Legality of McLaren's "Butterfly" suspension

[Jaap]

Question: If McLarens suspension is legal.

Is there anything in the rules that state that BOTH arms have to be the same? I know that each piece needs to be symmertrical along its major axis and a 3.5:1 ratio... but what is stopping anyone from configuring two independently shaped complimentary structures out of each arm? I havent read that the rules state that each arm has to be shaped identically...

This legality, opens up some extremely creative possibilities. A team could offset the geometry horizontally creating a longer "flatter" surface with less drag...

As far as I can work out, the upper and lower arms don't have to be identical, but there is a maximum cross section size. And if I remember correctly, the maximum length and hight are 100mm.. So they can't be longer, and if McLaren would have wanted less height they could have done that

[shady]

Well what i was wondering was, what if together they essentially created a 200mm wing, each arm being 100mm wide. One on top of, and set slighty rearward of the other, with both at some gradient of the 5* inclination.

Essentially a two stage beamwing. Similar to how the rear wing is structured, but the shape requirements would have to be in line with the rules. Instead of a bell shape dragonfly stacked directly on top of one another..?

[Pup]

Nothing stopping them from doing that. In fact, the rear legs of McLaren's suspension are probably unusual in that they are similar.

But I doubt if the 5° allowed would get you much of a wing.

[Holm86]

Can there be holes in the wishbones?? Or must they consist of a single section??

[Pup]

I don't see anything about a single section, but depending on the design, it might raise the question of what is a single member with a hole vs two members; i.e., redundant members, which would be prohibited.

[shady]

The wishbone arms are there to stabilize the wheel, do they still need to be parallel to perform that job? If each arm is individually sculpted (their geometry no longer having to be 'strictly' functional suspending the car) and each arm needs to be symmetrical to itself... one could in theory create a crude diffuser... waste heat probably moves too slowly, but its still there whether utilized or not one could even engineer a Half 'Blown' Double Deck Diffuser...

This is a reach.. Im sure the regulations could potentially be able to stop this idea though, im just not sure where in the regs..



horrible illustration, but something like that where the upper arm acts as the ceiling for the splines... a bit exaggerated in the illustration, but it seems like if someone wanted to they could def get this done..

[Holm86]

Just did a very very quick mock up of the idea I had if the wishbones are allowed to have holes in them.

The problem I see with the McLaren type profiles is because of their symmetry they also push a lot of air downwards. The idea is to get more air up and over the wishbones.

Here is a 3d model of the arms ...


Here is a side view. They are angled at the 5° maximum angle.


Here is a section view showing the profile without the "endings". Just to give an idea of how the air could flow.


I know that some air will still be directed downwards. But the idea is to get more of the air that goes under the profile to go over the profile if you guys understand.

[wuzak]

Just did a very very quick mock up of the idea I had if the wishbones are allowed to have holes in them.

The problem I see with the McLaren type profiles is because of their symmetry they also push a lot of air downwards. The idea is to get more air up and over the wishbones.

Here is a 3d model of the arms ...
http://i60.tinypic.com/35jaypx.png

Here is a side view. They are angled at the 5° maximum angle.
http://i59.tinypic.com/dws9du.png

Here is a section view showing the profile without the "endings". Just to give an idea of how the air could flow.
http://i57.tinypic.com/2uts0n6.png

I know that some air will still be directed downwards. But the idea is to get more of the air that goes under the profile to go over the profile if you guys understand.

Those may be deemed to be two separate suspension members, and one would therefore be redundant and you would probably go over the suspension member count.

Not sure, but those could even give more problematic air flow due to the hole and it hitting a big flat plate.

[pyrosian]

Is there any reason the upper wishbone couldn't be "T" shaped in cross section and the lower one be more of a tear drop so that when run next to each other you get a wing shape? I'm guessing this would mean running a somewhat compromised geometry on the rear with upper and lower arms very close together?

[pyrosian]

A bit exaggerated but something like this?

[marcush.]

wouldn´t the proximity of the difusser Roof /floor section under the wishbones reduce or even nullify any lift in the same way as a double floor does not produce double downforce ? I´d think those wishbones would tend to redirect most of the air upwards simply because the is more open space to fill.

[Pup]

A bit exaggerated but something like this?

Already discussed here...

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 46#p485746

[Owen.C93]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but it isn't the first time McLaren have blocked off that area. They have experience with it in 2010. They did have to package a Double Diffuser in there but it's still something that they tried to achieve.

[Xwang]

I've read somewhere that suspension arms must be straight.
If is it so, should than the solution could be considered not legal?
Infact if the aero blocks are part of the suspension arms, the latter ones (the suspension arms) are no more straight.
Otherwise if the aero blocks are not considered part of the suspension arms, then they should be considered an illegal aero mobile device.
Do you agree?
Should suspension arm be straight?

[rscsr]

I've read somewhere that suspension arms must be straight.
If is it so, should than the solution could be considered not legal?
Infact if the aero blocks are part of the suspension arms, the latter ones (the suspension arms) are no more straight.
Otherwise if the aero blocks are not considered part of the suspension arms, then they should be considered an illegal aero mobile device.
Do you agree?
Should suspension arm be straight?

The connection of the two mounting points must be always contained in the suspension part. So you could move the section of the suspension a lot around.