Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[simieski]

I don't know what visually aerodynamic means.

Look at the Ferrari solution in comparison to McLarens and the McLaren looks more aerodynamic, it flows from one surface to the next with more fluidity. Im not saying it is more aerodynamic its just looks it

Would it surprise you to learn that a brick is just as aerodynamic as the Concorde?

In a vacuum perhaps...

[N12ck]

I don't know what visually aerodynamic means.

Look at the Ferrari solution in comparison to McLarens and the McLaren looks more aerodynamic, it flows from one surface to the next with more fluidity. Im not saying it is more aerodynamic its just looks it

Would it surprise you to learn that a brick is just as aerodynamic as the Concorde?

it depends what aspects of the aerodynamics you look at, more aerodynamic could be talking about drag inducing, drag reducing, or more lift, or less lift, so if you are looking at drag inducing aspect of aerodynamic, then yes a Brick is as aerodynamic as concorde (if you make it comparable to concordes ability to have less drag), so 'aerodynamic' is a very subjective word, which could be talking about one or more things,

[elf341]

And I guess it'd be true to say that a brick has more high speed downforce than concorde.

[morefirejules08]

This is rapidly going off topic, but the question is would a concord size brick still produce less drag than concord itself?

And I guess it'd be true to say that a brick has more high speed downforce than concorde.

You would hope that concord would in fact produce negative downforce at high speed

[bhall]

I said that - though I probably shouldn't have - because nothing is more or less aerodynamic than anything else. Everything is "aerodynamic."

The question is about aerodynamic efficiency, and that can't necessarily be judged visually.

The F2012 has a vastly different cooling arrangement within its sidepods. Its radiators are vertical, whereas the MP4-27's are nearly horizontal. You can see the manifestation of those differences in this photo from Silverstone. The McLaren sidepods are long and gently tapered; the Ferrari sidepods are short and stubby. One judging a solution's worth based upon appearance alone would likely choose the wrong one.

[Holm86]

Ignoring the exhaust bulge the coke shape looks much much tighter!!!

It starts to taper inwards much earlier.

[godlameroso]

Interesting, it seems they're trying to use the sidepods to generate some vortecies, also the exhaust position seems to indicate that they're trying to blow the beam wing.

[nhojekim]

I don't know what visually aerodynamic means.

Maybe what he meant was that because it looks good and looks cleaner by just looking at it, it is more aerodynamically better than that of the ferrari. But that is not usually the case right?

[morefirejules08]

I said that - though I probably shouldn't have - because nothing is more or less aerodynamic than anything else. Everything is "aerodynamic."

The question is about aerodynamic efficiency, and that can't necessarily be judged visually.

The F2012 has a vastly different cooling arrangement within its sidepods. Its radiators are vertical, whereas the MP4-27's are nearly horizontal. You can see the manifestation of those differences in this photo from Silverstone. The McLaren sidepods are long and gently tapered; the Ferrari sidepods are short and stubby. One judging a solution's worth based upon appearance alone would likely choose the wrong one.

I understand that a direct comparison between the two sidepod designs is difficult but the area aft of the exhaust looks more integrate with the rest of the bodywork on the McLaren and to my eyes it looks the the flow of air will be smoother, this theory is obviously impossible to prove on a forum so this is just my personal opinion

[simos]

Red-Bull looks least like the McLaren exhaust than most teams. I don't understand why people keep trying to pull up these comparisons. It's very much like the Ferrari exhaust now.

In shape yes, and they are still quite far off from Red Bull their tunnel. However, the sidepods are notably different from Ferrari:
http://kepfeltoltes.hu/120705/127_mediu ... es.hu_.jpg

Ferrari does not have that extra bodywork behind the exhaust. On the new side pod of mclaren, bodywork sweeps to the back end of the mclaren. Also the exhausts are a bit more inward then Ferrari (still a bit more outward then Red Bull though). I think it is a intermediate version; the sidepods are for me evolving towards the red bull one, which does seem the way to go by accelerating air under a tunnel towards the diffuser.

We also know that Ferrari actually was developping towards McLaren. IMO, the previous iteration from McLaren looked much closer to Ferrari their current one:
http://www.formule1.nl/media/uploads/me ... 430.36.jpg
new one:
http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/gall ... ul/290.jpg

Clearly McLaren's aim now is to keep air routed under bodywork as long as possible towards the diffuser. Ferrari aim basicilly is to keep exhaust flow and airflow seperated. Same goal for McLaren, only that they actually try to better redirect the airflow and (correct me if I am wrong) accelerate it.

