Mclaren Mercedes MP4-25

[segedunum]

They're measuring airflow on the exact spot where the ridge/slot is:

http://twitpic.com/1590n2

I can't believe they're still mucking about with this.

[Giblet]

I can.

They have new system on the rear wing, and they need to measure the amount of air coming out the slot out back, that is controlled by that supposed knee hole in the cockpit.

Measuring is what testing is for. I thought that was already known by everyone in this thread at least.

They need as much baseline data now as they can get. There is no in season testing to get more data later, other than very limited straight line tests.

I can't for the life of me understand why you think measuring = mucking around. Out of curiosity, should they just eyeball it, or ask Lewis if it is working based on his butt dyno?

MEASURE TWICE CUT ONCE.

[Raptor22]

this impossible. hte faster the car goes, the more the suspension is compressed by the aerodynamic load on it. The ride height is never constant. Its just not being actively controlled.

That's not the point. You can't actively control the suspension through any method, whether automatic or via the driver, and there is still a minimum ride height.

There will be a batch of regulatons on this from 1994 onwards.

The regulations speaks specifically to actively controlling the characteristics of the suspension, i.e. changing compression and rebound on the dampers through an active feedback loop.
that did not stop platform or Adaptable compression dampers from being fitted. With these the degree of compression damping was dependant on the internal valving hitting a threshold that opens another valve to allow faster compression.

With a driverride height adjust system you will get away having a pin that holds the rockers in one postion and when its removed the rocker slips into another positon lowering hte ride height. Its a not return system and therefore there is no feedback loop and hence not actove control and therefore legal.

[Pup]

I can.

They have new system on the rear wing, and they need to measure the amount of air coming out the slot out back, that is controlled by that supposed knee hole in the cockpit.

Measuring is what testing is for. I thought that was already known by everyone in this thread at least.

They need as much baseline data now as they can get. There is no in season testing to get more data later, other than very limited straight line tests.

I can't for the life of me understand why you think measuring = mucking around. Out of curiosity, should they just eyeball it, or ask Lewis if it is working based on his butt dyno?

MEASURE TWICE CUT ONCE.

I also suspect that Barca is the first track where they can properly test this thing.

[WhiteBlue]

I can.

They have new system on the rear wing, and they need to measure the amount of air coming out the slot out back, that is controlled by that supposed knee hole in the cockpit.

Measuring is what testing is for. I thought that was already known by everyone in this thread at least.

They need as much baseline data now as they can get. There is no in season testing to get more data later, other than very limited straight line tests.

I can't for the life of me understand why you think measuring = mucking around. Out of curiosity, should they just eyeball it, or ask Lewis if it is working based on his butt dyno?

MEASURE TWICE CUT ONCE.

I also suspect that Barca is the first track where they can properly test this thing.

At least they never had the measuring array back there. Previously it was always seen at the front end of the car. I remember the flow-viz pics of the rear though.

[Blackout]

It looks like the primary splitter has disappeared

[horse]

It looks like the primary splitter has disappeared

Funny that, it was on when they were running the pitot tubes this moring:

[segedunum]

that did not stop platform or Adaptable compression dampers from being fitted. With these the degree of compression damping was dependant on the internal valving hitting a threshold that opens another valve to allow faster compression.

Those can argued to be passive systems influenced by external factors, and even then we've had a few bannings.

With a driverride height adjust system you will get away having a pin that holds the rockers in one postion and when its removed the rocker slips into another positon lowering hte ride height. Its a not return system and therefore there is no feedback loop and hence not actove control and therefore legal.

If it's a passive system then you might get away with that, but if there is driver input of any kind then it's illegal no matter which way you cut it.

EDIT: Having thought about it a ride height change could be made at a pit stop when the car is stationary, but the rules are pretty clear about any device making changes to the ride height while the car is moving.

[segedunum]

Measuring is what testing is for. I thought that was already known by everyone in this thread at least.

A certain amout of measuring is what testing is for. However, at this late stage you work on more practical and pressing matters, such as getting the speed out of your car in racing and qualifying trim because you have such limited time. You can't do that if you've got devices hanging off the back of your car and you're looking at other things. You can't change something fundamental if it doesn't work now.

They need as much baseline data now as they can get.

As said many pages back, data being useful depends on it being relevant and you being able to do something about it. In a sport like Formula One, data collected now is hardly going to be relevant in a few weeks because the window changes so fast. It also won't help you change anything fundamental with the car. Either it makes a difference to the time or it doesn't - that's what testing is for.

