McLaren MP4-29 Mercedes

[turbof1]

I don't see anybody copying this until atleast after 5 races. Teams probably can't be bothered with it at the moment because they need to evaluate coming aero packages, a massive task on its own, and when the season starts they are stuck with their current suspension geometry because the pick up points are fixed in gearboxes they are only allowed to change once every 5 races. Maybe a driver gets bad luck with his current gearbox, forcing the team to change and taking the penalty anyway, so they could switch earlier to a spec that supports the mclaren suspension, but even then it still requires a newly tested rear crash structure.

The task more or less compares to what Newey faced in 2009 when he suddenly had to accomondate a DDD. It took him until Monaco to get the job done. And that was a upgrade with very obvious advantages; this mushroom suspension is less an obvious benefit.

[Shakeman]

There is very little point in debating the drag etc. We all know that downforce is KING so if this device brings a favourable augmentation (i.e. pros outweigh the cons) to the rear loadings it will stay and the rest of the grid will copy it.

That's way too simplistic, efficient downforce is king. The debate is whether the cost/benefit analysis falls in favour of McLaren's solution in the new fuel limited formula.

Now that the FIA have ratified quite extreme suspension arm profiles what's to stop teams turning their suspension arms into beam wings? Is there a dimension constraint on suspension arms?

[thedutchguy]

One thing I don't understand:

Normally teams try everything to get as much air over the diffuser by narrowing the coke bottle shape of the cars, whereas these mushrooms from McLaren seem to do the opposide, blocking air from going directly over the diffuser, pushing it up instead and creating a low pressure zone directly behind the mushrooms

So why don't they just use the bodywork of the car to do that by creating less of a coke-bottle so that the air isn't channeld in that direction in the first place? Wouldn't this create the same effect but with much less drag?

(The answer is obvously no, but I don't understand why not)

[turbof1]

One thing I don't understand:

Normally teams try everything to get as much air over the diffuser by narrowing the coke bottle shape of the cars, whereas these mushrooms from McLaren seem to do the opposide, blocking air from going directly over the diffuser, pushing it up instead and creating a low pressure zone directly behind the mushrooms

So why don't they just use the bodywork of the car to do that by creating less of a coke-bottle so that the air isn't channeld in that direction in the first place? Wouldn't this create the same effect but with much less drag?

(The answer is obvously no, but I don't understand why not)

The mushroom suspension actually helps with downforce creation over the diffuser. In front of the suspension, and thus on top of the diffuser, a very high pressure zone will actually "press" on top of the diffuser.

In the past teams teams used the beam wing to transition high pressure airflow to lower pressure airflow through the beam wing. Mclaren still does that with a lower beam wing now. Keep in mind that the placement of the beam wing was crucial.

[adrianjordan]

Selective quoting. Newey said that from what he'd heard they would be draggy. That quote was before he'd had the chance to actually look at them.

Why is quoting Newey, a fair comment of his BTW, somehow selective quoting?

Of course it's going to be draggy, you don't need to be Adrian Newey to see that.

The point is whether the drag of the louvered suspension is worth the extra diffuser performance and will prove to be an advantage in the race when fuel efficiency and maybe top speed will be at a premium.

I'm as interested as anyone to see if McLaren have got their sums right and this proves to be an overall benefit.

Because Newey hadn't seen the profile of them when he made that quote, so missing out the part where he said that changes the implied meaning of the quote. Also, at that point he didn't know the profile of them (I'm sure he does now though) and so couldn't realistically tell whether they created a lot of drag or not... He may be a genius, but he's not psychic!!

[Alexgtt]

[/quote]

Because Newey hadn't seen the profile of them when he made that quote, so missing out the part where he said that changes the implied meaning of the quote. Also, at that point he didn't know the profile of them (I'm sure he does now though) and so couldn't realistically tell whether they created a lot of drag or not... He may be a genius, but he's not psychic!![/quote]

Indeed. All the teams knew McLaren had exploited something in a very clever way. The first reaction in F1 is always the same:

It's illegal.

