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.
acosmichippo wrote:
problem is *everything* influences aerodynamic performance, including regular wishbones, so I don't think this specific rule is applicable. why do these wishbones "influence aero performance" when others do not? The only way to quantify this is to compare them against the rule that dictates the legal shapes suspension members can be. if mclarens wishbones fit in those parameters, then they should be legal. If FIA still doesn't like it, they'll have to amend that rule.
Interensting point. This one and Pup's.
Last edited by juanfran on 29 Jan 2014, 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
danielk wrote:all i can say is if that is allowed on the mclaren car (assuming this is a permanent fixture and not just a sensor ) it is taking the rules to the extreme.
Suspension arms do all currently create downforce/aeroneutral. But if this is allowed people will be fashioning the suspension in all sorts of wacky ways! If that is allowed at the back you will soon see some other wacky interpretation on the front suspension. with the suspension arms growing pieces all over the place to generate downforce.
That will happen, and probably the fia will tighten the rules for 2015 to ban this. But in the meanwhile tenths of millions will be spended redesigning the rear of cars.
Last edited by turbof1 on 29 Jan 2014, 19:38, edited 1 time in total.
I would have thought their goal would be to replace the downforce lost by both the removal of the beamwing and the coanda exhausts in this area. They almost appear to have a gurney flap shape along them. The rest of the part looks quite shallow.
I wonder if they are metal, possibly sintered titanium and Mclaren are using them as a heat shield? Just a very thick one Why would they not make the whole part out of carbon fiber?
turbof1 wrote: I think the fia will not want to complicate matters further by sorting what they can allow and what not.
Then why not strap a couple of Jet engines on to the side of the car
because afterburners are movable devices BTW, if this gonna be inside rules and also working at increasing D/L, i do see ferrari, rb and mercedes having this concept working while they are returning in Europe after the 4th gp, or even in Australia if the are gonna burning some more millions in rapid prototyping
Last edited by Frafer on 29 Jan 2014, 19:54, edited 1 time in total.
"I will miss Gilles for two reasons. First, he was the fastest driver in the history of motor racing. Second, he was the most genuine man I have ever known. But he has not gone. The memory of what he has done, what he achieved, will always be there." J. Scheckter
this photo shows that these appendages are attached to the suspension (you can see it on the left one)
it is possible that this solution is controlled by a kind of Fric?
It's legal. According to AMUS (google english translation variant) FIA gave Mclaren the green light last summer to folow this kind of design: "The width to height ratio must be 3.5:1 - but must not be more than 10 inches wide. The FIA has given McLaren did last summer green light. This speaks for the track rod theory."
McLaren would have run this past the FIA so debate on legality is pointless until the FIA ban it or someone protests the ruling. Following on from that McLaren would not run something the FIA hasn't OK'd.
Mind you, that doesn't rule out the FIA moving the goalposts........usually after a team or teams jumps up and down hard enough because they didn't think of it first.
So let's just focus on the technical debate because I'm fascinated to know more.
These arms are just two gigantic Gurney flaps that block air and create BOTH an air dam on top of the floor and a low pressure area directly behind to help the diffuser. Apparently the drag increase is small compared to the gain in down force you get from it.
They are illegal though, as one of their major purposes is to heavily influence the aerodynamics of the car and goes against the spirit of the rules to aid overtaking.
Alexgtt wrote:McLaren would have run this past the FIA so debate on legality is pointless until the FIA ban it or someone protests the ruling. Following on from that McLaren would not run something the FIA hasn't OK'd.
Mind you, that doesn't rule out the FIA moving the goalposts........usually after a team or teams jumps up and down hard enough because they didn't think of it first.
So let's just focus on the technical debate because I'm fascinated to know more.
Nope, they don't have to.. there is nothing stopping them from designing the car with it and testing it.
n smikle wrote:These arms are just two gigantic Gurney flaps that block air and create BOTH an air dam on top of the floor and a low pressure area directly behind to help the diffuser. Apparently the drag increase is small compared to the gain in down force you get from it.
They are illegal though, as one of their major purposes is to heavily influence the aerodynamics of the car and goes against the spirit of the rules to aid overtaking.
But the usual shape also influences the aerodynamic. The only purpose for the teardrop shape of them is to reduce drag. So why would they allow a teardrop shape as it clearly only has aerodynamic purposes?
turbof1 wrote: I think the fia will not want to complicate matters further by sorting what they can allow and what not.
Then why not strap a couple of Jet engines on to the side of the car
because afterburners are movable devices BTW, if this gonna be inside rules and also working at increasing D/L, i do see ferrari, rb and mercedes having this concept working while they are returning in Europe after the 4th gp, or even in Australia if the are gonna burning some more millions in rapid prototyping
Not so easy. For this to work, the suspension members have to be right at the diffuser edge. Otherwise, the low pressure area you're creating will be above the diffuser and not behind it and everything will just stall. So for them to copy the idea, they have to redesign their suspension and rear mounting points, and depending on those mounting points, undergo a new rear crash test.
Alexgtt wrote:McLaren would have run this past the FIA so debate on legality is pointless until the FIA ban it or someone protests the ruling. Following on from that McLaren would not run something the FIA hasn't OK'd.
Mind you, that doesn't rule out the FIA moving the goalposts........usually after a team or teams jumps up and down hard enough because they didn't think of it first.
So let's just focus on the technical debate because I'm fascinated to know more.
Nope, they don't have to.. there is nothing stopping them from designing the car with it and testing it.
Agreed but surely a total waste of time and resource best spent on developments that can actually be raced? I can't see them doing that unless they are just covers to what's happening underneath.
JimClarkFan wrote:Me think Mclaren should have introduced this at the last test
I think they need to know right away if this works or not in order to asses if they need to proceed with development of this concept or drop it.....
Or it can just be sensors ...
I completely understand that, but this gives the other teams the chance to have iterations out come the start of the season. I would have chanced my arm and left it as long as possible before the debut. Maybe that is why I am not a team boss lol
To get a proper copy of this tech appearing on a rival car would take until Barcelona gp as it would require a new gearbox casing as the pickup points need to be moved and inboard springs/dampers would need rehousing. Then they need to put the elements in the wind tunnel and find the ideal shape.
"I started out with nothing and I've still got most of it".
acosmichippo wrote:problem is *everything* influences aerodynamic performance, including regular wishbones, so I don't think this specific rule is applicable.
Thus the need for 10.3 to exist. Without it, there would be an argument over every cars' suspension every season.
) it is taking the rules to the extreme.
Why would they not make the whole part out of carbon fiber?
