[ 2020 ] Mclaren F1 Team - Renault

[Emag]

Cost and speed of mockup production maybe has something to do with it? You can manufacture a 60% model for less money and less time than a full scale model. And the 60% is probably not a random number. I am guessing it offers the best ratio between cost and data accuracy.

[Jackles-UK]

Does anyone know whether the 60% models are produced predominantly using carbon fibre like the real car or whether they use something else (3D printing, for instance)? I’d assume using the same surface materials would give the best data correlation for air-affecting parts but forming some of the more intricate aero shapes exactly right in carbon would surely be almost impossible in 60% scale along with being ruinously expensive just for potentially throwaway prototype parts.

[diffuser]

I don't think that will make a big difference. The old Toyota windtunnel works fine, it's just a inconveniance. The budget equaluization with the Mercs, RBR and Ferrari coming next year is far more important. Going from a 50% difference in budget to 10-20 M difference is HUGE.

From a pure performance gain perspective the Toyota wind tunnel was built years ago and is very outdated by now, such is the pace of F1 development. Apart from the software and data processing capabilities being well outdated, the physical hardware of the tunnel is also old. Airflow near the wall, how well the rolling road works, how flexible the tunnel is to putting pitch, roll, yaw, ride height steering angle, maybe even simulating bumps and how the airflow is affected with tyres moving up and down on a car etc. There are so many variables that the older tunnels won't be able to replicate as well.

Completely separate from that is the distance. Constantly having to move parts from McLaren to the tunnel and back is both expensive and even more importantly, time consuming.

I think if Seidl and James Key think it's worth it then I'm inclined to agree. Even Jost Capito said the same thing when he was there for a few months as well.

I know there are the obvious reasons of pure size, but why are 60% tests used instead of full size?
If you have a plane with 80 mtr wingspan etc I can understand it, but surly the difference between a 1 mtr wide model and a 2 mtr wide model can not be astronomical, especially if you consider the processing of a model to 'the real thing' ?

Is it such a huge difference if you consider what else could be tested in the tunnel?

Edit, I do know it is mandated, that's not what I mean.

So you're saying if they had to choose what would help improving performance more, an extra $250 million more a year to spend on their car or the new tunnel, they would choose the tunnel? (Obviously. Barring the new regs etc,etc,etc).

[_cerber1]

Cost and speed of mockup production maybe has something to do with it? You can manufacture a 60% model for less money and less time than a full scale model. And the 60% is probably not a random number. I am guessing it offers the best ratio between cost and data accuracy.

As far as I know, the FIA prohibits teams from making models of more than 60% of their actual size. Because, a wind tunnel for blowing a full size model will be very expensive, and not all teams will be able to afford it. That is why this limitation works.

[Lucky]

In addition, the Madrid driver has hinted that McLaren will debut substantial improvements to its MCL35 with the start of the second half of the season this weekend. However, he has not wanted to inquire into details and has simply alerted with a mere "stay tuned tomorrow."
https://soymotor.com/noticias/sainz-sob ... dio-980657

[Lucky]

Puma

[Andres125sx]

I know there are the obvious reasons of pure size, but why are 60% tests used instead of full size?
If you have a plane with 80 mtr wingspan etc I can understand it, but surly the difference between a 1 mtr wide model and a 2 mtr wide model can not be astronomical, especially if you consider the processing of a model to 'the real thing' ?

I know almost nothing about aerodynamics, but I fly rc planes for more than 20 years and I can assure the difference in perfomance and behaviour between a 1m and a 2m wingspan plane is huge.

I think it´s about reynolds number, same model with double wingspan will take a much higher wingload. Probably they can calculate that difference to know how the bigger model will behave compared to the smaller one when comparing a single wing, but when you take into account the whole model (wings, bargeboards, floor, diffuser) probably the interaction between all parts (turbulence, air from one part reaching next part, etc) must be extremelly complicated, and probably that´s the reason not all parts tested in the wind tunnel behave as expected when fitted into the real car

[Morteza]

[Ground Effect]

Talking of wind tunnels, aren’t there more suitable alternatives to the Toyota wind tunnel for McLaren, in the UK for that matter? Or is it actually suitable enough for what they need? I can’t say I know the full implications, but would it be a big deal to use the Mercedes one in Brackley or is it unlikely Mercedes would agree to that?

[Lucky]

[Lucky]

[mclaren111]

Covering All Possible angles it seems....

[M840TR]

Mark Temple - Alonso's former race engineer - will be standing in for Will Joseph in Sochi and Nurburgring.

[M840TR]

Does anyone know whether the 60% models are produced predominantly using carbon fibre like the real car or whether they use something else (3D printing, for instance)? I’d assume using the same surface materials would give the best data correlation for air-affecting parts but forming some of the more intricate aero shapes exactly right in carbon would surely be almost impossible in 60% scale along with being ruinously expensive just for potentially throwaway prototype parts.

Not CF.

[Ground Effect]

https://twitter.com/racefansdotnet/stat ... 61280?s=19

So, we’ve joined Mercedes in opposing? I have to admit, I’m happy about that, I think it’s a horrible idea, this is F1, not F2-4!