There is no in season testing to get more data later, other than very limited straight line tests.

Yes, which is why they don't have time for R and D projects.

Out of curiosity, should they just eyeball it, or ask Lewis if it is working based on his butt dyno?

Assuming that's what it's doing, but we have no idea that is what they're trying other than a comment from someone a few pages back.

The bottom line is if it makes an appreciable difference to their times with and without then it's worth doing, as long as it's positive. If it doesn't then it realy doesn't matter what other measurements they take. I just see this as another McLaren data overload trip. If it doesn't work then why has it made it on to the car?

[Raptor22]

that did not stop platform or Adaptable compression dampers from being fitted. With these the degree of compression damping was dependant on the internal valving hitting a threshold that opens another valve to allow faster compression.

Those can argued to be passive systems influenced by external factors, and even then we've had a few bannings.

With a driverride height adjust system you will get away having a pin that holds the rockers in one postion and when its removed the rocker slips into another positon lowering hte ride height. Its a not return system and therefore there is no feedback loop and hence not actove control and therefore legal.

If it's a passive system then you might get away with that, but if there is driver input of any kind then it's illegal no matter which way you cut it.

I disagree, there are many systems on an F1 that are driver influenced but not "active control".
The only exclusion in article 10 is "no changes to the suspension system are allowed while the car is in motion."
This does not exclude a system where the driver can alter the cars ride height while it is stationary in the pits.
So your arguement around driver input has no baring in this matter.

In fact the rules does not specifically prohibit changing the ride height while in motion either because any activation of the suspension changes the roll centre and that can be argued to be an alteration while in motion. what you have presented is merely your interpretation of the rules.

The safe way is for a driver operated device in the cockpit that can be activated when the suspension is unloaded in the pits.
but I am pretty sure it could be successfully argued that a passive system can be activated by the driver while the car is in motion.
Platform dampers are allowed and those change the state of damping while in motion.

The rules intention is to avoid active systems working off a feedback loop but does not ban reactive systems.

[segedunum]

I disagree, there are many systems on an F1 that are driver influenced but not "active control".

This is specifically to do with the ride height and suspension and not other systems on the car which may or may not be actively controlled.

The only exclusion in article 10 is "no changes to the suspension system are allowed while the car is in motion." This does not exclude a system where the driver can alter the cars ride height while it is stationary in the pits. So your arguement around driver input has no baring in this matter.

That's the only way it could be done - but that wasn't what you were arguing before. Even then, it's highly unlikely that a driver initiated system would be allowed since it could be used while the car is in motion. You can't just say "Oh, we only use it when the car is stationary at a stop". That tac has been used before.

In fact the rules does not specifically prohibit changing the ride height while in motion either because any activation of the suspension changes the roll centre and that can be argued to be an alteration while in motion. what you have presented is merely your interpretation of the rules.

A clear distinction can be made between passive and reactive suspension travel and the set, default ride height of the car. You're rather splitting hairs now. That's how there are regulations on the ride height of the car but suspensions can be allowed.

The rules intention is to avoid active systems working off a feedback loop but does not ban reactive systems.

It doesn't matter what the intention of the rules is, they are clear, and no you can't get around them by arguing you have something that isn't active. A reactive system is unlikely to be successful anyway since setting the default ride height of the car requires a non-passive system of some kind to change the baseline.

[horse]

Maybe you guys should take this one outside?

F1 2010: Ride height adjustments during pit stops

[conni]

thestig84 wrote:
My person at the MTC has heard a new aero package, as suggested by many on here for next test.

Also another sighting of the more cylindrical engine cover/fin that they have seen quite a few times since mid last year now. Has no clues if it is part of a package that will end up on the car.

Also no mention of cooling problems. Generally seem cautiously pleased with the 25 so far.
My person at MTC?? Do you really know somebody at McLaren Technical Centre. If you want to prove otherwise ask this mysterious person which gate they use to get to Mclaren Racing.

lol there is only 1 gate into mtc then you drive past telly tubby land then turn right into the carparks then use whichever rotunda leads to the area that you work

conni

[Shaddock]

Static ride hide is pretty much irrelevant, it’s the dynamic ride hide that’s important (should be the same at all tracks). One of the biggest factors on setting ride height is DF levels at a particular track, which is a greater influence on the cars dynamic ride height than the weight of the fuel.

[Pup]

lol there is only 1 gate into mtc then you drive past telly tubby land then turn right into the carparks then use whichever rotunda leads to the area that you work

conni

What department does Tinky Winky work in?