McLaren MP4-28 (pre-launch speculation)

[onewingedangel]

It generally is the new chassis that is shown - with old wings, covered diffuser and sometimes breakthrough aero concepts hidden.

Look at the MP4-25 Launch and the F-duct rear wing was present, and last years car was largely as shown, albeit with the exhausts disguised.

[shelly]

Exactly - you have a launch spec and a 1st race spec, and they can differ much on all the moveable parts (wings, body panels, turning vanes etc). But the car fundamentals are there, in terms of chassis, suspensions, radiators layout 8how many and where). Crash structures are seldom changed during the season (nose, sideimpact, rear)

[bajanshotta]

Hi I sit and read everything every one says but do you think they might go back with a slight groove like the U groove they had. For one with it the air coming free from restrictions can pass over the exhaust even faster , aiding it to push the gases down even more combined with a redbull tunnel we might have a winning car.

[Jackles-UK]

I'm not sure where the whole "RBR style ramp/tunnel is clearly the fastest exhaust layout" opinion came from but everybody seems to be buying into it. If the -28 turns up with a similar solution to last year I will not be disappointed.

As far as i'm concerned the -27 coanda exits were more than a match for the tunnel and considerably less hastle to get working. Granted the channelling of air to the starter hole is a big plus but there is no obvious proof that the ramp has more downforce generation than the coanda and the fact that almost every team ended last year with a McLaren style solution (including Sauber who abandoned their ramp in favour of their later system) gives penance to that theory. RBR's success last year was based more around gains in other areas (DDRS, FW flex, trick brake ducts etc etc) and a great understanding on how to maximise what they had and win/pick up points when they shouldn't have than their exhaust layout.

[Holm86]

The ramp is more advanced and harder to get working properly. I think thats why some teams favored the McLaren style instead.

IMO the ramp has much more development potential. And now they've had all the off season to develop it. So i still think theres a big possibility that the MP4-28's got a ramp.

[beelsebob]

The ramp is more advanced and harder to get working properly.

What evidence do you have for it being more advanced? Harder to get working we have plenty of evidence for, more advanced, I see none.

IMO the ramp has much more development potential.

Oh? In what direction would you develop it, how would those solutions not be applicable to the coanda?

[scarbs]

I disagree about so-called proven theory that the tunnel\ramp is clearly the best solution, its a compromise just as McLaren's solution has some compromises. The fact that the ramp\tunnel layout on the Red Bull was a rush job as the blown brake duct idea was banned suggests it was not at the top of Newey's list. Added to the fact that is took half a season to get working properly and even then the final version was a stripped out iteration of what was originally fitted, suggests it full of issues. Sauber tried tunnels and didn't get them to work.

I think the jury is still out on what is the "best" solution, unless you have an F1 car or Wind tunnel to play with

[Holm86]

The ramp is more advanced and harder to get working properly.

What evidence do you have for it being more advanced? Harder to get working we have plenty of evidence for, more advanced, I see none.

IMO the ramp has much more development potential.

Oh? In what direction would you develop it, how would those solutions not be applicable to the coanda?

The fact that it IS harder to get working and that it does two jobs is what i mean by more advanced. The McLaren style is more simple. And it seemed to me that McLaren had it full developed at the end of last season.

I just think that the ramp/tunnel if you get it to work propperly would be slightly better than the McLaren style.

But i dont state it as a fact. Its just my oppinion.

[beelsebob]

The ramp is more advanced and harder to get working properly.

What evidence do you have for it being more advanced? Harder to get working we have plenty of evidence for, more advanced, I see none.

IMO the ramp has much more development potential.

Oh? In what direction would you develop it, how would those solutions not be applicable to the coanda?

The fact that it IS harder to get working and that it does two jobs is what i mean by more advanced.

Being more complex is not the same as being more advanced. In fact, often, the more simple solution is the more advanced in terms of performance. Which job does it do that the McLaren solution does not? Both feed the exhaust gases to the diffuser without them interfering with flow around the side pods. Both feed the flow around the side pods to the middle of the beam wing and into the starter motor hole.

The McLaren style is more simple. And it seemed to me that McLaren had it full developed at the end of last season.

What makes you think that?

I just think that the ramp/tunnel if you get it to work propperly would be slightly better than the McLaren style.

Again, what evidence do you have to support that?

But i dont state it as a fact. Its just my oppinion.

Sure, I just like to see opinions backed up by facts. Personally, I'd tend to suggest that the McLaren solution is probably the rather better one here, because McLaren seemed to pretty convincingly have more rear downforce than red bull, who only came back towards the end of the season due to DDRS. I'd also suggest that other teams moving to McLaren's solution rather than keeping existing ramp solutions is indicative of it being a better solution.

[turbof1]

Uh beelsebob... Opinions are called like that for a reason. If there were facts we would not be talking in terms of opinions. The truth is, nobody here knows the facts or has proof. I doubt even the engineers at mclaren and red bull really know which one is the better.
And I agree with holm86 that it is more advanced. A higher performance is not a prerequisite for being more advanced. Just look at the vietnam war: it is widely stated that the americans were fighting with superior advanced assault rifles, only for the ak47 being much more reliable in the dirt and thus the latter belng by far the better rifle, even though the ak47 having a very simple mechanism.

