officialsushy wrote:McLaren haven't "got it wrong" as people are saying.! They've had a a different design philosophy to EVERYONE else since last year i.e they ran a lower front-end to everyone else using a type of "snow plough" at the front of the nose to help with air flow because of the lower nose section compared to everyone else. So they, like Redbull have carried on with there design and evolved it, they obviously believe this to be the best way to go, like they did in 2011 (and who ended up with the best race car by the end of the year..McLaren..) The Stepped nose is basically just the same as there previous years car but the top half is lower due to the new restrictions on height, so I see the nose having very little effect compared to last year, it will mainly be asthetic (otherwise why didn't they go with this stepped nose last year..?), whereas EBD ban.. big change!
Raptor22 wrote:In 1995 they tried that ridiculous car that look like a baracuda with a hat.
Even in 1996 through to 2000 (the Newey years) they maintained a low nose.
BorisTheBlade wrote:Raptor22 wrote:In 1995 they tried that ridiculous car that look like a baracuda with a hat.
Even in 1996 through to 2000 (the Newey years) they maintained a low nose.
Wasn't the MP4-13 of 1998 his first car at McLaren, while the beautiful FW18 of '97 was his last Williams?
forty-two wrote:Just a little thought RE the apparent slot/vent on the nose hump, has anyone considered the aero characteristics of hollow point ammunition?
Such ammo might appear to have the aero characteristics of a house brick, but is actually pretty good. The trick apparently is that the area directly in front of the hollow point forms a sort of bubble of high pressure air, which is what then encounters the oncoming air first, making the effective nose of the projectile a rounded ball, which has much better aero.
Or am I way off the mark here?
Robbobnob wrote:Interesting thought 42, there will certainly be a pressure build up ahead of the bump that is for sure.
I myself was wondering what effect it would have on the local boundary layer, will it cause agitation, lowering drag?
forty-two wrote:Just a little thought RE the apparent slot/vent on the nose hump, has anyone considered the aero characteristics of hollow point ammunition?
Such ammo might appear to have the aero characteristics of a house brick, but is actually pretty good. The trick apparently is that the area directly in front of the hollow point forms a sort of bubble of high pressure air, which is what then encounters the oncoming air first, making the effective nose of the projectile a rounded ball, which has much better aero.
Or am I way off the mark here?
Raptor22 wrote:The local stagnation point essentially will reside close to the slit forcing the boundary layer over it. This cheats the air into believing the chassis has a more gradual shape.
Stagnation point trick are old hat. It has used in a 1987 America's Cup British 12Metre that was nicknamed the Hippo because it had an ugly bump just under the bow.
In 2003 Team New Zealands NZL82 had a hull appendage (HulA) that was also a flow cheater device to fool the water into believing the hulls water line length was longer. Longer water line length = higher theoretical speed
Users browsing this forum: amouzouris, bhallg2k, Google Adsense [Bot], iamthewalrus, mcalex, monsi, motorloon1993, wesley123 and 30 guests