I suppose there is a degree of correlation you can draw from your simulation. If you use the same constraints and assumptions with the same variable input to 2 different models, you know how one correlate to real world, and under the same testing input and the result is faster, than you can say to a degree of confidence that it should be faster...

RacingManiac wrote:I suppose there is a degree of correlation you can draw from your simulation. If you use the same constraints and assumptions with the same variable input to 2 different models, you know how one correlate to real world, and under the same testing input and the result is faster, than you can say to a degree of confidence that it should be faster...

Just like they did for this year's car?

RacingManiac wrote:I suppose there is a degree of correlation you can draw from your simulation. If you use the same constraints and assumptions with the same variable input to 2 different models, you know how one correlate to real world, and under the same testing input and the result is faster, than you can say to a degree of confidence that it should be faster...

Perhaps, but you can't (or shouldn't really) use MP4-24 as a baseline. MP4-24 was designed for a shorter wheelbase, lighter car, so you can't be 100% sure that the alterations you make to the longer heavier wheelbase numerical model will translate to the same alteration seen if similar adjustment were made to a model (or real) interpretation of the older car. I think there will be a degree of correlation, but I suspect they won't truly be able to see how well correlated the models are until they get a car built.

richard_leeds wrote:

RacingManiac wrote:I suppose there is a degree of correlation you can draw from your simulation. If you use the same constraints and assumptions with the same variable input to 2 different models, you know how one correlate to real world, and under the same testing input and the result is faster, than you can say to a degree of confidence that it should be faster...

Just like they did for this year's car?

The problem is I think for this year without the usual amount of track work they couldn't correlate the model early on. With new tires and aero much of the old stuff is no longer valid. The amount of development they put in for the MP4-24 through the year(and general how effective it got) was sort of how well their understanding for the new model was improving. Now 2010 will again have new tire(narrower front?) and a whole new set of variable with the much bigger tank, that might throw off their simulation again. But generally you have to go off your CAE result somehow. If you don't think the new car/parts/system is faster/stronger/better based on your CAD/FEA/car model, what do you have to based your design on?

Something must correlate between this year and next. The cars will be so similar.

I bet you can just slap on the back wing, slap on a slightly bigger DDD and modify the front wing just a little for the new tyres.. adjust the "power" of each to match the new weight distribution and BAM!! the car is already good mid pack contender.
Remember all the engineers are playing with are shapes and their placement.
What I realized this year is that this year's cars all narrowed down to having similar elements in the front wing and the DD and rear wing. BMW improved so much by just simply copying.
Next year won't be that much different. Just adjust here and there.. copy a thing or two.. try some new designs..test etc.. the main point is, is that the ideas that worked for this year will definitely work for next year IMO. You just have to adjust them slightly.

OK, I admit the 25 is relatively close to the 24 compared to the huge changes that led to the 24. So one would hope that there is a little more certainty in the numeric modelling. But it is still to be tested.

I'd say that McL talk of the 25 being faster is publicity spin. They don't know what the other teams are up to. They may get to track with a car that is 2 sec/lap quicker to find the other teams are 3s a lap quicker. Or they my expect to gain 2s a lap, but only gain 1s.

Its all part of the circus as the teams try to maintain interest during the close season. We'll not know reality until testing brings in 2010.

Is anyone going to guess at how many tins of green paint McLaren will get through next year?

I would imagine the development mules for next years cars would be far more rewarding than this year's was. I mean, it must be fairly easy to hide the core elements of your design like weight distribution, etc. but still be able to accumulate valuable data for the final design. If that is the case, they can hopefully start testing asap.

you can do it via imageshack.us and then post the given link here. between img tags

surely you have a USB cable, or a urfulofcrap dongle?

goony wrote:

n smikle wrote:Something must correlate between this year and next. The cars will be so similar.

I bet you can just slap on the back wing, slap on a slightly bigger DDD and modify the front wing just a little for the new tyres.. adjust the "power" of each to match the new weight distribution and BAM!! the car is already good mid pack contender.
Remember all the engineers are playing with are shapes and their placement.
What I realized this year is that this year's cars all narrowed down to having similar elements in the front wing and the DD and rear wing. BMW improved so much by just simply copying.
Next year won't be that much different. Just adjust here and there.. copy a thing or two.. try some new designs..test etc.. the main point is, is that the ideas that worked for this year will definitely work for next year IMO. You just have to adjust them slightly.

I think your missing the vital point which is that the RULES are the same as 2009
BUT that doesnt mean that the design of the cars will be the same

goony

I know the design wont be the same. I said the way you design the parts will be very similar. I can bet the ideas that work for this year will work for the next year because of the similar aero rules. Double diffuser, narrow sidepods, side fins, endplate holes, those "mini" wings on the front wing, redbull nose etc.. Remember that new mclaren wing that was being tested? sorta like that..
The longer wheelbase and weight distribution just means you have to adjust what you have right? and some a few new things here and there. But my gut tells me next years cars wont be vastly different like the ones we saw this year!

Hey,Since you said you are are one of the persons that does the fibre work at Mclaren, did you work on this year's car as well?

n smikle wrote:I said the way you design the parts will be very similar. I can bet the ideas that work for this year will work for the next year because of the similar aero rules. Double diffuser, narrow sidepods, side fins, endplate holes, those "mini" wings on the front wing, redbull nose etc.. Remember that new mclaren wing that was being tested? sorta like that..

The way you design parts is always similar. You just design part, you know))
As far as details - narrow sidepods - as long as you can fit your fuel-tank, enplate holes (for the front wing) - they'd have narrower tyres, so who knows, maybe drawing air out would be more beneficial.
The main thing is with narrower tyres and heavier and larger tank (and therefore longer wheelbase) you have to calculate new optimal aero and weight balance figures that would be very different from this year. So, a lot of homework to do. We'd see whether their stuff is up to task, considering this year they have a lot to prove. But I guess they're VERY motivated.
Anyway, we'd have exciting winter one more time!