Is McLaren really off the pace?

[Shrieker]

Yes that could be said, but their reliability issues were random rather than a result of design concept, no ? Spark plug failure in Bahrain, suspension (was it?) in Melbourne and a couple of other break downs which seemed unrelated. OTOH, McLaren's current troubles seem to be coming from their tight packaging.

I'd like to draw attention to a certain matter. All the other front running teams (Red bull, Ferrari, Williams, and to some extent Renault and Mercedes too) have all cleared out their rear section in an effort to get less turbulent air to their difuser/beam wing section. But when you look at the Macca... It's so busy, cluttered. Something fishy going on in there maybe ? I wouldn't rule it out. L shaped pods, strange exhaust exit slits, second air intake on the engine cover... Could they be trying to stall the difuser and/or beam wing with a passive system this time ? Both Red bull and Ferrari are blowing the starter hole (and Macca too). If you could block the air stream towards the starter hole at a given speed with a passive system(say, above 300 km/h) you'd get less df, less drag and more top speed. If you could put your hand on it on the straights...

[Alexgtt]

This not locked yet.

Why? I'm finding the speculation and ideas facinating. And as others have said, it cleans up other threads.

I can't see McLaren sandbagging to this extent. They obvoiusly have good ultimate pace but until the tests earlier this week they had horrible consistency and tyre management didn't look good. Faking engine failure? Surely not. Test time is short and way too valuable.

Oz opening practice can't arrive quick enough. Hoping for some real surprises.

[Robbobnob]

Im just gonna go ahead and say it, the L shaped sidepod is a dud idea.

increasing the surface area perpindicular to the flow will just create more of a boundary layer and more drag... look to see mclaren fighting it out with FI and sauber for 10th place at melbourne

[PlatinumZealot]

It's not really the L-shape itself it is the things that have to get displaced to used the L-shape. check the car thread for more details.

[Florio]

I refuse to believe that McLaren are as far down as some are suspecting. If you look at their testing schedules etc, they seem to be doing alot of data gathering, comparisons etc instead of focusing on mileage, by this time in 2009 they admitted they had a significant deficit, and if we're honest, if the car's potential is unlocked it has attributes that can make it a title winner.

[Steven]

To those who want to see this thread closed, please understand that this is a place to discuss if and why you think McLaren is/was underperforming. They have done the least mileage and haven't been massively quick either, hence this thread.

It is seperate from the MP4-26 thread because that one is aimed specifically at the car's developments.

Note that I have cleaned up a few posts above which were wondering about the reason for this thread.

[segedunum]

increasing the surface area perpindicular to the flow will just create more of a boundary layer and more drag... look to see mclaren fighting it out with FI and sauber for 10th place at melbourne

Well, I hate to say I told you so............

When you see abrupt shape changes like that then you really have to be confident that you know what the airflow is doing beyond you wind tunnel and CFD simulations. Even worse is that within the shallow part of that sidepod you're getting compression and multiple tracks of airflow all interacting with each other.

They really need a new chassis. It's not a set up or a mechanical problem. It's plain aerodynamic instability.

[myurr]

Im just gonna go ahead and say it, the L shaped sidepod is a dud idea.

increasing the surface area perpindicular to the flow will just create more of a boundary layer and more drag... look to see mclaren fighting it out with FI and sauber for 10th place at melbourne

And, Robbobnob, out of interest how much additional drag would that surface area create as a percentage of the overall drag of the car? I suspect that if the car is struggling that much for pace that it won't be anything to do with surface area perpendicular to the flow.

[myurr]

increasing the surface area perpindicular to the flow will just create more of a boundary layer and more drag... look to see mclaren fighting it out with FI and sauber for 10th place at melbourne

Well, I hate to say I told you so............

When you see abrupt shape changes like that then you really have to be confident that you know what the airflow is doing beyond you wind tunnel and CFD simulations. Even worse is that within the shallow part of that sidepod you're getting compression and multiple tracks of airflow all interacting with each other.

They really need a new chassis. It's not a set up or a mechanical problem. It's plain aerodynamic instability.

Seriously? What exactly is your qualification to judge all that by eye? You've been asked many times but have yet to respond, so presumably you're just an armchair critic...

