Mclaren MP4-29 Pre-launch Speculation

[Manoah2u]

thankfully, the mclaren is gonna get released in 4 days and we'll know.

[trinidefender]

I have a theory that the reason they failed the crash test doesn't have anything to do with the fundamental design of the chassis but off the nose structure. Remember with all the ideas about differently designed noses coming out, many of these designs have a similar feature where the vanity panel is above the structural nose section. This means that the structural nose section is usually quite thin when either viewed from above or from the side. Maybe McLaren's nose design incorporated something like this. With the structural part being so thin it is harder to make the nose strong as it needs to be.

Can anybody else verify that McLaren passed it's crash test afterwards. Also does anybody know what part of the car failed the crash test?

[CjC]

Probably what the articles have conveniently failed to mention is that the crash test mclaren did immediately after the fail test, passed.
But that doesn't make a good story does it, or am I being cynical?

Are we to believe that mclaren just rock up with a concept component for the crash test and they say to themselves 'if this fails we're not making Australia!'

I doubt it.

I'm not denying that one or even more components failed, just most likely they took a few different solutions and will launch/test the car with the solution that passed, the 'failure' would have a lap time performance over the 'passed' one.

My thoughts.

Where did you read, that the crash test Mclaren did immediately after the fail test, was passed by the car?
If you tell the truth we should not be so concerned. Please give me the source I want to see with my eyes.
Thanks.

There is no source to confirm what I said about McLaren passing the test immediately after. all I'm saying is I'm taking the articles with a pint of salt because its been a slow day in the press so any sniff of a story and they'll write it and make it even juicer by not telling the hole truth.

I have a theory that the reason they failed the crash test doesn't have anything to do with the fundamental design of the chassis but off the nose structure. Remember with all the ideas about differently designed noses coming out, many of these designs have a similar feature where the vanity panel is above the structural nose section. This means that the structural nose section is usually quite thin when either viewed from above or from the side. Maybe McLaren's nose design incorporated something like this. With the structural part being so thin it is harder to make the nose strong as it needs to be.

Can anybody else verify that McLaren passed it's crash test afterwards. Also does anybody know what part of the car failed the crash test?

Someone posted this earlier:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... or&act=url

In it horrendous English it does sort of talk about the front end of the car/chassis

As I said, the part that failed will most likely be a performance part worth (in simple talk) a tenth of a second lets say, compared to the component that passed immediately after.

I believe its just called car development.

[Pup]

New crash test supposedly scheduled for this week..

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns27157.html

[trinidefender]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mclaren stick with the pullrod (as well as Ferrari) for the 2014 season. People keep saying this change was a big mistake and while this may have been true for 2013, 2014 might be a different story with the chassis being 100mm lower (525mm vs 625mm). The problem with the pullrod system for 2013 (and for ferrari in 2012) was put down, by many, to be the structural implications it had on the chassis.

I get the impression that some on this forum don't understand exactly why that is. In a pushrod the large angle that the pushrod is at to the horizontal means that when a vertical force is applied to the tyre, the force that is then transferred to the car through the pushrod is not that great. Now in the pullrod, there is a situation that in the 2013 season with the high noses, the angle of the pullrod (to the horizontal) is very low. Here is the problem. With the very low angle, the force applied to the pullrod is much higher than that which would be applied to a pushrod on a car with the same nose height. This means that the pushrod will have a smaller effect on chassis flex and a manufacturer can build the nose much lighter, keeping weight away from the nose of the car and reducing the moment of inertia.

Now lets introduce the 2014 cars. The nose, by the suspension area, is now 100mm lower than in 2013. This means that the pushrod itself will be at a lower angle (to the horizontal) than before placing a slightly greater force on the pushrod and then on the nose of the chassis and suspension components. The pullrod however will no be running at a greater angle (to the horizontal) than in 2012/2013. This means that the vector of the force on the pullrod will be lower in 2014 and therefor produce a lower force on the suspension components and chassis.

To sum it all up it creates a situation where the slightly lower noses will work better with the pullrod than it did in 2012/2013. The structural problem will be slightly alleviated.

