McLaren MP4-29 Mercedes

[i70q7m7ghw]

It's not moveable aero because they are the suspension arms. The suspension arms are aero neutral as they should be, they are just a lot beefier. Although it's clear what they are doing, it could be hard to ban these as aero, McLaren could claim they are just reinforced suspension arms. There aren't any rules to prevent over engineering a component.

[McG]

I think it will be banned no matter if it's against rules or not. As people have mentioned before, there seems to be a loophole in the regulations for the aero on the suspension, that loophole works both ways.

More legit things have been banned on a McLaren.

Dont forget that many loophole's were allowed also, for example the double diffuser ......so lets wait and see.

I mean specifically McLaren get things banned. Others get the rules relaxed for a few years before it gets banned.

#conspiracy

[Blackout]

[Blackout]

Those 'Blanchimont bells' look relatively thick

[Shakeman]

It's not moveable aero because they are the suspension arms. The suspension arms are aero neutral as they should be, they are just a lot beefier. Although it's clear what they are doing, it could be hard to ban these as aero, McLaren could claim they are just reinforced suspension arms. There aren't any rules to prevent over engineering a component.

I think McLaren will have a hard job explaining them away as anything but moveable aero. Unless they're some trick gubbins for the suspension then their only purpose is aero.

I'm still unsure what they actually do and how worthwhile they are compared to no being there in the first place.

[SLC]

Those 'Blanchimont bells' look relatively thick
http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 751611.jpg

Wait now I'm confused. The "bell" section/geometry is not on the rearward leg of the upper wishbone cause you can clearly see both legs ahead of the fairing.

So the upper "bell/blind" must be part of the trackrod, and the lower one part of the rearward leg of the lower wishbone. But need to look at the lower suspension arm more closely.

If McLaren can show that these bits are structural parts of the suspension (ie, that they carry load) then they are exempt from the regs pertaining to moveable aerodynamics (which means they are "legal"). But they *have* to be structural. If they are simply plastic fairings covering the inner carbon leg then they will have a very hard time arguing that they are not moveable aerodynamic devices.

[i70q7m7ghw]

It's not moveable aero because they are the suspension arms. The suspension arms are aero neutral as they should be, they are just a lot beefier. Although it's clear what they are doing, it could be hard to ban these as aero, McLaren could claim they are just reinforced suspension arms. There aren't any rules to prevent over engineering a component.

I think McLaren will have a hard job explaining them away as anything but moveable aero. Unless they're some trick gubbins for the suspension then their only purpose is aero.

I'm still unsure what they actually do and how worthwhile they are compared to no being there in the first place.

But on that basis a suspension arm of any shape is moveable aero? If the bulk is part of the suspension arms structure that is. In its current form it looks bolted on. I suspect a refined version would be a single piece.

Plot twist: McLaren hire Ross Brawn and use his court room skills to win the inevitable appeal like he did in 2009 with the double diffusers.

[miguelalvesreis]

My theory on Mc rear "butterfly" suspension:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfJyJw8CYAEG1aM.jpg
red: hot gasses from PU
green: "butterfly suspension"
yellow: very low pressure zone
under diffuser: almost high pressure

High pressure under the diffuser? Not supposed to be exactly the opposite?

[Maynard G. Krebs]

Those 'Blanchimont bells' look relatively thick
http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 751611.jpg

Wait now I'm confused. The "bell" section/geometry is not on the rearward leg of the upper wishbone cause you can clearly see both legs ahead of the fairing.

So the upper "bell/blind" must be part of the trackrod, and the lower one part of the rearward leg of the lower wishbone. But need to look at the lower suspension arm more closely.

If McLaren can show that these bits are structural parts of the suspension (ie, that they carry load) then they are exempt from the regs pertaining to moveable aerodynamics (which means they are "legal"). But they *have* to be structural. If they are simply plastic fairings covering the inner carbon leg then they will have a very hard time arguing that they are not moveable aerodynamic devices.

I know! Now they look like ducting.

[miguelalvesreis]

Might be that each arm per si is totally aero neutral but, working in conjunction with each other and the floor they have an aero effect? Would that be deemed legal?

Regarding the drag, aren't 2014 cars supposed to have way less drag? If so, they would kindly trade that increase with DF increase to levels near 2013!

[beelsebob]

It's not moveable aero because they are the suspension arms. The suspension arms are aero neutral as they should be, they are just a lot beefier. Although it's clear what they are doing, it could be hard to ban these as aero, McLaren could claim they are just reinforced suspension arms. There aren't any rules to prevent over engineering a component.

I think McLaren will have a hard job explaining them away as anything but moveable aero. Unless they're some trick gubbins for the suspension then their only purpose is aero.

I'm still unsure what they actually do and how worthwhile they are compared to no being there in the first place.

But on that basis a suspension arm of any shape is moveable aero? If the bulk is part of the suspension arms structure that is. In its current form it looks bolted on. I suspect a refined version would be a single piece.

Plot twist: McLaren hire Ross Brawn and use his court room skills to win the inevitable appeal like he did in 2009 with the double diffusers.

I'm pretty confident McLaren are going to be told to take this off, it'd be pretty hard to argue that these parts are structural, and as we can see from the rules "Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork." And, as we all know, bodywork "Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

I can't see how McLaren will be allowed to race these parts.

[beelsebob]

Might be that each arm per si is totally aero neutral but, working in conjunction with each other and the floor they have an aero effect? Would that be deemed legal?

The rules don't mention anything about aero neutrality, they mention being symmetrical (which these parts clearly conform to). However, as I said in the above post, I do believe they're considered bodywork, and hence should not move.

[turbof1]

Might be that each arm per si is totally aero neutral but, working in conjunction with each other and the floor they have an aero effect? Would that be deemed legal?

Regarding the drag, aren't 2014 cars supposed to have way less drag? If so, they would kindly trade that increase with DF increase to levels near 2013!

That would be legal; teams have been applying the concept of stacking aero neutral in several areas for years now. In previous years for instance they used the neutral middle section of the FW in conjunction with the neutral cameras to create downforce.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think McLaren will have a hard job explaining them away as anything but moveable aero. Unless they're some trick gubbins for the suspension then their only purpose is aero.

I'm still unsure what they actually do and how worthwhile they are compared to no being there in the first place.

But on that basis a suspension arm of any shape is moveable aero? If the bulk is part of the suspension arms structure that is. In its current form it looks bolted on. I suspect a refined version would be a single piece.

Plot twist: McLaren hire Ross Brawn and use his court room skills to win the inevitable appeal like he did in 2009 with the double diffusers.

I'm pretty confident McLaren are going to be told to take this off, it'd be pretty hard to argue that these parts are structural, and as we can see from the rules "Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork." And, as we all know, bodywork "Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

I can't see how McLaren will be allowed to race these parts.

They could manufacture a suspension arm of this shape all as one part, at which point it would become structural.

We could all be way off base here, it could just be testing equipment.

[beelsebob]

I'm pretty confident McLaren are going to be told to take this off, it'd be pretty hard to argue that these parts are structural, and as we can see from the rules "Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork." And, as we all know, bodywork "Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car."

I can't see how McLaren will be allowed to race these parts.

They could manufacture a suspension arm of this shape all as one part, at which point it would become structural.

We could all be way off base here, it could just be testing equipment.

Right, I'm sure if this is an aero device then that's what they'd argue, I just don't see it flying with the FIA. They'd simply assert "no, we know very well that you can produce suspension arms that are the same shape minus the paddle on the back, and that they are absolutely strong enough, clearly these are not structural."