Team: Tim Goss (TD), Sam Michael (SD), Simon Roberts (OD), Neil Oatley (Director of Design & Development), Jonathan Neale (MD), Ron Dennis (McLaren Group CEO) Drivers: Jenson Button (22), Kevin Magnussen (20), Stoffel Vandoorne (Res)
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
motobaleno wrote:infact we are again back to the BIG question about the spirit or the letter of the rules. If sporting rules are the same as law (where only letter counts) then rules like "any component of the suspension system must be aero neutral" should be canceled since literally they don't mean anything and you can only respect their "spirit". presently you only induce confusion (and discrimination) between teams that try to respect the spirit of the rules and teams that (rightly) respect only the letter
I don't think any team respects the so-called "spirit". If the others had thought of it and they would gain something by slapping it on the car, we can almost be sure it would be there.
No smartphone was involved in creating this message.
I cant say if i think that is legal or not or whether they will be ok, but one thing i can say is that the FIA better be ready for this year too. They are going to be very busy judging innovations like this.
Mr.G wrote:Regarding the LED, it should be GREEN when it's safe to manipulate with the car. It's for marshals.
Thanks very much for clearing that up!
So what you are saying is that from the pictures we have seen the Mclaren is unsafe? I joke!
As Blaze1 says they may be trying to create a low pressure area above the diffuser. There is only a tiny gap between them.There are 2 titanium fins on the rear crash structure behind the exhaust as well, they look like they are to prevent any exhaust plume bleeding over the edge of the crash structure onto the suspension components.
Looks like they have some sort of test rig bolted on to the rear wing. I wonder if that is what we can see in those rear pictures Perhaps they are testing the air flow over the rear suspension?
I compared the height of these suspension "beam wings" with the rear tyre height and it seems that the height of each of them is ~100mm. It looks like McLaren went for an aspect ratio of 1:1 (length:height), and if the symmetry and the 5° constraint is fulfilled, it seems legal to me. =D> =D>
The regulations on this:
"10.3 Suspension members :
10.3.1 With the exception of minimal local changes of section for the passage of hydraulic brake lines, electrical wiring and wheel tethers or the attachment of flexures, rod ends and spherical bearings, the cross-sections of each member of every suspension component, when taken normal to a straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, must :
a) Intersect the straight line between the inner and outer attachment points.
b) Have a major axis no greater than 100mm.
c) Have an aspect ratio no greater than 3.5:1.
d) Have no dimension which exceeds 100mm.
The major axis will be defined as the largest axis of symmetry of any such cross-section. The length of the intersection of this axis with the cross-section must not be less than 95% of the maximum dimension of the section.
10.3.2 Suspension members having shared attachment points will be considered by a virtual dissection into discrete members.
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height."
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)
1. The driveshaft looks so skinny compared to the Williams
2. If they're planning to run the shutters on the rear suspension; from a #armchairaero perspective, surely that's not cheap in terms of drag?
Could the be trying to make a point on extreme interpretation to see what's permissible in that area, prompting some FIA clarifications/directives? After all, they probably wouldn't need to show their hand on [effectively] day 1 if they've found something?
Blanchimont wrote:
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height."
But they are currently seem to be at an angle of 85° or more to the reference plane (= floor). Are we sure that these are the suspension arms and not wing supports, attaching the monkey seat to the rear wing (or the other way around)?
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Blanchimont wrote:
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height."
But they are currently seem to be at an angle of 85° or more to the reference plane (= floor). Are we sure that these are the suspension arms and not wing supports, attaching the monkey seat to the rear wing (or the other way around)?
As the rules say no major axis has to be angled less then 5° then it should be legal because every symmetrical shape has 2 major axis. (So no difference to conventional suspension)
Blanchimont wrote:I compared the height of these suspension "beam wings" with the rear tyre height and it seems that the height of each of them is ~100mm. It looks like McLaren went for an aspect ratio of 1:1 (length:height), and if the symmetry and the 5° constraint is fulfilled, it seems legal to me. =D> =D>
Do you mean the profile is something like this:
Last edited by avatar on 29 Jan 2014, 12:29, edited 1 time in total.
I've been wondering if the nose that failed the crash test for McLaren was closer in design to the Mercedes & Ferrari noses or even the Red Bull nose? It could be that the 'finger' style nose was a banker design that McLaren were confident would pass the crash test.
If so, would the rest of the aero work with the other nose types? For one thing the dog ear camera positions are not there and that seems pretty core to the design on the Merc and Ferrari?
Blanchimont wrote:
10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height."
But they are currently seem to be at an angle of 85° or more to the reference plane (= floor). Are we sure that these are the suspension arms and not wing supports, attaching the monkey seat to the rear wing (or the other way around)?
As the rules say no major axis has to be angled less then 5° then it should be legal because every symmetrical shape has 2 major axis. (So no difference to conventional suspension)
"The major axis will be defined as the largest axis of symmetry of any such cross-section. The length of the intersection of this axis with the cross-section must not be less than 95% of the maximum dimension of the section."
I joke!