Hopefully this pic will help explain it a bit.



P.S. If i am violating anything copyright please remove the picture. Thanks!

[siskue2005]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mclaren stick with the pullrod (as well as Ferrari) for the 2014 season. People keep saying this change was a big mistake and while this may have been true for 2013, 2014 might be a different story with the chassis being 100mm lower (525mm vs 625mm). The problem with the pullrod system for 2013 (and for ferrari in 2012) was put down, by many, to be the structural implications it had on the chassis.

I get the impression that some on this forum don't understand exactly why that is. In a pushrod the large angle that the pushrod is at to the horizontal means that when a vertical force is applied to the tyre, the force that is then transferred to the car through the pushrod is not that great. Now in the pullrod, there is a situation that in the 2013 season with the high noses, the angle of the pullrod (to the horizontal) is very low. Here is the problem. With the very low angle, the force applied to the pullrod is much higher than that which would be applied to a pushrod on a car with the same nose height. This means that the pushrod will have a smaller effect on chassis flex and a manufacturer can build the nose much lighter, keeping weight away from the nose of the car and reducing the moment of inertia.

Now lets introduce the 2014 cars. The nose, by the suspension area, is now 100mm lower than in 2013. This means that the pushrod itself will be at a lower angle (to the horizontal) than before placing a slightly greater force on the pushrod and then on the nose of the chassis and suspension components. The pullrod however will no be running at a greater angle (to the horizontal) than in 2012/2013. This means that the vector of the force on the pullrod will be lower in 2014 and therefor produce a lower force on the suspension components and chassis.

To sum it all up it creates a situation where the slightly lower noses will work better with the pullrod than it did in 2012/2013. The structural problem will be slightly alleviated.

Hopefully this pic will help explain it a bit.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/Big/ ... on_big.jpg

P.S. If i am violating anything copyright please remove the picture. Thanks!

yes those things are all correct about pull rod vs push rod

but with the pull rod there are many other operational disadvantages, the lower arm needs to be more heavier than push rod...moreover it is a nightmare adjusting the pull rod in a session and it has only very little range in the setup area and not flexible setup wise. Added to that with the Pirelli tyres are even more difficult to get the setup right.
So does the above disadvantage out weigh the lower CFG ?
in an era were tyres are the only thing which is standing in way of 1st place and 6 - 7th placed cars, teams would go for a compromise.

[PlatinumZealot]

repost? but this sheds some light on why the 28 sucked...

from autosport user using google translate. https://translate.go...rce=twitterfeed

Formula 1
McLaren was born without the silver and sponsors
The MP4-29, which has not passed the front crash, it will not be orange. Dennis prepares the revolution in Woking
January 19, 2014 14:27
The McLaren MP4-29, which we will see in the presentation online January 24 it seems that it is not orange. The car will be silver with Tim Goss recalls, flamboyant orange and should not show signs of a title sponsor can take the place of Vodafone who ended the relationship with the Woking team by signing multi-year contract. And maybe we will see big names of the two drivers: Jenson and Kevin. So the idea of ​​proposing in orange was trashed, after having been long cultivated.

Ovation for THE RETURN OF RON Ron Dennis, whose return as CEO was greeted with a standing ovation among the staff of Technocentre when it was announced his reinstatement even in Formula 1 racing team, wants to restore enthusiasm to a team that in the past two years has had to "cut" a percentage of the annual budget to support the McLaren Cars that had a very troubled start, the most in terms of financial and technical.

JUST CUTS BUDGET! Old Ron, as well as being the man of the Honda warranty, ready to invest large resources in return to Formula 1 with McLaren, he would be able to find the resources (100 million euro of the Chinese?) For make independent again in 2013 that it no longer seemed to be a top team. The management of Martin Whitmarsh has been strongly influenced by budget cuts: the most experienced technicians as Pat Fry and Paddy Lowe gave way to a veritable exodus of skills, have not been replaced by engineers with experience of F. 1, but the young graduates caught by the best British universities.