[Holm86]

The McLaren style is more simple. And it seemed to me that McLaren had it full developed at the end of last season.

What makes you think that?

I think its more simple because the McLaren style focuses on delivering exhaust gasses to the diffuser. Which is one job. The tunnel/ramp system focuses both on delivering exhaust gasses to the diffuser and delivering air to the center/starterhole of the diffuser. Thats two jobs. Thats why i think the McLaren style is more simple.

I just think that the ramp/tunnel if you get it to work propperly would be slightly better than the McLaren style.

Again, what evidence do you have to support that?

I have no evidence. Thats why i only think its better. You have no evidence that the McLaren style is better.
I base this on the large performance boost Red Bull got when they got their tunnel/ramp system working.

But i dont state it as a fact. Its just my oppinion.

Sure, I just like to see opinions backed up by facts. Personally, I'd tend to suggest that the McLaren solution is probably the rather better one here, because McLaren seemed to pretty convincingly have more rear downforce than red bull, who only came back towards the end of the season due to DDRS. I'd also suggest that other teams moving to McLaren's solution rather than keeping existing ramp solutions is indicative of it being a better solution.

I think the McLaren one seemed full developed at the end of last season. I dont think the Red Bull one was. It took Red Bull a long time to get their system to work. Thats also why i think other teams abandoned it. That again is one of my arguments the McLaren one being more simple.
A McLaren style exhaust being at perhaps 80% of its potential would be better than a Red Bull one at perhaps 30-40% of its potential.

[Shakeman]

I don't know too many engineers that don't aim for maximum performance with maximum elegance which is often the most simplified solution.

It may well be that the RB solution is theoretically the best solution in lab conditions but has issues in practise and during development Macca were aware of and further developed the idea and removed the ramp and produced their more elegant solution.

Since none of us are privy to any test data none of us know for sure which solution is the later iteration in development.

[Holm86]

I don't know too many engineers that don't aim for maximum performance with maximum elegance which is often the most simplified solution.

It may well be that the RB solution is theoretically the best solution in lab conditions but has issues in practise and during development Macca were aware of and further developed the idea and removed the ramp and produced their more elegant solution.

Since none of us are privy to any test data none of us know for sure which solution is the later iteration in development.

I agree.

[beelsebob]

I think its more simple because the McLaren style focuses on delivering exhaust gasses to the diffuser. Which is one job. The tunnel/ramp system focuses both on delivering exhaust gasses to the diffuser and delivering air to the center/starterhole of the diffuser. Thats two jobs. Thats why i think the McLaren style is more simple.

Then I think you're underestimating what the McLaren solution is doing. The McLaren solution too supplies the centre/starter hole – just rather than doing so using a pipe, it does so using the low pressure created behind the side pod to suck the air flowing round the side pods inwards.

I have no evidence. Thats why i only think its better. You have no evidence that the McLaren style is better.
I base this on the large performance boost Red Bull got when they got their tunnel/ramp system working.

No, I don't – I'm not arguing that the McLaren style is better, I'm arguing that dismissing it as worse is idiotic. And Red Bull's large performance increase didn't come when they got the tunnel working – it came when they got the DDRS working.

But i dont state it as a fact. Its just my oppinion.

Sure, I just like to see opinions backed up by facts. Personally, I'd tend to suggest that the McLaren solution is probably the rather better one here, because McLaren seemed to pretty convincingly have more rear downforce than red bull, who only came back towards the end of the season due to DDRS. I'd also suggest that other teams moving to McLaren's solution rather than keeping existing ramp solutions is indicative of it being a better solution.

I think the McLaren one seemed full developed at the end of last season. I dont think the Red Bull one was. It took Red Bull a long time to get their system to work. Thats also why i think other teams abandoned it. That again is one of my arguments the McLaren one being more simple.
A McLaren style exhaust being at perhaps 80% of its potential would be better than a Red Bull one at perhaps 30-40% of its potential.[/quote]
Again, I don't think you can make such assertions. McLaren continued to modify their exhaust throughout the season. It didn't stop being developed, and there's no reason to think that it has reached it's peak. You may be right that the RBR solution has more potential, but I don't see any evidence here.

Uh beelsebob... Opinions are called like that for a reason.

Sure, but generally we don't go around giving them out on technical forums unless we have some technical reason for doing so. Note – as I stated above, I'm not arguing that I know the McLaren solution is better. I'm arguing that making assumptions on the RedBull one being better, that are based on opinions of laymen is retarded.

[turbof1]

I think it is less about assuming but more about believing. Holm86 explicitly stated he could be wrong. That does not look like assuming at all. This is a speculation thread; how you twist or turn it, most people here can only give their opinion because we all lack the necessary information. And then it falls down to opinions without solid foundations. In a technical forum that happens actually alot, but also on a engineer board when data does not match up or is unavailable.

Frankly, I think the mclaren one is the better because you want to maximize airflow to the back. Red Bull's ramp blocks alot of the airflow in order to guid the exhaust gasses better. That they made the ramp alot shorter later on and thus removing alot of obstructing bodywork, only confirms this in my eyes. Mclaren seems to achieve the same with the exhaust, but with a much better undercut.