McLaren MP4-29 Mercedes

[Duke]

That would suggest a low drag wing for China / Monza.

[Owen.C93]

What Piola / GA missed is that the cascade is actually narrower on the new wing too, I talked about it here:

http://grandprix247.com/2014/04/10/tech ... downforce/

It doesn't look any narrower to me.
http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 769427.jpg

Perhaps perspective is playing it's part again then but the older cascades looked a lot wider to me

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/So ... 6e3b44.jpg

Yeah the pic I linked was a spec between the latest and your inset.

[mclaren_mircea]

How many gearboxes
can be used? If he change the gearbox after 3 races, the next one has to last 9 races, to have 12 races for 2 gearboxes?[/quote]

There is also a provision in the rules that they can change damaged parts in a gearbox if the fia delgate is satisfied that there is actual damage. So, if clutch was the problem and there is damage to the gearbox, they might just replace worn out or damaged parts.[/quote]

Sporting regulations:
....
a)
Each driver may use no more than one gearbox for six consecutive Events in which his
team competes. Should a driver use a replacement gearbox he will drop five places on
the starting grid at that Event and an additional five places each time a further gearbox
is used.
Any replacement gearbox will only be required to complete the remainder of the Event
in question.

Unless the driver fails to finish the race (or is unable to start the race for reasons other
than a penalty imposed by the stewards) the gearbox fitted to the car at the end of the
Event must remain in it for the remainder of the six race sequence.
Any driver who failed to finish the race at the first, second, third, fourth or fifth
of the six Events for reasons which the technical delegate accepts as being beyond the control
of the team or driver, may start the following Event with a different gearbox without a
penalty being incurred.
...

I think the only time you would be allowed to replace a gearbox without a penalty is if it was damaged in a crash or similar[/quote]

So if they didn't finish the race, they can change the gearbox without penalty, even if it wasn't a crash?

[beelsebob]

So if they didn't finish the race, they can change the gearbox without penalty, even if it wasn't a crash?

Only if they can demonstrate that the gearbox is damaged. Which will be the case here.

[trinidefender]

If you look at the nose area in front and behind the front tyre you will notice an angle change on the underside of the nose. With the original nose there wasn't an angle change like that. It seems like as well as the height of the nose being set at that for suspension geometry requirements it also fit the height for their current airflow requirements. I can't help but wonder if they had designed the car with the new nose originally if they would have designed the front of the crash structure higher to have a smooth transition between nose and crash structure.

[Emerson.F]

It's an ugly car imo. The first nose was much better in the looks department.

[McG]

Does the large opening at the rear stall the butterfly suspension at higher speeds? So it gives them some more grip on slower corners but stalls at medium speed and stalls a bit less in the medium and high speed corners. That might make sense as to why the opening at the rear is so big, because if it was smaller the air would come out faster stalling the suspension at a lower speed, which they really do not want in medium or high speed corners.

[JimClarkFan]

Here is what I don't understand. If I remember correctly, Mclaren did not at any point in pre-season testing test variants of the butterfly suspension.

It is three races in, around 15% of the season gone and only now are we seeing testing of a component which is so very different from anything else on the grid.

Obviously they already had too many things to do, however if they find that the car is as a whole package better without the butterfly then it will have turned out to be a fairly sizeable error on their part.

I think the car looks great btw, though I think the Red Bull or Mercedes style noise is a better solution.

[PhillipM]

I would expect it to be a back-to-back check for the low downforce circuits to see whether they're better with less rear wing or more wing and drop the upper mushroom.

[Pup]

Actually, they did very little aero testing at all pre-season - none doing A/B testing of different parts, at least not that I remember.

[Jef Patat]

Actually, they did very little aero testing at all pre-season - none doing A/B testing of different parts, at least not that I remember.

Indeed. That's the way I think of it as well. I think they have been testing a lot of things, but aero was of smaller importance. Maybe they were happy with the correlation. Convinced of the butterfly and concentrated on other (more important) testing.

[outer_bongolia]

It's an ugly car imo. The first nose was much better in the looks department.

The new nose looks cleaner aero-wise, I like the shape and engineering.

One thing I can't stand though -and there has been a lot of discussion- is the front wing. The top element looks like a brick especially towards the centerline. And it must feel like a brick for the air trying to pass underneath the nose.

[PlatinumZealot]

Here is what I don't understand. If I remember correctly, Mclaren did not at any point in pre-season testing test variants of the butterfly suspension.

It is three races in, around 15% of the season gone and only now are we seeing testing of a component which is so very different from anything else on the grid.

Obviously they already had too many things to do, however if they find that the car is as a whole package better without the butterfly then it will have turned out to be a fairly sizeable error on their part.

I think the car looks great btw, though I think the Red Bull or Mercedes style noise is a better solution.

Mclaren and the phrase "sizeable error" go hand in hand.

[trinidefender]

It's an ugly car imo. The first nose was much better in the looks department.

The new nose looks cleaner aero-wise, I like the shape and engineering.

One thing I can't stand though -and there has been a lot of discussion- is the front wing. The top element looks like a brick especially towards the centerline. And it must feel like a brick for the air trying to pass underneath the nose.

The new nose looks cleaner aero wise in what sense? Less drag or cleaner in the sense it gets more airflow underneath the nose?

[wesley123]

I think it is arguable. The new nose certainly looks more "forceful" in the way it treats the air. If we follow the contours in the nose we can see that there is bit of a kink happening where the nose meets the tub. Not an ideal solution. I also think that with a higher "nose" the finger is going to influence more, making the solution more complex.

I am confident it is a better solution than previous(else they wouldn't have ran it), but the old one definitely is cleaner in my book, as it has a much smoother profile.