a more streamlined nose.

[Pup]

Mclaren design arrogance at it's best.

Arrogance? Really, Smikle?

Drama in every post.

[thisisatest]

If the front of the upper wishbone is higher than the rear, that doesn't automatically mean anti-dive. It's hard to see the inclination of the lower wishbone, but if it were parallel to the upper one, the net would be pro-dive. I suspect it's somewhere in the middle, where there are some anti-dive forces from upright rotation about the axle, and some pro-dive forces from relative fore-aft horizontal movement of the upright.

[Pup]

The angle looks similar to that on the 27a (the A being for Arrogant, I assume)...

[PlatinumZealot]

THe 27 A bulkhead is lower and Those 27a arms only have a slight anti-dive so the control arms geometry is obviously different. Nothing similar at all.

The 28a now, has the bulkhead at near maximum height.. It was stated in the media... pretty much only a few mm lower than the Ferraris. However, the Mclaren P4-28's front contral arm members are visibly higher at the front. In fact they are even higher than where the 27a's bell-crank was. This negates all the aerodynamic benefit of having a clean cross sectional area for the air to reach the inboard area of the side pods.

[astracrazy]

are you sure thats not the 27?

[JimClarkFan]

are you sure thats not the 27?

I think it is, aren't Button and Perez numbered 5 and 6 respectively this year?

[Pup]

are you sure thats not the 27?

I'm sure that it is.

Also looks similar to the 26...



And the 25...



etc...

Point being - sure, there's value in comparing the 28 to the other cars on the grid, but that's really a bit random without doing so in the context of what McLaren have done in the past. And the truth is that for every comment someone makes here about some suspension angle, or winglet, or lack thereof, we could probably find an example in McLaren's recent past where they've done exactly the same.

Perspective. Picking out everything on the car that's a bit different and crying "Teh Fooolz!!!" is just, well, stupid.

The problem of course, is that with all the darts being thrown at the car, surely someone will hit close enough to the target, and we'll all get to endure the future comments about how their perceptive post proved partly prescient.