McLaren have gone through a difficult season, but a proper look at their new MP4-31 suggest they have put in considerable effort to come back from that swiftly.
Somers is always full of it. The tiny tiny bit he does know, he learned here at f1t.Thunders wrote:Amazing how the Article talks about different finishes to micromanage Airflow when the Wing was in reality just a Prototype that simply hasn't been painted yet.We've seen this before this Season.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
That's perhaps a little harshly put. Still, I think it's obvious that technical forums and such are used heavily by nearly all technical journalists, at least those who haven't actually worked in F1 in a technical role.Pierce89 wrote:Somers is always full of it. The tiny tiny bit he does know, he learned here at f1t.Thunders wrote:Amazing how the Article talks about different finishes to micromanage Airflow when the Wing was in reality just a Prototype that simply hasn't been painted yet.
Is it possible that these Aluminium pieces on the Front Wing is fitted with sensors and are for evaluation purposes only ??In terms of front wing is experimenting with McLaren. Particularly at the transitions of the individual elements are working, as can clearly be seen on the metal inserts.
Carbon fiber is stronger than steel.Alonso Fan wrote:I was under the impression the metal had been added to increase strength. The areas where the metal has been added are some of the weakest points of the wing structurally. The metal parts were present at the gp before testing too
Not sure if they were used in the race though
Carbon fibres themselves are generally stronger than most metals, but that's only a uniaxial property right? Carbon fibre composites can be somewhat isotropic, but in that case surely they wouldn't be as strong as the carbon fibre itself in any single direction? Perhaps the choice of material is related to the nature of the loading expected, perhaps its related to fracture? For which a metal could be a better choice. However, joining carbon fibre composite to metals is tricky. Must be a very good reason for it.godlameroso wrote:Carbon fiber is stronger than steel.Alonso Fan wrote:I was under the impression the metal had been added to increase strength. The areas where the metal has been added are some of the weakest points of the wing structurally. The metal parts were present at the gp before testing too
Not sure if they were used in the race though
A single layer of a carbon fiber composite will have uniaxial or more likely biaxial properties if it's a normal cross weave. That's why a lot of thought goes into the stacking orientation of each layer. I'm sure they know which loadings to expect so making a certain composite isotropic would seem like unnecessary excess weaves.3jawchuck wrote:Carbon fibres themselves are generally stronger than most metals, but that's only a uniaxial property right? Carbon fibre composites can be somewhat isotropic, but in that case surely they wouldn't be as strong as the carbon fibre itself in any single direction? Perhaps the choice of material is related to the nature of the loading expected, perhaps its related to fracture? For which a metal could be a better choice. However, joining carbon fibre composite to metals is tricky. Must be a very good reason for it.godlameroso wrote:Carbon fiber is stronger than steel.Alonso Fan wrote:I was under the impression the metal had been added to increase strength. The areas where the metal has been added are some of the weakest points of the wing structurally. The metal parts were present at the gp before testing too
Not sure if they were used in the race though
Central part of the front wing is not moulded from the nosecone. Nosecone has two bolts where you can attach the front wing.zac510 wrote:I was considering whether the standard (central) wing part is perhaps one-piece moulded to the nosecone, but I can't find in the regulations whether the central wing section needs to be detached for the FIA crash test (ie the nose test is nose-only).
If it is now one piece then these metallic parts could be the joints where they actually change the wing profiles.
Composite's excellent specific strength/modulus are the key. Sure, steel is much stronger but, per kg, Carbon composite blows it out of the water. In an environment where performance is inversely proportional to weight, that's the big benefit.SameSame wrote: The carbon fiber composite is clearly no where close to being as strong as steel, but it's the fact that it is so light that makes it an attractive material.
Hmmm this is where terminology becomes a bit finicky, I don't think there exists such a thing as specific modulus but I know exactly what you are trying to say and I fully agree with that. Pound for pound it truly is amazing provided it is loaded in the intended direction(s).Just_a_fan wrote:Composite's excellent specific strength/modulus are the key. Sure, steel is much stronger but, per kg, Carbon composite blows it out of the water. In an environment where performance is inversely proportional to weight, that's the big benefit.SameSame wrote: The carbon fiber composite is clearly no where close to being as strong as steel, but it's the fact that it is so light that makes it an attractive material.
Indeed, steel, aluminium and titanium all have similar specific strengths leading, I understand, Williams' Patrick Head to say "titanium is just for people who can't design properly in aluminium"