It is pretty much a Ferraris copy (witch was a McLaren copy). It even has those shark fins right at the end of coke bottle era.
http://kepfeltoltes.hu/120705/canada_ww ... es.hu_.jpg (the ones left of highlighted)
Main difference that you see is Ferraris cooling outlets. Their main cooling is at end of sidepots, and not like RB/Mclarens single tunnel down the back.

In the end both solutions are a continuation of what they tried to do at launch. McLarens worked from the start, but they neglected in its optimization and Ferrari tried some other stuff along, then returned to it. The aim is the same. Use bodywork to push exhaust gases down towards the diffuser and at the same time allow air to pass around lower end of sidepods unobstructed.

[turbof1]

As the car hasn't driven yet, I think it's only fair at the moment to give opinions based on how it looks. Of course drawing conclusions is an other, but its all we have for now.

[PlatinumZealot]

Interesting, it seems they're trying to use the sidepods to generate some vortecies, also the exhaust position seems to indicate that they're trying to blow the beam wing.

It's actually pointing outwards more, so nope, they are trying to blow the diffuser even more.

Somebody else said the sidepod undercut was not as deep.. I think it is even more deeper both at the front and back. The parting line of the panels only gave an illusion that the old sidepod was more undercut at the front.

[turbof1]

Red-Bull looks least like the McLaren exhaust than most teams. I don't understand why people keep trying to pull up these comparisons. It's very much like the Ferrari exhaust now.

In shape yes, and they are still quite far off from Red Bull their tunnel. However, the sidepods are notably different from Ferrari:
http://kepfeltoltes.hu/120705/127_mediu ... es.hu_.jpg

Ferrari does not have that extra bodywork behind the exhaust. On the new side pod of mclaren, bodywork sweeps to the back end of the mclaren. Also the exhausts are a bit more inward then Ferrari (still a bit more outward then Red Bull though). I think it is a intermediate version; the sidepods are for me evolving towards the red bull one, which does seem the way to go by accelerating air under a tunnel towards the diffuser.

We also know that Ferrari actually was developping towards McLaren. IMO, the previous iteration from McLaren looked much closer to Ferrari their current one:
http://www.formule1.nl/media/uploads/me ... 430.36.jpg
new one:
http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/gall ... ul/290.jpg

Clearly McLaren's aim now is to keep air routed under bodywork as long as possible towards the diffuser. Ferrari aim basicilly is to keep exhaust flow and airflow seperated. Same goal for McLaren, only that they actually try to better redirect the airflow and (correct me if I am wrong) accelerate it.

It is pretty much a Ferraris copy (witch was a McLaren copy). It even has those shark fins right at the end of coke bottle era.
http://kepfeltoltes.hu/120705/canada_ww ... es.hu_.jpg (the ones left of highlighted)
Main difference that you see is Ferraris cooling outlets. Their main cooling is at end of sidepots, and not like RB/Mclarens single tunnel down the back.

In the end both solutions are a continuation of what they tried to do at launch. McLarens worked from the start, but they neglected in its optimization and Ferrari tried some other stuff along, then returned to it. The aim is the same. Use bodywork to push exhaust gases down towards the diffuser and at the same time allow air to pass around lower end of sidepods unobstructed.

Oh I completely agree about the shark fins, but I don't think that is what the update is about. IMO it really is about the bodywork behind the exhaust (the bodywork where those shark fins are). Ferrari their exhausts end quite stubby; McLaren theirs is fitted in a surface of bodywork (as mentioned it "looks smoother"). I can't say for sure, but the refitting of the exhausts looks like it isn't of any importance here; it really is that bodywork.
And uh, Ferrari absolutely did not return to its original concept. Infact they now have the problem that the original acer ducts had such a huge impact in the design of the car, they can't seem to get fully rid of it and are stuck with it. They might had the same goal: getting gasses to the diffuser, but clearly they began different.

[bhall]

Around Monaco Ferrari stopped trying to seal its diffuser with the exhaust and went to a configuration that blew the beam wing. The solution they've adopted since then is a return to the philosophy originally intended for the F2012; it's just in a different form.

And to just put a period on the Ferrari/McLaren comparisons: the cooling requirements for the F2012 and the MP4-27 are very different, and their sidepod designs reflect those differences. Their overall efficiency is the sum of several variables, many of which we cannot see. So, even if one looks "more aerodynamic" than the other, appearance means very little.

[simos]

Yea, I think it was Pat Fry himself that said they'll try to go back into their initial configuration. Can't remember where that interview is, but I know it was right after Mugello update when it looked like that they are going in the different direction.