MP4-28 A CAR SBEGLIATA In short, last year counted from the most beautiful presentations in power point more than the ideas that were in it and skip back Woking team was traumatic at the end of the 2012 season the MP4 -27 seemed the only car able to compete with Red Bull Racing World Champion Sebastian Vettel. And instead of developing the car, Tim Goss had decided to make a clean break with the past by proposing a disappointing MP4-28 is equipped with front suspension layout with pull rod, a car too sensitive to variations in height in the rear that has not won even a podium in world just ended.

THE FAILURE OF THE FRONT CRASH MP4-29 free fall does not seem to have halted in winter: OmniCorse.it anticipated that the MP4-29 is in doubt for the Jerez test because the body has not passed the frontal crash approval of the frame . A Woking are working with forced marches to arrive on time to the first collective output of 2014.

GOSS ALWAYS IN JAPAN How did we get to this situation? Technical Director Tim Goss has spent much of his time in Japan to define the return of the McLaren Honda engines in 2015. And inevitably he was forced to leave out the project of the machine this year. If we add to this that Doug McKiernan, the head of aerodynamics, is a creative person who wants to bring new ideas to the machine tested in the wind tunnel, it is easy to see that in Woking there was a moment of confusion, which lacked the directives certain.

FIRST MOVE: ROSS BRAWN And Matt Morris? The former technical director of the Sauber did not have an operational role in the design of the machine, but in the definition of best practices for its birth. The fact is that the car is late on the plans and, apart from the very innovative rear suspension, should have no big surprises. Ron Dennis, then, wants to turn over the racing team as a sock, relying on the necessary budget. McLaren, then, is preparing to return to the attack: the name of Ross Brawn as team principal Martin Whitmarsh is in place for the most hype, but waiting for the Red Bull Racing arrivals Peter Prodromou, the darling of aerodynamic Adrian Newey, will see a strengthening of the workforce with notable names. It will be interesting to see if Ron will be able to be the "Pied Piper" of Woking ...

[trinidefender]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mclaren stick with the pullrod (as well as Ferrari) for the 2014 season. People keep saying this change was a big mistake and while this may have been true for 2013, 2014 might be a different story with the chassis being 100mm lower (525mm vs 625mm). The problem with the pullrod system for 2013 (and for ferrari in 2012) was put down, by many, to be the structural implications it had on the chassis.

I get the impression that some on this forum don't understand exactly why that is. In a pushrod the large angle that the pushrod is at to the horizontal means that when a vertical force is applied to the tyre, the force that is then transferred to the car through the pushrod is not that great. Now in the pullrod, there is a situation that in the 2013 season with the high noses, the angle of the pullrod (to the horizontal) is very low. Here is the problem. With the very low angle, the force applied to the pullrod is much higher than that which would be applied to a pushrod on a car with the same nose height. This means that the pushrod will have a smaller effect on chassis flex and a manufacturer can build the nose much lighter, keeping weight away from the nose of the car and reducing the moment of inertia.

Now lets introduce the 2014 cars. The nose, by the suspension area, is now 100mm lower than in 2013. This means that the pushrod itself will be at a lower angle (to the horizontal) than before placing a slightly greater force on the pushrod and then on the nose of the chassis and suspension components. The pullrod however will no be running at a greater angle (to the horizontal) than in 2012/2013. This means that the vector of the force on the pullrod will be lower in 2014 and therefor produce a lower force on the suspension components and chassis.

To sum it all up it creates a situation where the slightly lower noses will work better with the pullrod than it did in 2012/2013. The structural problem will be slightly alleviated.

Hopefully this pic will help explain it a bit.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/Big/ ... on_big.jpg

P.S. If i am violating anything copyright please remove the picture. Thanks!

yes those things are all correct about pull rod vs push rod

but with the pull rod there are many other operational disadvantages, the lower arm needs to be more heavier than push rod...moreover it is a nightmare adjusting the pull rod in a session and it has only very little range in the setup area and not flexible setup wise. Added to that with the Pirelli tyres are even more difficult to get the setup right.
So does the above disadvantage out weigh the lower CFG ?
in an era were tyres are the only thing which is standing in way of 1st place and 6 - 7th placed cars, teams would go for a compromise.

