McLaren MP4-29 Mercedes

[i70q7m7ghw]

If you look at the rear suspension on the Red Bull:-



And then look at the McLaren:-


Using the drive shaft for reference, you can see just how radically different the geometry is. The Red Bull rear pickup points are actually forward of the rear axle! If Red Bull wanted to adopt this, they would have to completely redesign their rear suspension, and possibly repackage the rear to get the pick-up points in.

Would they also need to get the rear-crash structure tested?

[turbof1]

Yes, because you would be drilling into the crash structure basicilly, as well as shaping it's edges for air extraction.

[Pup]

Sorry for maybe ignorant question, but could other teams add another tie rod and lower wishbone , that will not do anything or affect current suspension, but just be used as Mclaren's mushroom suspension?
In other words false tie rod and lower wishbone?

10.3.5 - Redundant suspension members are not permitted.

[Pup]

Yet another interesting comment from Button...

"Looking at the timesheets today it's very interesting because we're running a very different programme to Rosberg and Mercedes. We're running very different engine modes, we're trying different things, so we're getting a lot of information from both cars. Also with Bottas and with Perez as well.

"So there's a lot of information, a lot of mileage. I think it's 75% of the mileage done by an F1 car has a Mercedes engine. You could say we're in good shape that way as long as it continues like that. We all need to work together. Obviously at the end of the day we're all here to fight each other as teams but the more information that we can share over the next weeks and months can really make a difference to our championship."

Merc really want to come out of these tests as the dominant engine.

[radosav]

Sorry for maybe ignorant question, but could other teams add another tie rod and lower wishbone , that will not do anything or affect current suspension, but just be used as Mclaren's mushroom suspension?
In other words false tie rod and lower wishbone?

10.3.5 - Redundant suspension members are not permitted.

OK!

[SidSidney]

If you look carefully at the mushroom profile, it is basically the shape of a NACA duct. That old NACA scoop shape has some very interesting properties in terms of drag and pressure on the 2D surface, facing the same way as this mushroom beam - I wonder what it is doing in the orthogonal 3D plane in this application?

Also if you look at the very high resolutions pics (http://www.formula1.com/wi/enlarge/0x0/ ... 9ja038.jpg), you can see the leading edge is currently fastened on, implying they can change the profile by swapping parts and adjust this element for need / track.

[muelte]

But then how could they say that those are structural components and not bodywork?

[beelsebob]

But then how could they say that those are structural components and not bodywork?

Would the suspension work without the wishbone? No. Then it's structural.

[Pup]

I think he means that because it looks like there are extra bits screwed on, those extra bits aren't structural.

But of course they could be - they don't have to be moulded together to be structural. Though I'm sure it's a question which has been, or will be raised by the FIA/other teams.

I'm sure McLaren could argue, for example, that because the trailing arms are so long, they require vertical stiffening. And they chose for that stiffening piece to be separate, for whatever reason.

[beelsebob]

I think he means that because it looks like there are extra bits screwed on, those extra bits aren't structural.

But of course they could be - they don't have to be moulded together to be structural. Though I'm sure it's a question which has been, or will be raised by the FIA/other teams.

I'm sure McLaren could argue, for example, that because the trailing arms are so long, they require vertical stiffening. And they chose for that stiffening piece to be separate, for whatever reason.

I would assume that by the time McLaren run this they would build the arms as one solid CF lump, and hence it would be clear that it could not be removed without the suspension collapsing.

[radosav]

I think he means that because it looks like there are extra bits screwed on, those extra bits aren't structural.

But of course they could be - they don't have to be moulded together to be structural. Though I'm sure it's a question which has been, or will be raised by the FIA/other teams.

I'm sure McLaren could argue, for example, that because the trailing arms are so long, they require vertical stiffening. And they chose for that stiffening piece to be separate, for whatever reason.

I would assume that by the time McLaren run this they would build the arms as one solid CF lump, and hence it would be clear that it could not be removed without the suspension collapsing.

How will Mclaren justify change of ''vertical stiffening'' if it shows that shape of that parts doesn't provide expected aerodynamical benefit, and needs to be changed?

[beelsebob]

I think he means that because it looks like there are extra bits screwed on, those extra bits aren't structural.

But of course they could be - they don't have to be moulded together to be structural. Though I'm sure it's a question which has been, or will be raised by the FIA/other teams.

I'm sure McLaren could argue, for example, that because the trailing arms are so long, they require vertical stiffening. And they chose for that stiffening piece to be separate, for whatever reason.

I would assume that by the time McLaren run this they would build the arms as one solid CF lump, and hence it would be clear that it could not be removed without the suspension collapsing.

How will Mclaren justify change of ''vertical stiffening'' if it shows that shape of that parts doesn't provide expected aerodynamical benefit, and needs to be changed?

Why would they need to explain it?

[PhillipM]

They don't need to justify anything. That's what rules are for.
Every single team builds their suspension for aero benefit, nobody else has been stopped. Look at the massive angles on the front setups for example, merc lower wishbone, track rods placed in line with wishbones - all aero.

[radosav]

They don't need to justify anything. That's what rules are for.
Every single team builds their suspension for aero benefit, nobody else has been stopped. Look at the massive angles on the front setups for example, merc lower wishbone, track rods placed in line with wishbones - all aero.

I thought that FIA could say that it is moveable aero device if they maybe change it too many times.
Spirit of the rules, or something like that.

[acosmichippo]

"spirit of the rules" doesn't matter, unless you're arguing that FIA might alter the rules in the future.

The only thing that matters NOW is that the actual rules allow it.