McLaren MP4-29 Mercedes

[emmepi27]

Have you seen it?

[Tommi870]

Damn, if it wasn't for the thin nose end this would actually be beautiful.

Why the heck couldn't Fia get the nose regulations right? IT's not all that difficult, is it?

[diego1960]

What about the carbon nose at abou 0:40 look different but still matching 2014 regs.

This?

http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r72 ... bdd71f.jpg

Looks to me like one of those speculation MCD pictures... Just need to find it... There it is.

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/mame_nafr/im ... 747f39.png

This certainly looks prettier and more proportionate that the monstrosity of a nose they revealed yesterday.

It may sound stupid but I really thing that such questionable rules that lead to these ugly designs hurt the sport. A lot of average fans will not bother to watch the races if they see these ridiculous-looking cars strolling around in slow pace in order to conserve fuel. Maybe its my irrational fear, maybe not.

In any case, to be on-topic, is the rear suspension we saw yesterday the innovative one we read about?

[daveyrace]

After being a long time reader of the threads I have decided to participate, with my limited knowledge. Hello all!

I had a thought and thought I would put it out there.

This is purely speculative, what if the rear wing endplates, which do not appear to be connected to the new upper rear wishbones are designed to push down onto the wishbones when the wing and suspension is loaded at speed or through cornering. Would this in effect direct the rear wing downforce onto the rear suspension? Which would be advantageous? It would pass scrutineering as there is no connection at rest. From the images so far, which heavily shy away from the rear of the car the gap between seems very tight. We have all seen previous rear wings 'wobble' (especially last years merc) you would expect a larger tolerance especially when the rear wing is only supported by the single central pillar which has a very slender cross section.

If I am right this years must have is a flexi-rear wing not a phallic front If not Mclaren have done a good job with their tolerances =D>

Feel free to shoot me down.

[acosmichippo]

you really think a bit of a funky nose is going to put off viewers? people watch f1 for the spectacle, not to appreciate the attractiveness of the cars. Let's face it, there are many prettier cars in other racing series.

And the cars shouldn't be that much slower. 3 seconds max, probably less from what people are saying. Yes, that's a lot in f1 terms, but they're still way faster than any other formula. If anything, I think the new regs will increase viewership simply due to the unpredictability that will come with the less reliable engines

[timbo]

After being a long time reader of the threads I have decided to participate, with my limited knowledge. Hello all!

I had a thought and thought I would put it out there.

This is purely speculative, what if the rear wing endplates, which do not appear to be connected to the new upper rear wishbones are designed to push down onto the wishbones when the wing and suspension is loaded at speed or through cornering. Would this in effect direct the rear wing downforce onto the rear suspension? Which would be advantageous? It would pass scrutineering as there is no connection at rest. From the images so far, which heavily shy away from the rear of the car the gap between seems very tight. We have all seen previous rear wings 'wobble' (especially last years merc) you would expect a larger tolerance especially when the rear wing is only supported by the single central pillar which has a very slender cross section.

If I am right this years must have is a flexi-rear wing not a phallic front If not Mclaren have done a good job with their tolerances =D>

Feel free to shoot me down.

I think the idea is a gigantic PITA to make work predictably. A driver does not want a rear suspension which has a dramatic threshold-like operation envelope. And the idea will most likely be shot down by FIA immediately. Also, flex of the rear wing is tightly controlled from as far back as 1999.

[Del Boy]

After being a long time reader of the threads I have decided to participate, with my limited knowledge. Hello all!

I had a thought and thought I would put it out there.

This is purely speculative, what if the rear wing endplates, which do not appear to be connected to the new upper rear wishbones are designed to push down onto the wishbones when the wing and suspension is loaded at speed or through cornering. Would this in effect direct the rear wing downforce onto the rear suspension? Which would be advantageous? It would pass scrutineering as there is no connection at rest. From the images so far, which heavily shy away from the rear of the car the gap between seems very tight. We have all seen previous rear wings 'wobble' (especially last years merc) you would expect a larger tolerance especially when the rear wing is only supported by the single central pillar which has a very slender cross section.

If I am right this years must have is a flexi-rear wing not a phallic front If not Mclaren have done a good job with their tolerances =D>

Feel free to shoot me down.

You wouldn't gain anything by directly pushing on the suspension. The downforce generated is still the same. The only difference is the downforce becomes unsprung weight.

[PhillipM]

You wouldn't gain anything by directly pushing on the suspension. The downforce generated is still the same. The only difference is the downforce becomes unsprung weight.

