Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[Richard]

Good topic for conversation. So good that it has it's own thread for further discussion ...

Helmholtz Exhaust Discussion

[PlatinumZealot]

Why Mclaren doesn't have the Helholtz chamber and their two biggest rivals do?
They have no curvacious diffuser.
No William brake ducts
No high nose.
No slotted side pod vanes.


Freaking ridiculous.

[wesley123]

Why Mclaren doesn't have the Helholtz chamber and their two biggest rivals do?
No high nose.

Indeed, it is much lower than the rest of the field. Wait no it isnt, the only difference is a max 2cm difference in tub height and smooth shape, nose tip is definetely around the max height.

No slotted side pod vanes.

Only 3-4 teams have these, and 2 of those only since the last race

[Owen.C93]

Why Mclaren doesn't have the Helholtz chamber and their two biggest rivals do?
They have no curvacious diffuser.
No William brake ducts
No high nose.
No slotted side pod vanes.


Freaking ridiculous.

Didn't RB only bring it to this race after Ferrari had it for a year lol? Pretty sure Ferrari are the only team with slotted sidepod vanes so no other team found them that useful either. Not to say McLaren have been great with developments this season but it's hardly ridiculous for them to not copy those novelty items.

[vinuneuro]

Since it's what's most 'visible' I get that aero is what gets most talked about in this forum. But it's clear that McLaren's issues revolve around the tyres. It wouldn't be surprising that the team has become too aero-centric over the years, and why they've found themselves in this mess.

[Coefficient]

Since it's what's most 'visible' I get that aero is what gets most talked about in this forum. But it's clear that McLaren's issues revolve around the tyres. It wouldn't be surprising that the team has become too aero-centric over the years, and why they've found themselves in this mess.

I think what has happened is Mclaren are battling to develop a compromised car. The MP4 27 was supposed to race with the angled floor. This concept not only enabled the car to generate more rear downforce therefore making better use of the tyres; but also has an influence on the geometry of suspension components and other ancillaries. With the trick floor now banned the team is in the curious position of having to stand still whilst they re-optimise for the flat floor whilst other teams bolt pure pace onto their cars. In order to recreate the same rear performance that the trick floor achieved would probably require a redesign of everything aft of the driver so in this respect they might as well do a stepped nose too as this would also prompt a redesign downstream so they now have double the reason to spend the money.

[bhall]

Update for Germany: hydroplated coach pins with sub-retinal handling compensating...

[McLaren Animation video]

I enjoyed that a hell of a lot more than I probably should have. Thanks.

[Shakeman]

Since it's what's most 'visible' I get that aero is what gets most talked about in this forum. But it's clear that McLaren's issues revolve around the tyres. It wouldn't be surprising that the team has become too aero-centric over the years, and why they've found themselves in this mess.

I think what has happened is Mclaren are battling to develop a compromised car. The MP4 27 was supposed to race with the angled floor. This concept not only enabled the car to generate more rear downforce therefore making better use of the tyres; but also has an influence on the geometry of suspension components and other ancillaries. With the trick floor now banned the team is in the curious position of having to stand still whilst they re-optimise for the flat floor whilst other teams bolt pure pace onto their cars. In order to recreate the same rear performance that the trick floor achieved would probably require a redesign of everything aft of the driver so in this respect they might as well do a stepped nose too as this would also prompt a redesign downstream so they now have double the reason to spend the money.

I can't see the trick floor being the root cause of performance. Lotus is always there or there about with, outwardly, a far less trick car.

I'm still not convinced McLaren are that far behind and any successes Ferrari and RB have recently had could easily be attributed to lucking into the right tyre window for the track. I don't see a clear pecking order other than Lotus being a reasonable car on most tracks.

There is a Paddy Lowe interview in Autosport which claims to lay bare the problems McLaren had at Silverstone but I don't subscribe so I can't see it. Hopefully someone here can relay the gist of that interview which may shed more light on the situation.

[Huntresa]

Since it's what's most 'visible' I get that aero is what gets most talked about in this forum. But it's clear that McLaren's issues revolve around the tyres. It wouldn't be surprising that the team has become too aero-centric over the years, and why they've found themselves in this mess.

I think what has happened is Mclaren are battling to develop a compromised car. The MP4 27 was supposed to race with the angled floor. This concept not only enabled the car to generate more rear downforce therefore making better use of the tyres; but also has an influence on the geometry of suspension components and other ancillaries. With the trick floor now banned the team is in the curious position of having to stand still whilst they re-optimise for the flat floor whilst other teams bolt pure pace onto their cars. In order to recreate the same rear performance that the trick floor achieved would probably require a redesign of everything aft of the driver so in this respect they might as well do a stepped nose too as this would also prompt a redesign downstream so they now have double the reason to spend the money.

I can't see the trick floor being the root cause of performance. Lotus is always there or there about with, outwardly, a far less trick car.

I'm still not convinced McLaren are that far behind and any successes Ferrari and RB have recently had could easily be attributed to lucking into the right tyre window for the track. I don't see a clear pecking order other than Lotus being a reasonable car on most tracks.

There is a Paddy Lowe interview in Autosport which claims to lay bare the problems McLaren had at Silverstone but I don't subscribe so I can't see it. Hopefully someone here can relay the gist of that interview which may shed more light on the situation.

The point is that the trick floor messed up the cars balance and aero etc, and they fell behind in development cause of it.

[Coefficient]

Since it's what's most 'visible' I get that aero is what gets most talked about in this forum. But it's clear that McLaren's issues revolve around the tyres. It wouldn't be surprising that the team has become too aero-centric over the years, and why they've found themselves in this mess.