Then, they think about it for a while and say:

It's not in the "spirit" of the rules. It won't work.

That's the "spirit" of the rules they've all been looking for since racing started.

Newey is no different. He's just able to react better than anyone else to recoup the advantage..........................if, indeed there is one. And the way everyone is reacting, there obviously seems to be a fair one.

I'm not a McLaren fanboy but I love clever design. So =D> McLaren.

[Shakeman]

Because Newey hadn't seen the profile of them when he made that quote, so missing out the part where he said that changes the implied meaning of the quote. Also, at that point he didn't know the profile of them (I'm sure he does now though) and so couldn't realistically tell whether they created a lot of drag or not... He may be a genius, but he's not psychic!!

It doesn't take a genius to work out that much obstruction to the airflow causes drag. Their whole purpose is to obstruct the airflow.

[Coefficient]

There is very little point in debating the drag etc. We all know that downforce is KING so if this device brings a favourable augmentation (i.e. pros outweigh the cons) to the rear loadings it will stay and the rest of the grid will copy it.

That's way too simplistic, efficient downforce is king. The debate is whether the cost/benefit analysis falls in favour of McLaren's solution in the new fuel limited formula.

Your sentence is exactly the same as mine except the efficiency part was implicit in mine hence the "if this device brings a favourable augmentation (i.e. pros outweigh the cons)".

[absbeginner]

Indeed. All the teams knew McLaren had exploited something in a very clever way. The first reaction in F1 is always the same:

It's illegal.

Then, they think about it for a while and say:

It's not in the "spirit" of the rules. It won't work.

That's the "spirit" of the rules they've all been looking for since racing started.

Actually the spirit of the rules exists, Whiting offered a perfect description six years ago:

Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended
to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance
of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move
further once the maximum test load is exceeded.

That's it, rules are "intended to".

If it exist an exclusion zone under the rear wing it is intended to forbid the installation of any aerodinamic device. Otherwise McLaren is right.

[hollus]

Now that the FIA have ratified quite extreme suspension arm profiles what's to stop teams turning their suspension arms into beam wings? Is there a dimension constraint on suspension arms?

The detailed answer somewhere in this forum, andnot at all difficult to find, but anyways:
Basically the spahes are limited to 100mm in lenght, they have to be symmetric to a horizontal plane (plus/minus 5 degrees) and they have to be longer than they are tall. So any shape with a wing function that has a significant vertical profile will have to also be quite long (read heavy). And the symmetry rule ensures that such function can only work well in the proximity of another element, like the other wishbone or the floor, so it will make for a crippled wing.

And no, they are not necessarily draggier. They look like it and they probably are, (they are for sure by themselves), but if the extra diffuser downforce allows you to take out rear wing, which is about the more draggy downforce producing part in the car, these wishbones can have a negative effective drag.

[Ferraripilot]

this mushroom suspension is less an obvious benefit.

We still don't know how much of a benefit it is either (in terms of points of downforce), but it's obviously worth something or Mclaren wouldn't be using it. Is it enough to lay waste to the field? I think not, but I do believe it's enough to get Mclaren somewhat back on form at the sharp end. On top of this we still have to live through the formal protest which will undoubtedly take place in Australia, and I'm sure the arguments from TDs are at the ready.

[henra]

With all due respect, how are you sure it creates "all that extra drag"? I don't think we can assume they are as draggy as they may appear. Heck there's not even agreement on their shape yet! I don't think we know nearly enough to make any assumptions about these things and what they may do/cause.

The devices themselves will be relatively draggy.
(Basic physics: Rho/2cwAv^2).
Lets have a look at the OoM:
Cw for a Body with the given shape will be somewhere in the ballpark 0,3 - 0,5. A ~ 0,25m x 0,6m.
At 300km/h this would mean roughly 20kW for increased drag (at assumed cw 0,4).
So not devastatingly hig but noticeable.

