February Test Thread

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: February Test Thread

Post

kilcoo316 wrote:
djos wrote:These items will NOT be on the car come Melbourne as they are A/ Illegal & B/ for testing purposes to measure various Tyre parameters, same as they were last year!
If they are there solely to measure tyre parameters... why are there none on the back tyres?
Simple, they have the sensors on the floor, go have a look at the launch pics!
kilcoo316 wrote:If its an illegal test only part - why not run it completely across the tyre (bridging from outside rim to inside rim) so you can measure the full tyre temperature range?

Your not going to get an awful lot of data on temperature across the contact patch when measuring from the side.
They aren't measuring the contact patch, they are measuring other things like deflection etc and the slight curve toward the front of the tyre is to minimise the effect on the Aero package.

kilcoo316 wrote:While admittedly I did not follow testing very closely last year, I do not recall there being any wheel shrouds on the inside of the wheels last year - thats the ones we are talking about here.
You are correct, they didn't have them on the inside of the wheel last year but last year they didn't have to figure out slick tyres!
"In downforce we trust"

modbaraban
modbaraban
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 17:44
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: February Test Thread

Post

djos wrote:
kilcoo316 wrote:While admittedly I did not follow testing very closely last year, I do not recall there being any wheel shrouds on the inside of the wheels last year - thats the ones we are talking about here.
You are correct, they didn't have them on the inside of the wheel last year but last year they didn't have to figure out slick tyres!
I'm quite sure it's not caused by the need to figure out slick tyres but rather by the absence of appendages. Now they'll try using anything to condition the flow. We've already seen changed front suspension geometry for aero reasons (MP-24, RB5), exhausts 'shooting' right in between the suspension arms (RB5), sidepods with 'shoulders' (FW31), chute-like noses (RB5) and now brake colling systems that look like ones of a Batmobile only w/o guns... so far :shock:

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: February Test Thread

Post

modbaraban wrote:
djos wrote:
kilcoo316 wrote:While admittedly I did not follow testing very closely last year, I do not recall there being any wheel shrouds on the inside of the wheels last year - thats the ones we are talking about here.
You are correct, they didn't have them on the inside of the wheel last year but last year they didn't have to figure out slick tyres!
I'm quite sure it's not caused by the need to figure out slick tyres but rather by the absence of appendages. Now they'll try using anything to condition the flow. We've already seen changed front suspension geometry for aero reasons (MP-24, RB5), exhausts 'shooting' right in between the suspension arms (RB5), sidepods with 'shoulders' (FW31), chute-like noses (RB5) and now brake colling systems that look like ones of a Batmobile only w/o guns... so far :shock:
I'll bet that they wont be there for the Aussie GP - like I said, they are illegal and someone has already posted the regs backing me up.
"In downforce we trust"

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: February Test Thread

Post

Agerasia wrote:Hi again,
First McLaren were using an '08 wing apparently "as a precaution" and now we hear it's because the wings not built. Don't believe everything you hear.
I did mention some time ago that they are trying to get as near as they can to '08 rear end downforce, and to use it as a known level.
They will alter the rear of the car (including diffuser) using an '08 wing. They will then know if an alteration has improved or not.
If they used an '09 wing they would have to take the '09 wing into account, making it harder to determine the actual improvement as the '09 wing is not fully proven.
I highly suspect diffuser testing is going on.
Consider this... The first test was at the new Algrave circuit which is a medium to low downforce circuit as are the first 5 races of the season(spain is debateable), Why develop a high downforce rear wing Specific to the 2009 chassis when you wont truly need it until Monaco in the 3rd week of May at which point everything in front(and underneath) the rear wing may be completely different. It could all be about allocation of resources. Although McLaren seem to have unlimited resources, using those resources to their biggest advantage makes them a winning team.

chasefreak
chasefreak
0
Joined: 28 Feb 2007, 06:03
Location: India

Re: February Test Thread

Post

if the wheel caps were illegal then there would not be a right up on formula1.com
since there is a writeup on the technical page abt these wheel caps. that it self makes me think that they are legal and would be on the car come AUS

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: February Test Thread

Post

chasefreak wrote:if the wheel caps were illegal then there would not be a right up on formula1.com
since there is a writeup on the technical page abt these wheel caps. that it self makes me think that they are legal and would be on the car come AUS
Just because a Journo writes about it, doesn't make it legal.
"In downforce we trust"

imightbewrong
imightbewrong
17
Joined: 07 Aug 2008, 16:18

Re: February Test Thread

Post

djos wrote:
chasefreak wrote:if the wheel caps were illegal then there would not be a right up on formula1.com
since there is a writeup on the technical page abt these wheel caps. that it self makes me think that they are legal and would be on the car come AUS
Just because a Journo writes about it, doesn't make it legal.
scarbs also commented about it here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6356
The cars width is 1800mm with the wheels at zero camber. I am guessing the few mm of width the fairings take up is accommodated with a slightly narrower track. The loss in handling from the narrower track must be made up for in the aero benefit of the fairing. This might be why we didn’t see the fairing race last year (i.e. new front suspension required).

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: February Test Thread

Post

imightbewrong wrote:
scarbs also commented about it here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6356
The cars width is 1800mm with the wheels at zero camber. I am guessing the few mm of width the fairings take up is accommodated with a slightly narrower track. The loss in handling from the narrower track must be made up for in the aero benefit of the fairing. This might be why we didn’t see the fairing race last year (i.e. new front suspension required).
Last time I checked scarbs is a Journo (damned good one too) but until any journo actually asks the MacMerc boys about the fairings and gets a straight answer it's all speculation.