I think what has happened is Mclaren are battling to develop a compromised car. The MP4 27 was supposed to race with the angled floor. This concept not only enabled the car to generate more rear downforce therefore making better use of the tyres; but also has an influence on the geometry of suspension components and other ancillaries. With the trick floor now banned the team is in the curious position of having to stand still whilst they re-optimise for the flat floor whilst other teams bolt pure pace onto their cars. In order to recreate the same rear performance that the trick floor achieved would probably require a redesign of everything aft of the driver so in this respect they might as well do a stepped nose too as this would also prompt a redesign downstream so they now have double the reason to spend the money.

I can't see the trick floor being the root cause of performance. Lotus is always there or there about with, outwardly, a far less trick car.

I'm still not convinced McLaren are that far behind and any successes Ferrari and RB have recently had could easily be attributed to lucking into the right tyre window for the track. I don't see a clear pecking order other than Lotus being a reasonable car on most tracks.

There is a Paddy Lowe interview in Autosport which claims to lay bare the problems McLaren had at Silverstone but I don't subscribe so I can't see it. Hopefully someone here can relay the gist of that interview which may shed more light on the situation.

The Lotus is irreleveant because its fundamental design has remained unchanged and it is not as vanilla as you think. The Lotus is a bit of a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Lotus as with most teams have been able to refine their car whereas Mclaren are effectively running a car that was conceived around an idea that has been taken away from them. Therefore, their car is not ideally suited to the way it is being used.

Remember the team spent all winter testing with the car in its intended configuration and then promptly won the first race with it. Then China comes and the floor is banned so all the setup work they did, all the tyre modelling, all the R&D planning they did based on those test sessions had to be chucked in the bin

The operating window of an F1 car is remarkably narrow, more so this year with the tyres therefore it follows that any undesired deviation from the envisaged development path of the car will wreak havoc with its performance. This is why we see on track the decline of the MP4 27. Ok, it won in canada but downforce is not the be all and end all for success at that track and the good showing there has been something of a blip in an otherwise downward trend performance wise.

3mm doesn't sound like much but when its the floor we're talking about the effect can be enormous!

[mzivtins]

This whole floor thing has made me angry from the outset.

If they confromed to the letter of the regulation, and then apparently fell foul of that, then why has the regulation not been amended to prove a shut case.

Im going to say something that i hate when others do it but... the FIA had all winter to talk about the issue to macca, why wait? Just as mentioned previously in the thread, they have winter tested a car with the tyres around a key point that was allowed then taken away, now look, --- performances with tyres etc it no coincidence in my book.

Well lets hope the new update for germany lasts longer than 1 race

[Owen.C93]

This whole floor thing has made me angry from the outset.

If they confromed to the letter of the regulation, and then apparently fell foul of that, then why has the regulation not been amended to prove a shut case.

Im going to say something that i hate when others do it but... the FIA had all winter to talk about the issue to macca, why wait? Just as mentioned previously in the thread, they have winter tested a car with the tyres around a key point that was allowed then taken away, now look, --- performances with tyres etc it no coincidence in my book.

Well lets hope the new update for germany lasts longer than 1 race

Why would the FIA go and measure McLaren's floor during winter? There was nothing illegal in there floor as it was on the limit of the manufacturing tolerances allowed. What was a problem was when 4 or 5 races in the floor was still on that same limit every time which shows that it wasn't a manufacturing error but rather McLaren were deliberately reaching those limits for a performance gain.

Personally I think it's not worth a lot at all and has little effect on their current performance. Unfortunately it's the only thing half assed journos can pin point that has changed so they're going to try and explain it that way, not least because they can't be disproved.

[mzivtins]

Why would the FIA go and measure McLaren's floor during winter? There was nothing illegal in there floor as it was on the limit of the manufacturing tolerances allowed. What was a problem was when 4 or 5 races in the floor was still on that same limit every time which shows that it wasn't a manufacturing error but rather McLaren were deliberately reaching those limits for a performance gain.

Very good point actually, something i failed to see completely.

I am just a really bad loser, and hate how poor the results have been for this team, so me like a lot of other people just clamper at anything that might explain why things are pretty poo for them

[gridwalker]

We're talking about a 3mm tolerance here : how much extra rake/diffuser volume would they have been able to gain from exploiting this? The ride height increase would be less than that created by the additional tread on wet-weather tyres, or even the potential deformation within a loaded tyre, so I am curious how this could drop a winning car back into the midfield.

Please, could someone give me an explanation how this loophole created such a performance differential?

[Shakeman]

What was a problem was when 4 or 5 races in the floor was still on that same limit every time which shows that it wasn't a manufacturing error but rather McLaren were deliberately reaching those limits for a performance gain.

The question is why should that matter if McLaren were doing it for performance reasons? Presumably McLaren are now subjected to a more stringent tolerance on their floor?

Why shouldn't a team use every bit of tolerance to their advantage? If Newey had done it, it would've been down to the genius of Newey to constant probe the boundaries and exploit the grey areas.

If a team's manufacture is so good that it can work reliably to a much finer tolerance then that "performance" should be allowed on the car.

I think Silverstone was an outlier in performance with rain scuppering accurate verification of upgrades and the wrong race setup for the conditions. The results show no teams dominant and those teams who appear to have made progress could easily find themselves in a similar position to McLaren in subsequent races unless they have unlocked the secret to the tyres.

The results do show clearly that McLaren only have one driver that can get the tyres to work which maybe more of an issue to car development as this year it's all about the tyres.

Caterham's large upgrade package was difficult to quantify in the rain so I would imagine the McLaren upgrades were almost impossible to test effectively. If you can barely see the improvement in upgrades supposedly bringing >1 sec to the car you're never going to see a couple of tenths in the rain.