Aston Martin AMR26

[SilviuAgo]

[avada]

https://x.com/thomasmaheronf1/status/20 ... 0&ref_url=

i still can't understand how the least powerful engine requires the most cooling openings at the back of the car

They use the same amount of fuel (fuel flow limit), but produce more heat and less mechanical power than the others. Makes sense.

[FNTC]

https://x.com/thomasmaheronf1/status/20 ... 0&ref_url=

i still can't understand how the least powerful engine requires the most cooling openings at the back of the car

They use the same amount of fuel (fuel flow limit), but produce more heat and less mechanical power than the others. Makes sense.

Yeah, less combustion efficiency, so less hp and more heat. Agreed.

[deadhead]

[etusch]

https://x.com/thomasmaheronf1/status/20 ... 0&ref_url=

i still can't understand how the least powerful engine requires the most cooling openings at the back of the car

If the ignition designs were good enough, less energy would be wasted, and if the design requires the engine to run hotter, they would do this by less cooling. Because once they achieve the fast combustion, the engine won't get that hot.

[AR3-GP]

[bigblue]

Another fatal flaw of the AMR26, it's green so they can't see the flow viz. No wonder they have problems. Rookie error!

[Brahmal]

i still can't understand how the least powerful engine requires the most cooling openings at the back of the car

Putting PU characteristics aside, you'll notice that the AM also has some of the smallest inlets. There are different ways to design a cooling system through the length of the vehicle: some go with small inlets and big outlets like AM, others go big inlets and small outlets like Alpine and Merc. It's just a design choice with trade-offs that each team will judge a little differently.

[wiktor977]

This new more rigid solution with the horizontal connection might be telling about their past troubles.
Looks like they did great effort to have that strengthened part, so it might have caused the rear to misbehave.
To me it looked bad when they presented it, so I am not surprised.

This can also be the weight reducing solution, strengthening RW pylons for them to be able to take massive horizontal loads adds additional weight

The "horizontal connection" that you guys are referring to , has nothing to do with strengthening the RW pylons. It the rear leg upper wishbone "longbow style" (just like front leg upper wishbone at the front of the car) as mentioned by @AR3GP.

I didn't mean that. I said that maybe they introduced this connection to also reduce weight of the pylons.

[Brahmal]

I didn't mean that. I said that maybe they introduced this connection to also reduce weight of the pylons.

Very likely. They would have had to overbuild the previous design to keep it from flexing, whereas this is much more efficient from a structural standpoint. I'm also curious if they could give this crossbar an aero profile, though maybe the FIA would frown on that.

[Brahmal]

So what possible justification would there be for this massive scythe-like structure on top of the actuator pod? I'm wondering if this is more a canvas to stick a bunch of little winglets to later on than anything mechanical or structural.

[FNTC]

Yeah, I don't understand the need for that bow on top there either. Very strange. It must have some kind of aero benefit, if not now, then in the future. If you look at the mechanics there, it would work the same without it. It only stiffens things a bit. Maybe the wing flexes too much without it so they had to add it?

[Farnborough]

https://cf.preview.redd.it/new-actuator ... b11424eb4a

So what possible justification would there be for this massive scythe-like structure on top of the actuator pod? I'm wondering if this is more a canvas to stick a bunch of little winglets to later on than anything mechanical or structural.

It's static, as far as I can see. To support the centre hinge point at the furthest pivot from camera position. That pivot-point would be in alignment with the outer two holding the moveable flap. It arcs in such fashion to give clearance to front of flap rotating upward when deployed.

Presumably to give les wing cord/cross-section to that centre part of flap.

Possibly, without that, the flaps would bend backwards (belly out) under peak loading when closed.

[AR3-GP]

Yeah, I don't understand the need for that bow on top there either. Very strange. It must have some kind of aero benefit, if not now, then in the future. If you look at the mechanics there, it would work the same without it. It only stiffens things a bit. Maybe the wing flexes too much without it so they had to add it?

It's clearance for the new arm:

[FNTC]

I'm just saying if you remove that top carbon fibre bow, the mechanics of the wing remains the same, look at it:

Unless its aero related I think the only reason is the top wing element fails its flex test or something without it.