Yeah, it's that useless it's been explicitly banned by the regs for decades....seriously, just re-read what you wrote and hang your head in shame.

And it's unsprung mass you need to worry about for suspension performance, 'unsprung weight' isn't a bad thing...

[SiLo]

It is beneficial, that's why teams used to do it so much. You can push the car to the floor without effecting the ride hide with the downforce. Instead of pushing the car which pushes the suspensions which pushes the tyres. You can simply mount the pickup points incredibly close to the edges of the suspension and effectively just push the tyres.

So it's incredibly beneficial if they managed to do it, although I very much doubt they have.

[daveyrace]

Maybe the rear wing does not need to flex. If the rear downforce 'squats' the car by x amount at a given speed then the rear suspension effectively moves up towards the end plates. I would have thought it relatively easy for Mclaren to work out the suspension deflection for any given speed so that contact is made and maintained above this point. If there is no contact in parc ferme at 0 mph then it should pass? The main problem that I could see with it would be damage to the suspension arms/endplates where they meet. What interface do they have. As well as its effect on the suspension movement.
If not then they have aerodynamically sealed the rear wing to the rear suspension arm very well, I am sure that is of benefit.

On a side note the car has quite bloated bodywork at the rear, I assume this is to ensure they have sufficient cooling as well as handily hiding the rear at launch, I wouldnt be surprised if the rear bodywork changes quite a bit over the testing, I seem to remember it did last year(probably wrong ). I am sure Ron wouldnt want any burn marks on his cars like the chappies at Mercedes seem content with .

[PhillipM]

I would expect most cars to tighten up the sidepod exits and undercut the front of the sidepods more after testing. I think everyone will have gone fairly safe with the cooling this year until they get the cars actually out on track.

[emmepi27]

I think McLaren has a "termal beam wing"

[gavingav1]

After being a long time reader of the threads I have decided to participate, with my limited knowledge. Hello all!

I had a thought and thought I would put it out there.

This is purely speculative, what if the rear wing endplates, which do not appear to be connected to the new upper rear wishbones are designed to push down onto the wishbones when the wing and suspension is loaded at speed or through cornering. Would this in effect direct the rear wing downforce onto the rear suspension? Which would be advantageous? It would pass scrutineering as there is no connection at rest. From the images so far, which heavily shy away from the rear of the car the gap between seems very tight. We have all seen previous rear wings 'wobble' (especially last years merc) you would expect a larger tolerance especially when the rear wing is only supported by the single central pillar which has a very slender cross section.

If I am right this years must have is a flexi-rear wing not a phallic front If not Mclaren have done a good job with their tolerances =D>

Feel free to shoot me down.

Wouldnt it make the rear wing a movable aero device ,which are not allowed apart from the rear wing flap

[i70q7m7ghw]

What about the carbon nose at abou 0:40 look different but still matching 2014 regs.

This?

http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r72 ... bdd71f.jpg

Looks to me like one of those speculation MCD pictures... Just need to find it... There it is.

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/mame_nafr/im ... 747f39.png

Already said that looks like the MP4-22 nose

It has a notch in the top which lines up with the chassis of the MP4-22. This notch wouldn't line up anywhere on the MP4-29.

[avatar]

That nosecone looks more like this

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 2007_3.jpg
or
http://wakpaper.com/large/Mclaren_wallpapers_100.jpg

Yup.
Looks very much like it.
Maybe just an older sequence in the clip?

To me the pylons look to high for the 2014 regs.
This nose looks rather as if it was made for a 625mm AA line bulkhead.

Exactly. The video cuts at the closeup of the shrouded car before the reveal, so the could re-use the footage for any launch. I'd guess they shot the lead-in for the reveal maybe even years before. It's a carefully staged and timed sequence - they're unlikely to have included anything not already in the public domain, no matter how trivial.

The people seen in the lead-in aren't just going about their business with the camera serendipitously passing someone sitting down for some CFD work and a guy presenting a noise to the camera. Someone spent hours storyboarding it and planning every shot and camera track.

...

On the "wing attached to the rear suspension" - watch the video, it's not attached. In some of the stills a reflection + jpeg artefacting looks a bit like a mounting point, but it is just a reflection + JPEG artefacting.

Unsprung DF is beneficial but is [supposed to be] banned [though the break ducts and suspension shrouding are exploited]
Unsprung DF was the reason for Colin Chapman's double floor - constant (more or less) height from ground allowing better control of ground effects, and additional DF without affecting vehicle dynamics by compressing the suspension as sprung down force would.

...