McLaren MP4-31 Honda

[CLKGTR]

"Because of this straightline speed story we can't develop what we call the 'dirty downforce', so we have to have a very aerodynamically efficient car," Boullier explains.

"When we have more power this will be easy to use and exploit.

"Mercedes develop their car around the fact that they have a very powerful engine. It's more difficult to do what we do. The day we can [go] their way we are going to catch up straight away."

From Autosport

[Drica]

"Because of this straightline speed story we can't develop what we call the 'dirty downforce', so we have to have a very aerodynamically efficient car," Boullier explains.

"When we have more power this will be easy to use and exploit.

"Mercedes develop their car around the fact that they have a very powerful engine. It's more difficult to do what we do. The day we can [go] their way we are going to catch up straight away."

From Autosport

In other words, our PU sucks, so we cant bolt on as much downforce as we would have liked

[DiogoBrand]

Well, I may be wrong here, but as far as I remember, that kind of tunnel that Merc created on their FW (now copied by FI), as well as the split bargeboard, as well as the cutouts on the rear wing flap (which IIRC they were the first to do) are all meant to reduce drag. So if the team with the best Power Unit on the grid is working hard on ways to keep drag down, it doesn't make sense when EB whines that "we work to produce downforce at low drag because we lack power". And anyway, isn't downforce at low drag the whole purpose of racing aerodynamics?

[SameSame]

Well, I may be wrong here, but as far as I remember, that kind of tunnel that Merc created on their FW (now copied by FI), as well as the split bargeboard, as well as the cutouts on the rear wing flap (which IIRC they were the first to do) are all meant to reduce drag. So if the team with the best Power Unit on the grid is working hard on ways to keep drag down, it doesn't make sense when EB whines that "we work to produce downforce at low drag because we lack power". And anyway, isn't downforce at low drag the whole purpose of racing aerodynamics?

You have hit the nail on the head. Even Mercedes is fuel critical at a few tracks so I also struggle to follow what Boullier is saying here. Another thing is that aero is just one factor of how good a chassis is. Suspension, weight, weight distribution, centre of gravity, moment of inertia etc are all factors that need to be taken into account.

[Waffle]

It's really not that hard to understand. Every team is trying to produce the maximum downforce for the minimum drag, but there are diminishing returns. First of all you put on the car the lowest drag downforce and then progressively put on less efficient downforce. In other words, as you put on more downforce the ratio of downforce to drag decreases for each additional unit of downforce. The power of your engine determines how low you can go on that ratio. McLaren can't go as low as Mercedes.

So the fact that Mercedes are trying to reduce drag (of course they are!) says nothing at all about what Boullier is saying.

[SameSame]

"Efficient downforce" is a relative term. What downforce to drag ratio Mercedes might perceive to be acceptable will be different to that of McLaren Honda because of the PU. Point is all teams are trying to improve their efficiency, not only McLaren.

[DiogoBrand]

It's really not that hard to understand. Every team is trying to produce the maximum downforce for the minimum drag, but there are diminishing returns. First of all you put on the car the lowest drag downforce and then progressively put on less efficient downforce. In other words, as you put on more downforce the ratio of downforce to drag decreases for each additional unit of downforce. The power of your engine determines how low you can go on that ratio. McLaren can't go as low as Mercedes.

So the fact that Mercedes are trying to reduce drag (of course they are!) says nothing at all about what Boullier is saying.

It really is not that hard to understand, but where I'm trying to get here is: McLaren people complain that they have lower acceptable levels of drag than other teams, which is to be expected from a team running on lower power.
What I don't understand is that I see the team with the highest power on the grid going to far greater extents than McLaren to cut drag.

To me that just says one thing: They have lower downforce not only because of the lower power, but also because their aero department is incompetent. That's a bold thing to state, but I can't see it any other way.

[trinidefender]

Well, I may be wrong here, but as far as I remember, that kind of tunnel that Merc created on their FW (now copied by FI), as well as the split bargeboard, as well as the cutouts on the rear wing flap (which IIRC they were the first to do) are all meant to reduce drag. So if the team with the best Power Unit on the grid is working hard on ways to keep drag down, it doesn't make sense when EB whines that "we work to produce downforce at low drag because we lack power". And anyway, isn't downforce at low drag the whole purpose of racing aerodynamics?

The only part here that may cut drag here is the cutouts on the rear wing.

What makes you believe the V or tunnel in the front wing reduces drag? What makes you think that the split barge board reduces drag?

If anything they would do the opposite but first I want to hear your reasoning.

[DiogoBrand]

Well, I may be wrong here, but as far as I remember, that kind of tunnel that Merc created on their FW (now copied by FI), as well as the split bargeboard, as well as the cutouts on the rear wing flap (which IIRC they were the first to do) are all meant to reduce drag. So if the team with the best Power Unit on the grid is working hard on ways to keep drag down, it doesn't make sense when EB whines that "we work to produce downforce at low drag because we lack power". And anyway, isn't downforce at low drag the whole purpose of racing aerodynamics?

