McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes (pre-launch speculation)

[bbt]

It's also rather simplistic to just say that the 26 sucked without the EBD - there were a number of factors that exaggerated Silverstone, plus the car wasn't without the EBD it was without off throttle blowing of the EBD.

Who said anything about Silverstone, it sucked in testing as well.

[Shakeman]

It's also rather simplistic to just say that the 26 sucked without the EBD - there were a number of factors that exaggerated Silverstone, plus the car wasn't without the EBD it was without off throttle blowing of the EBD.

Who said anything about Silverstone, it sucked in testing as well.

Since the 26 was built around the philosophy of the octopus exhaust and it did rather well all things considered. McLaren were too ambitious with the exhaust system which they couldn't pull off and paid the price for the whole season. The EBD solution run for the whole season was sub optimal.

McLaren know they need a step to get past RB and they won't do that by being conservative. I'd rather they tried and failed than were conservative and still finished second.

I think they'll have to find a way to soften the car up but maintain aero performance like the RBs and I'm convinced RB have been using a RRH system which has assisted them.

[aral]

I'm convinced RB have been using a RRH system which has assisted them.

Newey has already stated that he looked at a ride height system in 2010, and found it to be ineffectice, opting to go to the flexi-wing instead.

After a number of spurious complaints from other teams, the RB& was meticuously examined , and found to have NO such system.

So, what is it that convinces you otherwise?

[raymondu999]

To be fair wasn't the allegation back in 2010 that they had adjustable ride height to allow them lower ride heights in qualifying when the car isn't being weighed down by fuel? Then allegedly Ferrari had a system where you used power drills to turn a screw that adjusted the ride heights; but it was apparently legal as it was done when the car was stationary.

[Shakeman]

I'm convinced RB have been using a RRH system which has assisted them.

Newey has already stated that he looked at a ride height system in 2010, and found it to be ineffectice, opting to go to the flexi-wing instead.

After a number of spurious complaints from other teams, the RB& was meticuously examined , and found to have NO such system.

So, what is it that convinces you otherwise?

The fact the car's suspension looks extremely forgiving over bumps yet it doesn't squirm under braking while McLaren's 26 car looked rigid in comparison and no doubt for aero performance.

It was examined and found not to have anything deemed illegal at the time or it contains some trick parts maybe even something like Merc is alleged to be developing that would not necessarily be obvious to an examiner. "Meticulously examined" by the same people who cannot develop a scrutineering test to catch obviously floppy front wings so I take "meticulously" with a pinch of salt.

[raymondu999]

The fact the car's suspension looks extremely forgiving over bumps yet it doesn't squirm under braking while McLaren's 26 car looked rigid in comparison and no doubt for aero performance.

For the rear, softer would actually give braking stability, and bump compliance AFAIK

[Crucial_Xtreme]

please remove...

[beelsebob]

Here is the latest forecast of the MP4-27 from Julian Petkov.

Nice rendering, but I doubt it'll happen.

[raymondu999]

From page 8:

[beelsebob]

Yep, I'm sure that's what the rendering is based off... I still don't believe it though. I can believe the interesting air box design though.

Aside – the floor is illegal – it can not be cut away at the back like that.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Yep, I'm sure that's what the rendering is based off... I still don't believe it though. I can believe the interesting air box design though.

Aside – the floor is illegal – it can not be cut away at the back like that.

I know the floor is allowed to have an opening but I'm not sure of the exact regs.

the floor can feature openings forward of a line 450mm ahead of the rear face of the cockpit opening i believe.

[beelsebob]

Yep, I'm sure that's what the rendering is based off... I still don't believe it though. I can believe the interesting air box design though.

Aside – the floor is illegal – it can not be cut away at the back like that.

I know the floor is allowed to have an opening but I'm not sure of the exact regs.

the floor can feature openings forward of a line 450mm ahead of the rear face of the cockpit opening i believe.

That sounds familiar – but the cut away round the back wheel is certainly not in this area.

[wesley123]

It is just the render of Jordangp and Tozza Mazza's car, nothing to represent the design of the MP4-27.

And as for the floor, it isnt illegal, McLaren ran a similar floor in 2009.

[beelsebob]

It is just the render of Jordangp and Tozza Mazza's car, nothing to represent the design of the MP4-27.

And as for the floor, it isnt illegal, McLaren ran a similar floor in 2009.

Hmm? This image clearly shows the floor extending all the way to the rear wheels without being cut in:

Just to be clear, it's this that I'm claiming is illegal, not the cut away around the barge boards:

[aral]

I'm convinced RB have been using a RRH system which has assisted them.

Newey has already stated that he looked at a ride height system in 2010, and found it to be ineffectice, opting to go to the flexi-wing instead.

After a number of spurious complaints from other teams, the RB& was meticuously examined , and found to have NO such system.

So, what is it that convinces you otherwise?

The fact the car's suspension looks extremely forgiving over bumps yet it doesn't squirm under braking while McLaren's 26 car looked rigid in comparison and no doubt for aero performance.

It was examined and found not to have anything deemed illegal at the time or it contains some trick parts maybe even something like Merc is alleged to be developing that would not necessarily be obvious to an examiner. "Meticulously examined" by the same people who cannot develop a scrutineering test to catch obviously floppy front wings so I take "meticulously" with a pinch of salt.

There is a lot of speculation on this thread, most of which will be proven to be wrong, but you have nothing to even back up your comments, other than the fact that you do not believe that the FIA are capable of scruitineering a car.