Yes, well... 'natural' if you have a wind-tunnel and all the data of the car...MIKEY_! wrote:Natural evolution having lost the snow plough
?!? What ?!?MIKEY_! wrote:I was surprised we ever saw the previous version, between the snowplough nose and this nose. It may not have required a new crash test, sometimes (but not very often) the crash structure is internal only. Not that impressive either, TR managed a much bigger change last year.
Its still pretty low. Also is it shadows or does it go down then up ?silversurf3r wrote:Giando wrote:New nose cone for McLaren secretly tested at Mugello.
Wow! Did not see this coming. I thought the car was built around the aero philosophy of the lower nose? How do you guys see this effecting performance? There must be fairly significant benefits to make such a big change. This is definitely the best compromise solution I have seen on any of this years noses. (superficially at least)
Due to the sheer size of some aircraft winglets, e.g 737ng, ground clearance would also be a problem if they were mounted on the bottom surface.hardingfv32 wrote:The low pressure region (distance from wing surface) on the low pressure side of a wing is many times larger than the high side of a wing. Is that on point?AnthonyG wrote:Question: why if the problem is air comming from beneith the wing, does the winglet tries to cut off the top and not the bottom?
I understand how the "current" solution works, but it seems more logical to tackle the bottom.
Brian
Ye it's definitely not as high as the likes of Ferrari but its a shift in their philosophy I think. Does appear to dip and rise again to me. Im no aerodynamicist so I don't know what the pros and cons of this would be. ...?Huntresa wrote:Its still pretty low. Also is it shadows or does it go down then up ?silversurf3r wrote:Giando wrote:New nose cone for McLaren secretly tested at Mugello.
Wow! Did not see this coming. I thought the car was built around the aero philosophy of the lower nose? How do you guys see this effecting performance? There must be fairly significant benefits to make such a big change. This is definitely the best compromise solution I have seen on any of this years noses. (superficially at least)
Cant see how that would work, i mean i hardly think the nose would be such a benefit either more or less downforce then tweaking something else, or am i wrong?silversurf3r wrote:Reading the Autosprint article again it says the nose may be used only for certain circuits!?