McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[Formula None]

I wonder how speed and changing pressures at the various orifices would affect the exhaust flow and distribution. They came up with the f-duct, maybe its tuned to alter flow based on the local conditions of each exit. Seems very complicated i.e. finicky, either way. That combined with a yaw sensitive sidepods seems like such a headache.

Ringo, if the design turns out to look like your drawing we'll have to change the name from "the octopus" to "the uterus." Which is to say I hope you're right.

[hollowBallistix]

I wonder how speed and changing pressures at the various orifices would affect the exhaust flow and distribution. They came up with the f-duct, maybe its tuned to alter flow based on the local conditions of each exit. Seems very complicated i.e. finicky, either way. That combined with a yaw sensitive sidepods seems like such a headache.

Ringo, if the design turns out to look like your drawing we'll have to change the name from "the octopus" to "the uterus." Which is to say I hope you're right.

Why is this side pod design more sensitive to "Yaw" as you put it ?

The channels seem to controlling the main air flow from the front of the car to the rear of the beam wing more effectively in CFD than traditional design pods, but I can't see why their more subjective to airflow around the Yaw Axis of the car ? compared to the more conventional designs seen

[Dragonfly]

Is there a kind of schematic showing the flow on a car with L-shaped sidepods?
Also, what is the benefit from blowing part of the exhaust in front of the rear tires? Is it aero releted or mechanical/temperature?

Ringo, if the design turns out to look like your drawing we'll have to change the name from "the octopus" to "the uterus." Which is to say I hope you're right.

OT: I thought it reminds me of something else and biological but could not quite guess what.

[Shaddock]

For some clarity:


This is whats clear from the info given to me by these two Tech Directors:

* only two exits are allowed Article 5.6 Engine exhaust systems may incorporate no more than two exits

* Exhausts are considered anything that carry exhaust gas to another part of the car. You cannot use 'bodywork' to move an exhaust exit 'somewhere else'

* The exhausts must be made of permitted materials

* The only composite capable of acting as an exhaust are glass ceramic composites (GCC). These are not on the permitted materials list, with one exception.

* GCC can be used under heatsheilding as per Point #8 on the exceptions list in Article 15.1

* Ferrari requested a clarification that the exhaust itself could be made of glass ceramic composites, Charlie Whiting clarified that it could not.

* Using GCC as a heat sheild around exhausts is legal, as long as the exhaust itself is from permitted materials (typically inconnel)

* This is not a new issue, GCC material has been off the permitted list for some time.

If McLaren can successfully argue that the octopus is not an exhaust but bodywork, then the GCC issue goes way as it’s then allowed as a heat shield.

I wonder if the octopus is a ‘sealed unit’ which is effectively an extension to the exhaust, or by adding a fresh air intake(s) and exposing the central chamber to ‘daylight’ does it’s classification change to being a piece of bodywork.

[Formula None]

Why is this side pod design more sensitive to "Yaw" as you put it ?

Not sure if it's of much significance, but when viewed from the front (and from the perspective of oncoming air) that channel would decrease in cross sectional width as the car rotates. Whereas a flat topped sidepod looks pretty much the same as you rotate it a few degrees.

[McG]

So the "octopus" waves all eight arms goodbye

Is this due to the reliablity as MW says? As I thought their problems were due to hydraulics, not exhaust failure..

Or is it due to the 'octopus' and the exhaust exits/pirosyl not being legal should the car be scrutineered in that config by the FIA in Melbourne?

It's still not confirmed that it was an octopus type system. And I really don't know where people got that idea from with just looking at the back of a diffuser.

[McG]

Scarbs isn't a reliable source, he's just another guy drawing things.
.

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

Thanks. I emailed Williams back when they were with BMW asking why their exhausts were asymmetric. I got an answer back from them and it's common knowledge now, but I never made a blog about it.

But good on you for sticking your neck out there, everyone gets things wrong sometimes.

[hollowBallistix]

i'd have thought it would be better at using the flow of air during "yaw" movement, and directing it to the rear of the car, if that channel wasn't there then wouldn't the air simply pass over & down the outside of a traditional side pod design & not towards the read of the car ?

i'll try and and do a sketch in work tomorrow to try and explain why I think this, it's easier than words alone, be interesting to see what you think

[wesley123]

Scarbs isn't a reliable source, he's just another guy drawing things.
.

