McLaren have chosen some interesting design routes on their new competitor. In addition to our own technical analysis, McLaren's Tim Goss and Paddy Lowe explain why some decisions have been made in light of the regulation changes.
If you look at the image showing the vis flow on the right you'll see that the dye shows up exactly the wavy black line on the rear of the wing. If there is air being fed through the fin to the rear wing it's along this line that I'd expect it to be coming out. What do people think?bar555 wrote:
Once again the Mc Laren team used fluorescent paint , this time during the winter test at Valencia , to understand the car’s aerodynamics . The green fluorescent paint is mixed with paraffin oil and placed around the car and when it is disrupted by high speed air gives an indication of the airflow to identify how certain parts of the car are working
I'd noticed the E before but never noticed the tabs sticking out. How odd.alelanza wrote:Has been there for a while, for marshals to activate built in extinguishersrichard_leeds wrote:
Also you can see the red pull tabs just above the "E", I presume engine cut off? Are they new for this year?
That's the line we've been talking about...bar555 wrote:Very sharp eye you have bonjon1979 .
viewtopic.php?p=146461#p146461
If that slot is pumping air, the flow rate must be tiny! Considering the size of the auxiliary inlet, the back pressures must be huge (would this maybe stall the flow into the airbox???). This could, of course, explain why the inlet size has been reduced.bonjon1979 wrote:If you look at the image showing the vis flow on the right you'll see that the dye shows up exactly the wavy black line on the rear of the wing. If there is air being fed through the fin to the rear wing it's along this line that I'd expect it to be coming out. What do people think?
Yeah, I'm still not convinced. Could just be a ridge! I think there are some unanswered questions. The access panel and the bulbous shape of the fin. Also, could the lack of sponsorship stickers on the back be telling? Who knows! Until someone from Mclaren comes out and tells us one way or another, (which I can't see them doing) then it's all guess work. Really interesting theory though, even if it does turn out to be nonsense!horse wrote:If that slot is pumping air, the flow rate must be tiny! Considering the size of the auxiliary inlet, the back pressures must be huge (would this maybe stall the flow into the airbox???). This could, of course, explain why the inlet size has been reduced.bonjon1979 wrote:If you look at the image showing the vis flow on the right you'll see that the dye shows up exactly the wavy black line on the rear of the wing. If there is air being fed through the fin to the rear wing it's along this line that I'd expect it to be coming out. What do people think?
Still, I think the flow viz had simply got stuck on the ridge through some circulation and the picture on the right would make me think the slot is not blowing at all or it would have blown the flow viz paint off. The picture on the left could show the slot blowing, but it's a bit inconclusive.
I don't think the picture on the left could show anything. It looks like the pic on the left is just some paint before testing. Look at the endplate for example. It's like:horse wrote:Still, I think the flow viz had simply got stuck on the ridge through some circulation and the picture on the right would make me think the slot is not blowing at all or it would have blown the flow viz paint off. The picture on the left could show the slot blowing, but it's a bit inconclusive.
I did wonder if this was a before and after shot, but I thought the wing end plate was evidence to the contrary. It looks like paint has been blown onto the endplate rather than painted (although I don't know how they apply the stuff) and I thought similar about the diffuser region. My thought was that the picture on the left was either a lower speed run (like an installation lap) or they came in to photograph the paint at an intermediate stage before it dried completely. I could well be wrong though.Pandamasque wrote: I don't think the picture on the left could show anything. It looks like the pic on the left is just some paint before testing. Look at the endplate for example. It's like:
before ______________________________________________________ after
Absolutely! Perhaps another team might moan about it, and then the truth will come out.bonjour1979 wrote:Until someone from Mclaren comes out and tells us one way or another, (which I can't see them doing) then it's all guess work. Really interesting theory though, even if it does turn out to be nonsense!
