Mclaren MP4-30 Honda

[Thunder]

Another Picture of the S-Duct Intake:

[Marco Alves]

[f1rules]

This guy/journalist is really worth following on twitter, he always takes decent pictures during the weekends
https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega

[lotus7]

I have been trying to get my head around the mechanical setup/makeup of the DRS activator . Having now seen this "offset" version of Mclaren, I am even more confused

Anyone on here that can enlighten me ? Is it cables , levers , servos inside the housing ?

[JDC123]

I have been trying to get my head around the mechanical setup/makeup of the DRS activator . Having now seen this "offset" version of Mclaren, I am even more confused

Anyone on here that can enlighten me ? Is it cables , levers , servos inside the housing ?

This is from Scarbs website showing one potential design. All teams use a hydraulic pulley to open and close the flap.

[shady]

I have been trying to get my head around the mechanical setup/makeup of the DRS activator . Having now seen this "offset" version of Mclaren, I am even more confused

Anyone on here that can enlighten me ? Is it cables , levers , servos inside the housing ?

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/wp-content/up ... 00x211.jpg This is from Scarbs website showing one potential design. All teams use a hydraulic pulley to open and close the flap.

You would have thought by now they could integrate this hydrolic system well enough into the end plates. I would want to get rid of that central pillar as quickly as I could, but most teams seem content.

[trinidefender]

I have been trying to get my head around the mechanical setup/makeup of the DRS activator . Having now seen this "offset" version of Mclaren, I am even more confused

Anyone on here that can enlighten me ? Is it cables , levers , servos inside the housing ?

http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/wp-content/up ... 00x211.jpg This is from Scarbs website showing one potential design. All teams use a hydraulic pulley to open and close the flap.

You would have thought by now they could integrate this hydrolic system well enough into the end plates. I would want to get rid of that central pillar as quickly as I could, but most teams seem content.

If you followed f1 2013 and previously then you will notice that teams have not run central wing support in years. Before much of the support for the endplates and thus the rear wing came from the beam wing. From 2014 onwards the beam wing was removed. The small space on the floor that the end plates sit on is not large enough to support the weight of wing plus the downforce it generates without the beam wing. The vertical support is there to provide the additional support to the wing that used to be provided by the beam wing.

[Morteza]

Via @AlbertFabrega

[diffuser]

You would have thought by now they could integrate this hydrolic system well enough into the end plates. I would want to get rid of that central pillar as quickly as I could, but most teams seem content.

If you followed f1 2013 and previously then you will notice that teams have not run central wing support in years. Before much of the support for the endplates and thus the rear wing came from the beam wing. From 2014 onwards the beam wing was removed. The small space on the floor that the end plates sit on is not large enough to support the weight of wing plus the downforce it generates without the beam wing. The vertical support is there to provide the additional support to the wing that used to be provided by the beam wing.

Some images from 2013 to prove your point:

[shady]

You would have thought by now they could integrate this hydrolic system well enough into the end plates. I would want to get rid of that central pillar as quickly as I could, but most teams seem content.

If you followed f1 2013 and previously then you will notice that teams have not run central wing support in years. Before much of the support for the endplates and thus the rear wing came from the beam wing. From 2014 onwards the beam wing was removed. The small space on the floor that the end plates sit on is not large enough to support the weight of wing plus the downforce it generates without the beam wing. The vertical support is there to provide the additional support to the wing that used to be provided by the beam wing.[/quote]


Im aware, MBAMG seems like theyd have the materials guys who are capable without having that kind of disturbance (namely when the car is turning) holding the wing up. However, I should have been clearer, in that the DRS arm as well should be integrated in the RWEP.. I dont understand why no one has even ventured off the farm in this respect.

[Cuky]

Im aware, MBAMG seems like theyd have the materials guys who are capable without having that kind of disturbance (namely when the car is turning) holding the wing up. However, I should have been clearer, in that the DRS arm as well should be integrated in the RWEP.. I dont understand why no one has even ventured off the farm in this respect.

I think it may be because of simplicity. It is easier to reach and fix (though not in race as you would loose huge amount of time) this one central actuator then if actuators were in endplates. Also, weight could be another reason because here you have only one actuator acting centrally on the flap, while you would need two of them for same performance if they were in endplates.

And in recent time those actuators got so small that they aren't really obstructing that much of airflow to the wing. Also, teams tend to place its base on main plane differently, probably due to different aero requirements of each teams wings.

[wesley123]

They don't because that would require two parts, plus end plates would become fatter, reducing usable wing area.

[RicME85]

Mercedes did it a few years ago when they had their DDRS system.

Can see the RWEP is larger in places than a RWEP when a central actuator is used.

[captainmorgan]

First Pictures from China by AMuS:

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 855651.jpg

Could those tubes be integrated into the carbon fiber to save weight?

If you're referring to the horizontal tubes, those are the crash structure, and no, you can't save weight there - they're a mandated design.

I meant the 3 vertical tubes along the lateral aspect of the sidepod. One made of carbon fiber, the other two metallic.

[Advino116]

I meant the 3 vertical tubes along the lateral aspect of the sidepod. One made of carbon fiber, the other two metallic.

Do you mean this picture?


The carbon fibre one is probably to bring cooling air to the electronics and probably has to be fitted after the electronics have been fitted, so has to be separated unless the placement of electronics is changed, which will need a redesign of the side pod ancillaries. It's probably cheaper and simpler to have it separated IMHO.

The metal tubes are pipes for intercooler/radiators I think (don't know which it is), and will have to be separated to prevent the heat from delaminating the carbon. Someone correct me if I'm wrong