Thunders wrote:The shorter the Nosecone, the harder it is to pass the Crash Test. RB had a hard Time pass the Crash Test already, and they have more room to play with.WilliamsF1 wrote: Why does the front suspension have a bearing on the frontal crash test?
All suspension, wishbone and steering apparatus are mounted on the front bulk head and nothing further forward. The nose cone is the only part involved in the crash test
If you look at the front suspension on the mclaren then you will notice that that wishbones and steering rod have a larger forward angle compared to the other cars. This means that the bulkhead is further forward and so the nose is shorter than it would be on other cars.WilliamsF1 wrote:Thunders wrote:The shorter the Nosecone, the harder it is to pass the Crash Test. RB had a hard Time pass the Crash Test already, and they have more room to play with.WilliamsF1 wrote: Why does the front suspension have a bearing on the frontal crash test?
All suspension, wishbone and steering apparatus are mounted on the front bulk head and nothing further forward. The nose cone is the only part involved in the crash test
What room are you talking abt?
It was often talked about going into the 2014 season by the likes of James Allison, that the changes in the nose didn't equate to much and there were plenty of ways to get it to do what you wanted.trinidefender wrote: If you look at the front suspension on the mclaren then you will notice that that wishbones and steering rod have a larger forward angle compared to the other cars. This means that the bulkhead is further forward and so the nose is shorter than it would be on other cars.
On the other hand - Williams reported that the change in the nose had had surprisingly significant effects on their car's aero, and that they spent a lot of the winter just fine tuning their solution to regain the larger-than-expected losses.diffuser wrote:It was often talked about going into the 2014 season by the likes of James Allison, that the changes in the nose didn't equate to much and there were plenty of ways to get it to do what you wanted.
I don think the nose is high on their priority list.
I never said it was, I was just talking about why it would be harder for McLaren to make a shorter nose if they wanted to.diffuser wrote:It was often talked about going into the 2014 season by the likes of James Allison, that the changes in the nose didn't equate to much and there were plenty of ways to get it to do what you wanted.trinidefender wrote: If you look at the front suspension on the mclaren then you will notice that that wishbones and steering rod have a larger forward angle compared to the other cars. This means that the bulkhead is further forward and so the nose is shorter than it would be on other cars.
I don think the nose is high on their priority list.
trinidefender wrote:I never said it was, I was just talking about why it would be harder for McLaren to make a shorter nose if they wanted to.diffuser wrote:It was often talked about going into the 2014 season by the likes of James Allison, that the changes in the nose didn't equate to much and there were plenty of ways to get it to do what you wanted.trinidefender wrote: If you look at the front suspension on the mclaren then you will notice that that wishbones and steering rod have a larger forward angle compared to the other cars. This means that the bulkhead is further forward and so the nose is shorter than it would be on other cars.
I don think the nose is high on their priority list.
Frankly from some CFD work that I have seen it seems in the last 2 seasons it is more important to have a nose that creates the least amount of turbulence rather than pure air mass flow going under the nose.
Ironically people love to talk about airflow going under the nose and totally ignore the big gaping space next to the nose that airflow also passes through.
I think you're making my point =D>Moose wrote:On the other hand - Williams reported that the change in the nose had had surprisingly significant effects on their car's aero, and that they spent a lot of the winter just fine tuning their solution to regain the larger-than-expected losses.diffuser wrote:It was often talked about going into the 2014 season by the likes of James Allison, that the changes in the nose didn't equate to much and there were plenty of ways to get it to do what you wanted.
I don think the nose is high on their priority list.
Am i missing something? When was the Williams nose declared illegal?diffuser wrote: Williams 2014 nose was deemed illegal. So they had to change.
.
doh! so the nose wasnt illegal! just, as with all others (bar ferrari) it didnt comply with 2015 rules. that is because the rules changed.PlatinumZealot wrote:He means the 2014 nose cannot be used for 2015.
So this means write off for Mclaren-Honda this season and 2016.ajnšpric_pumpa wrote:Ryo Mukumoto
Q: Hi Ryo, nice to meet you here. Could you tell us the latest development of Honda?
RM: Hi. Currently we are no near top. We are developing still, but it's no easy. We have good (progress), about half (50%) and we continue to fight. We have good onwards from the engine, but right now we are still too far.
Q: Alright, what's the problem with the engine these few races?
RM: We cannot run full like others. Our engineers good work in Japan and we have manage to reach getting 70% full power in supeingo (Spain), and we will try to extract more from power engine. The way our engine designed mean's it's all new and we cannot examples from the rest, we have to experiment ourselves. The position of various key components are unique and some are not ideal, but some good. We did alot of research before coming up with this design, I admit some have not worked but we change them soon use tokens and they will good.
Q: Could you see Mclaren-Honda winning a race this season?
RM: No, difficult next season too. You know new team hard to win race, compare to the rest who work long together. We will try to win a race next year, but no guarantees in motor. Our target is to be near 3rd team (Williams) at the end of this season. It would be a good (achievement) if we do it.
Q: We have heard a lot of things about the Mclaren chassis and the size zero rear end. Care to share more about it?
RM: Eh... small size good for aero, and we package our power (engine) to match it. There is more to (extract) it, but currently if you notice we have not make big steps in aero. There is a big change coming up (b-spec), on target for England (Silverstone). It will be launched with our new engine.
... sorry! Thx, yeah. that's what I said!!!!!PlatinumZealot wrote:He means the 2014 nose cannot be used for 2015.
He also said Mclaren has "less space" to go to short nose. The front wings positions relative to the front wheel centre line is dictated by the rules. The front bulkhead position is independent of that however, Mcalren front bulkhead relative to the front wheel centre line seems to protrude about 2 inches further out than the other short nose cars. More space can be had by sweeping the suspension forward a bit if needed... Or they can just put more crumple material into the short nose.