The only part here that may cut drag here is the cutouts on the rear wing.

What makes you believe the V or tunnel in the front wing reduces drag? What makes you think that the split barge board reduces drag?

If anything they would do the opposite but first I want to hear your reasoning.

The V on the rear wing reduces drag caused by vortices, the same way as their concave RW. The tunnel on the front wing helps reduce drag caused by the tyre, and the split bargeboard helps the air change direction in a more smooth way than a "solid" bargeboard would. That's why I believe those solutions are there to reduce drag.

[mclaren111]

Nice pictures of Low vs High downforce Rear Wings

[godlameroso]

The lower plane on the Mclaren seems to be the most simplistic design, all the others have curious details on them.

[trinidefender]

Well, I may be wrong here, but as far as I remember, that kind of tunnel that Merc created on their FW (now copied by FI), as well as the split bargeboard, as well as the cutouts on the rear wing flap (which IIRC they were the first to do) are all meant to reduce drag. So if the team with the best Power Unit on the grid is working hard on ways to keep drag down, it doesn't make sense when EB whines that "we work to produce downforce at low drag because we lack power". And anyway, isn't downforce at low drag the whole purpose of racing aerodynamics?

The only part here that may cut drag here is the cutouts on the rear wing.

What makes you believe the V or tunnel in the front wing reduces drag? What makes you think that the split barge board reduces drag?

If anything they would do the opposite but first I want to hear your reasoning.

The V on the rear wing reduces drag caused by vortices, the same way as their concave RW. The tunnel on the front wing helps reduce drag caused by the tyre, and the split bargeboard helps the air change direction in a more smooth way than a "solid" bargeboard would. That's why I believe those solutions are there to reduce drag.

Excuse me while I laugh a little bit.

Ok not back to business.
1. (I) The V in the rear wing is possibly there to reduce drag.
(II) The concave nature of the rear wing actually increases downforce or is designed to run with a different maximum efficiency point vs airspeed. The concave nature of the wing causes the air to accelerate more underneath reducing pressure and increasing downforce. If they wanted to reduce downforce and hence drag then they would just make the wing shallower.

2. The tunnel on the front wing is designed to form and control the vortex underneath the wing. In fact all teams have this tunnel/end plate setup. It has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread. Considering the extra vertical section just inside that forms a V toward the latter elements of the front wing then that is a different story. That is also there to control the vortex. This vortex is more to control wheel wake to keep dirty air away from the floor increasing downforce not reducing drag.

3. The split barge board would actually turn the air more effectively increasing induced drag by the bargeboard. It also will have more surface area due to the multiple elements and increasing number of leading and trailing edges further increasing form and profile drag.

Sorry but you need to do a bit more reading.

[DiogoBrand]

Excuse me while I laugh a little bit.

Ok not back to business.
1. (I) The V in the rear wing is possibly there to reduce drag.
(II) The concave nature of the rear wing actually increases downforce or is designed to run with a different maximum efficiency point vs airspeed. The concave nature of the wing causes the air to accelerate more underneath reducing pressure and increasing downforce. If they wanted to reduce downforce and hence drag then they would just make the wing shallower.

2. The tunnel on the front wing is designed to form and control the vortex underneath the wing. In fact all teams have this tunnel/end plate setup. It has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread. Considering the extra vertical section just inside that forms a V toward the latter elements of the front wing then that is a different story. That is also there to control the vortex. This vortex is more to control wheel wake to keep dirty air away from the floor increasing downforce not reducing drag.

3. The split barge board would actually turn the air more effectively increasing induced drag by the bargeboard. It also will have more surface area due to the multiple elements and increasing number of leading and trailing edges further increasing form and profile drag.

Sorry but you need to do a bit more reading.

Of course they could just use a shallower wing if they wanted reduced drag, but the concave one gives them the advantage of a higher downforce wing together with the reduced disadvantage of drag caused by the pressure differential at the tips. If that's not a low drag wing I'm amazed to see them using it at every high speed circuit.

The split bargeboard could mean it's actually more efficient and causes more drag, but I wouldn't see a reason for a more efficient bargeboard just now that they have such pronounced undercuts on the sidepods.

Maybe the V on the FW is there primarily to reduce the 'damage' caused by the wheel wake on downforce, but the wheel being one of the biggest components in drag, I believe that managing the wake can also have an effect on drag. Although this one we may never know.

Anyways, we've gone too far off topic now, so it's best if we keep away from this discussion. Even because every discussion about McLaren brings me to the same conclusion: everything about that car needs working on.

[Nxpster]

Guys! Check this outt!
https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 0121906176

[Lucky]