With the Mp-28, as far as i know McLaren where able to set it up using hatches on top of the chassis nose and therefore actually make it easy to make setup changes.

When you say the lower arm needs to be heavier do you mean the pullrod would have to be heavier. If this is the case then i would actually say the opposite might be true due to the fact that carbon fiber weave works much better in tension than compression. If you mean the actual lower suspension arm is heavier can you please point out why that is?

[Lycoming]

I think that's a typo? In any case, if you draw out where all the forces go, you will see that the upper a-arm takes a larger load with a pullrod setup, hence the Ferrari's fat upper a-arm.

When switching from push to pull rod, you typically make it a bit thinner since the thing should only see tensile load. While it is true that CFRP generally has better tensile than compressive strength, the pushrod will fail in buckling long before max compressive stress. Compressive strength doesn't really play into it. It's because tensile members don't really buckle that the pullrod can be made thinner.

I should also add that I think push or pullrod makes little difference in car performance either way, and I mean little by F1 standards.

[Felipe 92]

@ScarbsF1 retweeted this one.

[Holm86]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mclaren stick with the pullrod (as well as Ferrari) for the 2014 season. People keep saying this change was a big mistake and while this may have been true for 2013, 2014 might be a different story with the chassis being 100mm lower (525mm vs 625mm). The problem with the pullrod system for 2013 (and for ferrari in 2012) was put down, by many, to be the structural implications it had on the chassis.

I get the impression that some on this forum don't understand exactly why that is. In a pushrod the large angle that the pushrod is at to the horizontal means that when a vertical force is applied to the tyre, the force that is then transferred to the car through the pushrod is not that great. Now in the pullrod, there is a situation that in the 2013 season with the high noses, the angle of the pullrod (to the horizontal) is very low. Here is the problem. With the very low angle, the force applied to the pullrod is much higher than that which would be applied to a pushrod on a car with the same nose height. This means that the pushrod will have a smaller effect on chassis flex and a manufacturer can build the nose much lighter, keeping weight away from the nose of the car and reducing the moment of inertia.

Now lets introduce the 2014 cars. The nose, by the suspension area, is now 100mm lower than in 2013. This means that the pushrod itself will be at a lower angle (to the horizontal) than before placing a slightly greater force on the pushrod and then on the nose of the chassis and suspension components. The pullrod however will no be running at a greater angle (to the horizontal) than in 2012/2013. This means that the vector of the force on the pullrod will be lower in 2014 and therefor produce a lower force on the suspension components and chassis.

To sum it all up it creates a situation where the slightly lower noses will work better with the pullrod than it did in 2012/2013. The structural problem will be slightly alleviated.

Hopefully this pic will help explain it a bit.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/Big/ ... on_big.jpg

P.S. If i am violating anything copyright please remove the picture. Thanks!

This is why i expected the MP4-28 to keep the lower chassis of the MP4-27. But they went for at higher chassis.

Great picture which aslo shows why pull-rod has a lower CoG than push-rod.

[xDama]

@ScarbsF1 retweeted this one.
http://brucethomsonsketchsite.files.wor ... omson1.jpg

That's one absolute beauty!

[Holm86]

https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/425248863927021569

[patrik]

omnicorse says silver car at presentation without title sponsor...

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... or&act=url

That appears to be the case. Their 2014 teamwear looks to be white+silver (flat gray?) with no title sponsors. Will McLaren run with no major sponsors in 2014? Was this the reason Martin got sacked and replaced by Ron?

[Holm86]

omnicorse says silver car at presentation without title sponsor...

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl ... or&act=url

That appears to be the case. Their 2014 teamwear looks to be white+silver (flat gray?) with no title sponsors. Will McLaren run with no major sponsors in 2014? Was this the reason Martin got sacked and replaced by Ron?

That doesnt mean anything. They've had teamwear which was black when their car was chrome/red.