That's what I was thinking as well with that slot.Tim.Wright wrote:http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 854620.jpg
Looks like some flexural loading of the rigid body rules going on there...
That's what I was thinking as well with that slot.Tim.Wright wrote:http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 854620.jpg
Looks like some flexural loading of the rigid body rules going on there...
This also shows the lower mount for the turning vane has been moved forward and closer to the sidepod.Thunders wrote:So, to get back on Topic:
The McLaren Updates in Malaysia by AMuS.
Speaking of blown wheel nuts... do you notice that only the brave teams are trying to learn it? Mclaren, Red Bull, Ferrari... The benefits of it must be worth all the trouble. I think Ferrari have got a good handle it now though.trinidefender wrote:You want the front wheel wake as far away from everything as possible. In fact you want to reduce the front wheel wake as much as possible. That is where the idea for having so much out wash on the front wings came from. The blown wheel nuts. And generating a vortex around the front wheel though the use of the out was front wing and the turning vanes under the nose push air into the low pressure, twisting mass of air. By reducing this twisting and tumbling of air you reduce the negative effect it has on aerodynamic parts further down the car. By reducing the size of the low pressure region and reducing the low pressure gradient behind the tyre you are reducing the drag created by that wheel. Therefore controlling flow around the front wheels is critical to both reducing drag and creating downforce at the back of the car.stefanf1 wrote:Vortex Generators push the front wheel wake over the rear wing, as a ambulant air flow creates less down force at the rear. good idea to have 3.
Yes I noticed that. I think part of the decision if to use it actually comes in terms of pit stops. As we saw with Williams it does increase the chance that teams will mess up the pit stops somewhat getting the wheelnut drill onto the nut. Maybe some of the lower budget teams can't afford to take this chance.PlatinumZealot wrote:Speaking of blown wheel nuts... do you notice that only the brave teams are trying to learn it? Mclaren, Red Bull, Ferrari... The benefits of it must be worth all the trouble. I think Ferrari have got a good handle it now though.trinidefender wrote:You want the front wheel wake as far away from everything as possible. In fact you want to reduce the front wheel wake as much as possible. That is where the idea for having so much out wash on the front wings came from. The blown wheel nuts. And generating a vortex around the front wheel though the use of the out was front wing and the turning vanes under the nose push air into the low pressure, twisting mass of air. By reducing this twisting and tumbling of air you reduce the negative effect it has on aerodynamic parts further down the car. By reducing the size of the low pressure region and reducing the low pressure gradient behind the tyre you are reducing the drag created by that wheel. Therefore controlling flow around the front wheels is critical to both reducing drag and creating downforce at the back of the car.stefanf1 wrote:Vortex Generators push the front wheel wake over the rear wing, as a ambulant air flow creates less down force at the rear. good idea to have 3.
I glade someone has posted this, thanks. I read this earlier and I just do not understand at all, why would cooler temps hurt aero in general, and why would it hurt McLaren more?ajnšpric_pumpa wrote:Interesting comment from Button,saying China cool temperatures will hurt Mclaren aero advantage over others.
http://en.f1i.com/news/8551-temperature ... 18.twitter
Cooler temperatures allow other teams to close up their rear bodywork more allowing for greater diffuser performance and rear end downforce. It can actually make quite a large difference. McLaren aren't in a place to close up their bodywork because a. It is already very right and b. They are still having temp problems, closing up the bodywork will just make exacerbate their problems.the EDGE wrote:I glade someone has posted this, thanks. I read this earlier and I just do not understand at all, why would cooler temps hurt aero in general, and why would it hurt McLaren more?ajnšpric_pumpa wrote:Interesting comment from Button,saying China cool temperatures will hurt Mclaren aero advantage over others.
http://en.f1i.com/news/8551-temperature ... 18.twitter
The difference is likely to do with the fact that cooler air is more dense.the EDGE wrote:I glade someone has posted this, thanks. I read this earlier and I just do not understand at all, why would cooler temps hurt aero in general, and why would it hurt McLaren more?ajnšpric_pumpa wrote:Interesting comment from Button,saying China cool temperatures will hurt Mclaren aero advantage over others.
http://en.f1i.com/news/8551-temperature ... 18.twitter
mikeerfol wrote:Found it on Autosport forums, it's from the Malaysian race.