[Just_a_fan]

Even worse is that within the shallow part of that sidepod you're getting compression and multiple tracks of airflow all interacting with each other.

What are you talking about?

They really need a new chassis. It's not a set up or a mechanical problem. It's plain aerodynamic instability

And the car's reliability issues are down to the aero? Wow, who'd have thought it. They've struggled in testing because they've spent too long in the garage fixing things inside the bodywork. You're never going to be setting the world alight if you're spending what little time you have on checking the oily bits are ok. I suppose they could have done a quick 1 lap on fumes to make it look quick but that doesn't fool anyone so is pretty pointless.

Oh, and the chassis isn't the aero part of the car so changing the chassis won't change the sidepod shape.

[segedunum]

Yes, seriously. I've responded multiple times over what I think is wrong with them and certain people then simply got upset and wanted to stop any further discussion. Read what I wrote and read the quote from robbobnob.

Like it or lump it, the car has a very, very clear and fundamental aerodynamic instability. Try and think what's happening over and around those sidepods, and then think about what's happening as the car is going through corners, flow off the front wing etc. It's an insanely complex set of variables, all to cut a chunk out of the sidepods to get more airflow to the rear of the car.

Trying to pick people up on their 'qualification' is utterly irrelevant. If we're armchair critics then we're armchair critics that were right. Just accept it. That kind of 'discussion' track won't make the obvious problems go away so I don't know where that's going.

[Just_a_fan]

Like it or lump it, the car has a very, very clear and fundamental aerodynamic instability. Try and think what's happening over and around those sidepods, and then think about what's happening as the car is going through corners, flow off the front wing etc. It's an insanely complex set of variables, all to cut a chunk out of the sidepods to get more airflow to the rear of the car.

Humour me. Explain it nice simple terms or point me to your previous explanation.

I'm struggling to see where the "compression" is for a start...

[segedunum]

What are you talking about?

Sigh...........

You need a uniform airflow going through there in order for things to be stable. Think about what's happening when you've got airflow coming from different directions. The higher parts of the sidepods act as boundary layers slowing the airflow and then airflow from elsewhere interacts with it. Just think about it for a second.

And the car's reliability issues are down to the aero?

The car's reliability issues are a completely separate and additional problem to its obvious stability issues.

Oh, and the chassis isn't the aero part of the car

At a fundamental level the car needs changed - from the chassis on upwards. The chassis materially affects the aerodynamics (I do wish people would stop using the non-word 'aero' - it's a chocolate bar).

[segedunum]

I'm struggling to see where the "compression" is for a start...

Please tell me you're not that.....oh, you're deliberately doing it? When you get something fast moving interacting with something that is slow moving you've got yourself a compression.

[myurr]

Yes, seriously. I've responded multiple times over what I think is wrong with them and certain people then simply got upset and wanted to stop any further discussion. Read what I wrote and read the quote from robbobnob.

Saying it over and over won't make it true. You've also declined to make firm predictions on form. So let's try again, seeing as you're so confident in your eyeball CFD. Do you think a car with L shaped sidepods win a race this year? If you cannot honestly predict the answer to that to be no then we can drop talk of ditching the car and coming up with a new concept.

Like it or lump it, the car has a very, very clear and fundamental aerodynamic instability.

Like it or not, we just don't know that yet.

Try and think what's happening over and around those sidepods, and then think about what's happening as the car is going through corners, flow off the front wing etc. It's an insanely complex set of variables, all to cut a chunk out of the sidepods to get more airflow to the rear of the car.

And the other F1 cars are all so simple with the undercuts, double floors, sharp waists, front exhausts, etc....

Trying to pick people up on their 'qualification' is utterly irrelevant. If we're armchair critics then we're armchair critics that were right. Just accept it. That kind of 'discussion' track won't make the obvious problems go away so I don't know where that's going.

It's not irrelevant at all, it shows whether you're informed but with an agenda, or if you're just a fan boy with an agenda. You make so many claims about different cars, slagging off anything that doesn't have a drinks company as it's owner, claiming that you know better than some of the most successful teams in the history of the sport, that you will by default call it right occasionally. Hell I can make a prediction about every single team saying they'll struggle and be in the bottom half of the grid and I'll be right 50% of the time. That doesn't make that prediction of any use or prove me right as a whole.