Re not knowing the exact shape: The exact shape of the devices is largely irrelevant since most of the drag will come from the pressure loss due to the almost vertical rear side. Front shape will only minimally influence that via the direction of the streamlines when moving past the vertical part. This can increase the size of the low pressure area and thus increase drag of the device itself.

What is not known is the exact effect it has on the diffuser and thus any possible reduction in Rear Wing Drag.
Since the horizontal velocity in the low pressure area is probably not extremely high, I'm not sure the overall effect of the device itself on the diffuser will be terribly big. That is why LMP cars try to minimize the height of the rear end over the diiffuser as much as possible. It causes inefficient DF.
The difference and thus (main) benefit here is that it will help 'connecting' the diffuser to the lower side of the Rear Wing, thereby increasing the extraction volume behind the diffuser. This, however is most beneficial at high AoA of the rear wing. Therefore lower Angles of the Rear Wing might not be where this solution will shine.

[Alexgtt]

[/quote]
Actually the spirit of the rules exists, Whiting offered a perfect description six years ago:

Whiting wrote: "The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended
to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance
of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move
further once the maximum test load is exceeded.

That's it, rules are "intended to".

If it exist an exclusion zone under the rear wing it is intended to forbid the installation of any aerodinamic device. Otherwise McLaren is right.[/quote]

Agree. I never said the "spirit" of the rules didn't exist. Merely stated everybody exploits the "spirit" of the rules, especially Newey.

Only problem I have is it blurs the lines. In my book rules are rules. Find a clever way round them it should be allowed and I applaud any team that arrives at that clever solution. They should encourage innovation, not stifle it.

[Shakeman]

With all due respect, how are you sure it creates "all that extra drag"? I don't think we can assume they are as draggy as they may appear. Heck there's not even agreement on their shape yet! I don't think we know nearly enough to make any assumptions about these things and what they may do/cause.

The devices themselves will be relatively draggy.
(Basic physics: Rho/2cwAv^2).
Lets have a look at the OoM:
Cw for a Body with the given shape will be somewhere in the ballpark 0,3 - 0,5. A ~ 0,25m x 0,6m.
At 300km/h this would mean roughly 20kW for increased drag (at assumed cw 0,4).
So not devastatingly hig but noticeable.

Re not knowing the exact shape: The exact shape of the devices is largely irrelevant since most of the drag will come from the pressure loss due to the almost vertical rear side. Front shape will only minimally influence that via the direction of the streamlines when moving past the vertical part. This can increase the size of the low pressure area and thus increase drag of the device itself.

What is not known is the exact effect it has on the diffuser and thus any possible reduction in Rear Wing Drag.
Since the horizontal velocity in the low pressure area is probably not extremely high, I'm not sure the overall effect of the device itself on the diffuser will be terribly big. That is why LMP cars try to minimize the height of the rear end over the diiffuser as much as possible. It causes inefficient DF.
The difference and thus (main) benefit here is that it will help 'connecting' the diffuser to the lower side of the Rear Wing, thereby increasing the extraction volume behind the diffuser. This, however is most beneficial at high AoA of the rear wing. Therefore lower Angles of the Rear Wing might not be where this solution will shine.

Thank you, that was exactly the post the conversation had been lacking until now.

[ringo]

Things aren't as complicated as they seem. Each year i'm told teams can't slap on stuff on their car that other teams have, and yet they still slap on parts like leggo pieces. These wishbones will be mimicked in a few practice sessions on the existing wishbones. Maybe a team throws on some huge gurneys in practice to see what the benefit is.
And if the readings are postive then they will pursue it. The main delay in this kind of innovation is time allotment. It seems most of the team will be focused on the engine and fuel savings side of things as compared to previous years.
If Mclaren start flying around the track 2 seconds faster than anyone else with the same engine, then we'll see a mad dash for butterfly Arms.