McLaren have chosen some interesting design routes on their new competitor. In addition to our own technical analysis, McLaren's Tim Goss and Paddy Lowe explain why some decisions have been made in light of the regulation changes.
Whichever it is, it seems to be causing an unhealthy dose of disruption to the suction side of that wing element. It's this behaviour which seems a bit odd to me, surely separation here is undesirable?RDJEHV wrote:can you give us the link to the full resolution of the flow vis pic? maybe we can see if it's a ridge or a slot.
I don't have the knowledge to be able to answer this. Maybe one of our more technical minds might be able to have a go!horse wrote:Whichever it is, it seems to be causing an unhealthy dose of disruption to the suction side of that wing element. It's this behaviour which seems a bit odd to me, surely separation here is undesirable?RDJEHV wrote:can you give us the link to the full resolution of the flow vis pic? maybe we can see if it's a ridge or a slot.
I think the flow-viz might show otherwise. I doubt so much paint would have collected on that ridge if the flow had separated prior to it and I would have thought the paint would have been a lot messier behind it if that were the case, also. Don't know, maybe, maybe not. Still,wesley123 wrote:it will seperate, no matter what, i believe that before the air goes past the slit it will already be seperating.
Surely it should be blowing along the suction side to generate this effect? If it wasn't this would cause a "round the corner flow" at the trailing edge, I think, which, again is undesirable. Thing is, the flow viz shows that it's not blowing in that direction, so I'm still unsure as to what it is doing.wesley123 wrote:That slit is blowing high velocity hot air actually creating more downforce, afterall the air under the wing will flow faster then above, with that slit it is probably even enhanced.
Rad. Would you suck against or with the direction of flow? Is there evidence on the pictures of flow viz paint being drawn inside (I wouldn't want to clean this) the wing? What does that even look like? I think it would be hard to tell the difference between the paint being sucked at an inlet and circulating at a ridge.joseff wrote:Everybody's been assuming the slot in the wing is an outlet.
Let me make a wilder guess: It's an inlet.
By sucking air in where the wing element is nearly vertical, it helps to keep the boundary layer attached and hence produce more downforce. They've done it before: the original roadgoing version of the McLaren F1 used a fan to keep the boundary layer stuck to the diffuser.
If it were an outlet, they could've done it the Sauber way: inlet on top of rear wing, slit in the back. My guess is there's a venturi in the airbox, sucking air from the back of the rear wing.
Nice article,but it looks to me that is nothing more than the same assumptions we make on this section as well...Noone has evidence to confirm anything yet.bonjon1979 wrote:Scarbs thinks we may be on to something:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/02/1 ... shark-fin/
+1 for the blowers!bonjon1979 wrote:Scarbs thinks we may be on to something:
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/02/1 ... shark-fin/
to get more air, the question is whatfor? someone suggested that it could lead to the diffuser. don't think that will be the case, but it can't be just driver cooling.Giblet wrote:What reason would they use a snorkel like that and not a simple NACA duct?
if it where only on the Boss car i´d say it is for cooling the balls...RDJEHV wrote:to get more air, the question is whatfor? someone suggested that it could lead to the diffuser. don't think that will be the case, but it can't be just driver cooling.Giblet wrote:What reason would they use a snorkel like that and not a simple NACA duct?
the other one looked more botched and a temp solution, perhaps this one is straight from the factory?thestig84 wrote:
New profile for the nose scoop and unblocked the top intake