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

Thanks. I emailed Williams back when they were with BMW asking why their exhausts were asymmetric. I got an answer back from them and it's common knowledge now, but I never made a blog about it.

But good on you for sticking your neck out there, everyone gets things wrong sometimes.

Dont want to sound like a smartass or something, but everyone here knows that scarbs is actually a well known technical guy walking around the earth and f1 paddock.

He is a very rare sort of species, one that shares a lot of technical information that wanders around the paddock and explains these on his blog, and that for free. Instead of thinking you know better about what he does than himself you could also thank him for the information he delivers as it is one of the rare places on the internet where you find such an guy.

Anyway, me and alot of fellow forum members really appreciate the input he brings about technical findings floating around f1, and no one is forcing you to nor believe him, nor to read his blog

plus, i like his drawings

I Have spoken...

[Formula None]

Scarbs isn't a reliable source, he's just another guy drawing things.
.

The fact that ferrari requested the clarification came to me directly from a Mike Gascoyne email, while a lot of the technicalities on what is/isnt legal came from an email conversation with Sam Michael. im sorry these sources aren't sufficient for you, I'll stick to drawing things.

lol

It's still not confirmed that it was an octopus type system.

Forgetting the topic at hand, this is simply a great quote.


Moving on...

Maybe the purpose of the octopus was to maximize the exhaust's surface area and heat rejection, and is actually made of legal material (inconel, anything else?).

Reminds me of that old fairy tale, The Octopus That Lived in a Box Under the Bellhousing. So, as someone mentioned in a similar idea before, a fresh air intake could feed into the box and flow round the octopus and the heated air would exit through various orifices. In this way GCC can be used at will since it is truly just being used as a heat deflector, and the real exhaust could still have 2 legal exits.

And maybe it wasn't an octopus of tubes but rather cooling fins and some confused journo-type thought octopus instead of cuttlefish.

[raymondu999]

]McG, go watch The Pitlane, episode 7, with Scarbs and Willem Toet, I didn't see even a pencil in Scarbs hand and not one disagreement from Willem on Scarb's opinions or observations....

Hey. Sorry, I've never heard of the Pitlane before. Do you perhaps mean the Flying Lap? If I'm mistaken maybe you could give the rest of us a link?

[CHT]

on the topic of octopus exhaust, I am just curious how would you control the exhaust air distribution to the different outlets.

[boci]

Mclaren are the ones to get slapped just because they are Mclaren..nothing new .In case it won´t be deemed illegal it will be banned for safety reasons.

Nothing in the rules highlighted here is new, McLaren (if they have gone down this route)knew of the rules beforehand. It's a risk that they take, if the FIA now take a different view. The FIAs view of a development may and often does change, in between the teams first enquiry and the subsequent appearance of a finished part.

Indeed, this part of the regulations has been stable for quite some time and McLaren knew it. From what I read, if true at all, they tried to be on the edge of the regulations and got caught. What leaves a bit of a bitter taste in the mouth is that sometimes the regulations interpretation by FIA is driven by the politics, the DDDs and the mass-dumper being the prime examples IMO.

Nobody got "caught", McLaren are going to this less radical solution because it's the best balance of speed + reliability. PyroSic exhausts was never linked to directly to McLaren.

[gridwalker]

Oh come on McG : you've not been around here for very long, but there is no need for you to be so disrespectful to one of our more openly well connected members.

Time to do a bit of research ... google for Craig Scarborough and see what you get.

Notice the articles written for autosport on page one of the search listings?

If you can't be bothered to do that, how about this video, posted on veteran journalist (and failed USF1 sporting director) Peter Windsor's blog :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPqjFZ28 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Please, treat one of our more valuable contributors with a bit more respect. Scarbs deserves it.

[bidong]

Oh come on McG : you've not been around here for very long, but there is no need for you to be so disrespectful to one of our more openly well connected members.

Time to do a bit of research ... google for Craig Scarborough and see what you get.

Notice the articles written for autosport on page one of the search listings?

If you can't be bothered to do that, how about this video, posted on veteran journalist (and failed USF1 sporting director) Peter Windsor's blog :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPqjFZ28 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Please, treat one of our more valuable contributors with a bit more respect. Scarbs deserves it.

thanks for the inside scoops scarbs. your input is appreciated. and yeah. he's a good analyst with fantastic drawings and interpretations. sorry to sound like a suck up. but yeah thanks a lot