Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter does not belong here.

Post Sat May 05, 2012 11:54 am

Perhaps this old picture I have of a flo-viz'd McLaren rear wing will help show how the flow moves across the endplates?

Image
Catch me on Twitter https://twitter.com/SomersF1 or the blog http://www.SomersF1.co.uk
I tweet tech images for Sutton Images
Matt Somers
 
Joined: 19 Mar 2009

Post Sat May 05, 2012 12:09 pm

Well the part nearest the wing isnt there now, cause they have a cutout there aswell meaing the fins is more inwards and the side is outwards.
Huntresa
 
Joined: 3 Dec 2011

Post Sat May 05, 2012 5:57 pm

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.


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?

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Sat May 05, 2012 6:01 pm

In the above end plate photo, what is happening to the flow behind the second element/flap? Does this look correct or could the test have been done with the flap up?

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Sun May 06, 2012 7:26 am

This looks like the wing they ran in the beginning of 2011, the one with the most prominent vortices....
Lycoming
 
Joined: 25 Aug 2011

Post Sun May 06, 2012 7:45 am

Here is my 2 cents about the louvres:

The Top surface of the wing is undoubtedly high pressure. The underside of the wing is lower pressure(I'm not sure on absolute figures but it is a lot closer to atmospheric pressure than the top surface). And outside the end plate is atmospheric pressure.

Without the louvres the large flow rate and pressure differentials cause large trailing edge vortices (the things you see in the wet). The louvre simpley allows a more 'gentle' equilisation at the edge of the wing. This reduces the overall downforce but drastically increases the efficiency, reducing drag.
Twitter @ledzep4pm
ledzep4pm
 
Joined: 21 Oct 2011

Post Mon May 07, 2012 10:02 am

Giando
 
Joined: 10 Jan 2012

Post Mon May 07, 2012 10:16 am

Natural evolution having lost the snow plough
I've found a way of ducting exhaust right to the diffuser edge like in 2011 and created a new wheel fastener that could allow sub 2 second pitstops see them here --> My 2013 F1 Concept Project
MIKEY_!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2011
Location: On my horse, my horse is amazing.

Post Mon May 07, 2012 10:21 am

MIKEY_! wrote:Natural evolution having lost the snow plough


Yes, well... 'natural' if you have a wind-tunnel and all the data of the car...
I didn't expect it, for sure... did you?! For real?!? :wink:

It's expensive, it has to pass new crash-tests and it is not easy to design as it is higher than the previous one
but has to comply with the controversial 2012's chassis and nose heights rules...

I personally think it's a great effort by McLaren. :!:

:mrgreen:
Giando
 
Joined: 10 Jan 2012

Post Mon May 07, 2012 10:23 am

When / how did they test it without it being in the news-coverage of tests?

Edit: read the linked article and found the answer (tested so briefly that no one noticed). Still surprising though, that no one had noticed yet
twitter: @armchair_aero
shelly
 
Joined: 5 May 2009

Post Mon May 07, 2012 10:27 am

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.
I've found a way of ducting exhaust right to the diffuser edge like in 2011 and created a new wheel fastener that could allow sub 2 second pitstops see them here --> My 2013 F1 Concept Project
MIKEY_!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2011
Location: On my horse, my horse is amazing.

Post Mon May 07, 2012 10:38 am

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.


?!? What ?!?

This was maybe 20 years ago... according to my knowledge.

-

Anyway... different points of view, mate... :wink:
TR managed to change their nose cone in the middle of the season, not after 4 races...

Last radical nose-cone change i remember was the RB in 2009, but again in the middle of the season (Silverstone).
Previously the Ferrari F310B nose from ultra low to high back in 1996, but it was mainly to gain performance out of a bad car.

McLaren is already one the 2/3 best cars on the field and this is a huge step, imho.

:)
Giando
 
Joined: 10 Jan 2012

Post Mon May 07, 2012 11:57 am

[quote="Giando"]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)
silversurf3r
 
Joined: 20 Oct 2011

Post Mon May 07, 2012 12:32 pm

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)


Its still pretty low. Also is it shadows or does it go down then up ?
Huntresa
 
Joined: 3 Dec 2011

Post Mon May 07, 2012 12:34 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:
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.


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?

Brian


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.
Thank you to God for making me an Atheist - Ricky Gervais.
simieski
 
Joined: 29 Jul 2011

PreviousNext

Return to F1 Car Hardware & Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AddThis [Crawler], mikeerfol, prince and 43 guests