Anyway, when lap times are measured in thousandths of seconds, do you really think Maclaren would surrender even 10mm of track width? (which has a big impact on mechanical grip)
"In downforce we trust"

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: February Test Thread

Post

imightbewrong wrote: scarbs also commented about it here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6356
Thats the fairing on the outside.

Gimme a minute...

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: February Test Thread

Post

djos wrote:I'll bet that they wont be there for the Aussie GP - like I said, they are illegal and someone has already posted the regs backing me up.

I believe this is what you are referring to?
3.11.2 With the exception of the air ducts described in Article 11.4, in side view, there must be no bodywork in the area formed by two vertical lines, one 325mm behind the front wheel centre line, one 450mm ahead of the front wheel centre line, one diagonal line intersecting the vertical lines at 100mm and 200mm above the reference plane respectively, and one horizontal line on the reference plane.
I read that as being nothing in a box of Cartesian coordinates with origin (0,0) being the front wheel centre-line at the ground plane:

(-325,0)
(-325,100)
(450,200)
(450,0)

That is the article that affects Renaults nose...



Now, what does article 11.4 say about air ducts?
11.4 Air ducts : Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not protrude beyond :
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the wheel ;
- a plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the wheel ;
- a vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the centre line of the car.
Furthermore, when viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel.
All measurements will be made with the wheel held in a vertical position.
Reading that... they're legal.


You can go a max vertical distance of 160mm above or below the axle line, and extend out to near the tyre rim (330mm) in front, but only 180mm behind the axle line.


Transverse, you can give the brake duct a max width of 120mm. But that doesn't affect these shroud plates.

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: February Test Thread

Post

Ok maybe they are legal but using them for racing would result in, in addition to a narrower front track, added unsprung weight. I'd guess that the trade-off for brake cooling and airflow would not be worth the narrower track and added unsprung weight, but I'm not a McLaren engineer.

Regarding the outer fairings, if an MP4-24 does touch its front tire with another car's tire, it looks like it will do more damage to the McLaren.

Oh and one other thing, if a front tyre goes flat from running over some carbon shards the chances of the car making it back to the pits with out damage to both inner and outer fairings is pretty slim imo!
"In downforce we trust"

i70q7m7ghw
i70q7m7ghw
49
Joined: 12 Mar 2006, 00:27
Location: ...

Re: February Test Thread

Post

djos wrote:Ok maybe they are legal but using them for racing would result in, in addition to a narrower front track, added unsprung weight. I'd guess that the trade-off for brake cooling and airflow would not be worth the narrower track and added unsprung weight, but I'm not a McLaren engineer.

Regarding the outer fairings, if an MP4-24 does touch its front tire with another car's tire, it looks like it will do more damage to the McLaren.

Oh and one other thing, if a front tyre goes flat from running over some carbon shards the chances of the car making it back to the pits with out damage to both inner and outer fairings is pretty slim imo!
You seem to forget how McLaren race, remember Kimi at the nurbergring in 2005? They don't do "If the tyre fails" and damage limitation, they only race to win.

These things are legal so just give it up, there was even a bit posted about them on the F1.com website. You honestly believe they only serve as a disadvantage to the overal performance of the car? So your saying that if they turn up on the car in Oz everyone at McLaren is wrong and your right? [-X If you say so :lol:

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Re: February Test Thread

Post

Diesel wrote:
djos wrote:Ok maybe they are legal but using them for racing would result in, in addition to a narrower front track, added unsprung weight. I'd guess that the trade-off for brake cooling and airflow would not be worth the narrower track and added unsprung weight, but I'm not a McLaren engineer.

Regarding the outer fairings, if an MP4-24 does touch its front tire with another car's tire, it looks like it will do more damage to the McLaren.

Oh and one other thing, if a front tyre goes flat from running over some carbon shards the chances of the car making it back to the pits with out damage to both inner and outer fairings is pretty slim imo!
You seem to forget how McLaren race, remember Kimi at the nurbergring in 2005? They don't do "If the tyre fails" and damage limitation, they only race to win.

These things are legal so just give it up, there was even a bit posted about them on the F1.com website. You honestly believe they only serve as a disadvantage to the overal performance of the car? So your saying that if they turn up on the car in Oz everyone at McLaren is wrong and your right? [-X If you say so :lol:
Would extending another piece to the inside fairing that reaches around to meet the outer part be legal? Technically, it would be a fender, but if they can go this far, why not take the next step?

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: February Test Thread

Post

Conceptual wrote:Would extending another piece to the inside fairing that reaches around to meet the outer part be legal? Technically, it would be a fender, but if they can go this far, why not take the next step?
No (I think), because then you breach the 330mm radius (from axle centreline) rule.

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Re: February Test Thread

Post

djos wrote:Ok maybe they are legal but using them for racing would result in, in addition to a narrower front track, added unsprung weight.
The outside fairing would result in a narrower front track, the inside one would not.

Both add unsprung weight, but considering the density of carbon fibre, its negligible compared to the overall mass of the wheel.


As for the effect on the front wing wake, and general aerodynamics, its possibly very significant indeed. The rotating tyre causes a lot of complications for the wing wake, adding the shroud reduces the rotating element = reduces the complications...


But if you can make the complications work for you - then you might get a better solution.