I substantially agree with you.ringo wrote:I'm not denegrating them. by their own standards they fell short with the 26.
Winter testing showed that.
Flow around the back of the car, the lower regions, is compromised with the U pods.
It is only alleviated with exhausts blowing in those regions.
If there is no blowing at those lower region then you have inefficient flow to the back because the U pods are very wide and don't taper as smoothly to the gear box from a top view.
To retain U pods they need to be very narrow at the rear. This runs the risk of overheating, and it still will have a lower L/D than redbull's.
Don't agree. Silverstone saw ALL teams losing blown (in-release) diffusers, with McLaren losing 1.5s more than others. So if RB lost 1s of performance, 1+1.5=2.5s.wesley123 wrote:since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.
Apart from that, we all know that McLaren relied a lot on the exhaust blowing, and I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing. McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod. If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.
To be fair though, McLaren made a series of impressive cock ups that race involving car set up and fuel weights. I do still think they will lose more DF than RBR do from this, but not as much as 2.5 seconds.Javert wrote:Don't agree. Silverstone saw ALL teams losing blown (in-release) diffusers, with McLaren losing 1.5s more than others. So if RB lost 1s of performance, 1+1.5=2.5s.wesley123 wrote:since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.
Apart from that, we all know that McLaren relied a lot on the exhaust blowing, and I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing. McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod. If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.
Having good flow above the diffuser helps much creating downforce, with U-pods and no blowing diffuser works too badly, and the BW/RW advantages don't compensate this
Refer to the Scarbs sketch that you posted on the 26 site. With the exhaust blowing into the u-pod channel, the gasses would be accellrated and directed to wing and /or beam wing. I understand that several teams are considering such a move but require clarification from FIA. However, the FIA are attempting to prevent this, so if such wing blowing is ruled against, THEN the u-pod design might fade into obscurity. But one way or the other, upper sidepod design will probably be varied next year as teams rush to maximise airflow above the bodyringo wrote:I'm not denegrating them. by their own standards they fell short with the 26.
Winter testing showed that.
Flow around the back of the car, the lower regions, is compromised with the U pods.
It is only alleviated with exhausts blowing in those regions.
If there is no blowing at those lower region then you have inefficient flow to the back because the U pods are very wide and don't taper as smoothly to the gear box from a top view.
To retain U pods they need to be very narrow at the rear. This runs the risk of overheating, and it still will have a lower L/D than redbull's.
An F1 car is like Lego, all components have to be optimized individually and they have to "click" together. If it is lacking in one aspect then the integral performance will be lacking.
Isolating the part is actually a good indication of how well it works, especially if you can quantify it.
2010 and 2011 exhaust and diffuser regs were the best opportunities for U pods. 2012 is yet to be seen.
I disagree. An different sidepod design can increase floor df yes, but without the blown diffuser you still loose the same whatever floor design you have. Why? Because you take away the same thing so you lose similair.Javert wrote: Don't agree. Silverstone saw ALL teams losing blown (in-release) diffusers, with McLaren losing 1.5s more than others. So if RB lost 1s of performance, 1+1.5=2.5s.
Having good flow above the diffuser helps much creating downforce, with U-pods and no blowing diffuser works too badly, and the BW/RW advantages don't compensate this
On the contrary. The floor is even more critical now.wesley123 wrote:since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.
I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing.
McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod.
If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.
I m not sure that is Win-Win combination!!wesley123 wrote:I can in no way diagree with that, the RB7 was better in every way, but to blame it on the u-sidepod is just wrong. The both are completely different strategies.
From what I have read the RB8 is going to be an agressive development, the RB5-6 and 7 are at it's end of what they can do where the MP4-26 with the U-sidepods are a whole new development. If they can make the rear end tighter(which they surely can) then the U-sidepods are the way to go.
ringo - you keep posting that you know more than anyone else about the cars but then say you won't make any comment until the season is over.ringo wrote:It's tempting to reveal why, just to alleviate your befuddlement, but i promise not to until next year.
All i can say it's more than eyeballing. Some serious theory is involved.
+1 Continuing to claim you know the secrets of the RB7 but won't disclose them until a later date (which keep moving) just sounds like someone trying to sound knowledgeable... If you do indeed know something then prove it, otherwise admit that you don't.richard_leeds wrote:ringo - you keep posting that you know more than anyone else about the cars but then say you won't make any comment until the season is over.ringo wrote:It's tempting to reveal why, just to alleviate your befuddlement, but i promise not to until next year.
All i can say it's more than eyeballing. Some serious theory is involved.
You also said the same in the RB7 thread, something about know the secret to their success that you would not reveal until the end of the season.
The season is now over, so please do share your unique insights into the RB7 and MP4-26 - in the appropriate threads of course!