Team: Eric Boullier (RD), Jonathan Neale (COO), Neil Oatley (Director of Design & Development), Tim Goss (TD), Simon Roberts (OD), Matt Morris (Engineering Director), Peter Prodromou (CE), Paul James (TM), Guillaume Cattelani (HA), Stephen Watt (Head of Engineering), Marianne Hinson (Head of Aerodynamic Design and Technology), Christian Schramm (Head of Racing Technology), Philip Prew (CE), Mark Ingham (Head of Design), Kari Lammenranta (CM)
Drivers: Fernando Alonso (14), Stoffel Vandoorne (2)
Team name: McLaren Honda
Wishful thinking buddygodlameroso wrote:Maybe Honda is wanting some feedback from the mechanics? A good mechanic always has valuable feedback for things like part layouts, and why some parts fail and some don't.
Why is taking air down from front of the side pod opening a good thing?wesley123 wrote:Considering the intake shape of the Ferrari it is reasonable to assume that that isn't bad.FW17 wrote:Just look at the airflow from where the Richard is...... Air stream from so high up is going down the undercut
The flow-vis expands the closer it gets to the sidepod intake, its trail seem to match the flow-vis on the McLAren fairly well. The green flow-vis seems to align with the top and bottom of the intake, and the same goes for the McLaren.The red bull on the other hand, the air feeding the side pod inlet goes straight in with no disturbances
The Red Bull image hardly gives the whole situation as only the lower part has received flow-vis, and here too you see a very similar pattern; Air flowing downwards.a separate channel is provided for the undercut. And look for the disturbance, hardly any
And air flowing downwards is not a bad thing. The winglets on the top of the sidepod direct air away from the top surface of the sidepod, and it's shape does the same. Thus, it is probably desirable to have air flow downwards into the undercut rather than have it over the sidepod
It's actually quite realistic, other non F1 racing teams(mostly drag racing) do it.mclaren111 wrote:Wishful thinking buddygodlameroso wrote:Maybe Honda is wanting some feedback from the mechanics? A good mechanic always has valuable feedback for things like part layouts, and why some parts fail and some don't.
Edit:
I do not know, just like how you do not know, nor can conclude that it's flow-vis is 'bad'.FW17 wrote:Why is taking air down from front of the side pod opening a good thing?wesley123 wrote:Considering the intake shape of the Ferrari it is reasonable to assume that that isn't bad.FW17 wrote:Just look at the airflow from where the Richard is...... Air stream from so high up is going down the undercut
The flow-vis expands the closer it gets to the sidepod intake, its trail seem to match the flow-vis on the McLAren fairly well. The green flow-vis seems to align with the top and bottom of the intake, and the same goes for the McLaren.The red bull on the other hand, the air feeding the side pod inlet goes straight in with no disturbances
The Red Bull image hardly gives the whole situation as only the lower part has received flow-vis, and here too you see a very similar pattern; Air flowing downwards.a separate channel is provided for the undercut. And look for the disturbance, hardly any
And air flowing downwards is not a bad thing. The winglets on the top of the sidepod direct air away from the top surface of the sidepod, and it's shape does the same. Thus, it is probably desirable to have air flow downwards into the undercut rather than have it over the sidepod
Because it's more air that's flowing down the side of the side pods, and over the top of the diffuser, which is driving the diffuser harder.FW17 wrote:Why is taking air down from front of the side pod opening a good thing?
It is simply to make the aero rake fixed relative to the wheel axis not to the monocoque.aleks_ader wrote:Torque measuring combined with air pressure measurement rake.SaturnVF1 wrote:I haven't seen one of those hub arm things in a while. It must be for a sensor but what does it do?
Also, I hope whatever needed to be loctited was and someone just forgot to take off the label.
http://i65.tinypic.com/2yoo8yu.jpg
Fifty wrote:Has Honda or rather mclaren explained what it is that is making the car down on power and unreliable?
Check the Honda power unit thread. There's a wealth of technical speculation and discussion going on there.Fifty wrote:Lol!!!!
You know what I mean!!!
Some thread was blaming it on the electric hybrid system saying it was low on hp. But I thought it was the ICE that had the issues.
I read an article where Matt Morris said that they were able to check if last year's problem was solved and he confirmed it was. Will look for the article and post it asapSingabule wrote: ↑20 Mar 2017, 08:16In connection to Last year suspension dancing problem, with lack of testing and trial engine mapping would hide this problem in first races. I hope MCL chasis technician can mitigate this issue faster, but with current condition May impossible i think. Hope their aero work, and 1,7 degree rake more optimum than 1,9 [-o<
Sirotkin, really?proteus wrote: ↑19 Mar 2017, 22:16Sirotkins observations about the car:
"The midfield looks very close, and all of these teams are part of it. McLaren and Sauber look like they're trailing.
The former is a dark horse so far. Because of all the team's issues, I've only seen the MCL32 on track two or three times. The lack of power is immediately obvious, which could be down to the engine mapping the team used in the test. Through the corners, the car leaves a better impression."
