Page 41 of 72
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 20:16
by Giblet
rifrafs2kees wrote:Giblet wrote:Then don't play if you don't want to try to figure it out.
Some of use enjoy it, and we discuss it. Telling us not to is basically just lame. I find it fun, and we might be on to something, and this kind of talk brings more technical minds to the forum.
Confused_Andy. A vaccuum cleaner hose can be really long, and if the hose has no holes in it, it's not like the pressure stops.
Shaddock, you are talking like the many that think the wing stalls completely at a set speed. The air out the back as far as I can figure, partially stalls the wing, making it less effective than it would be without the blown gap at the back. Making a steep wing at as a less steep wing at speed.
The snorkel IMO is just a control, a hole in a pipe like a flute. Covering a hole changes the 'pitch', or the 'pressure'.
As well, just because we get a friday practice in 5 days, doesn't meant that Mclaren have to give us full disclosure of how it works. We may be speculating until far into the season, so if you don't want to play, go away.
I like playing in this sandbox, and won't be told not to.
I have no issues with discussion. But this "conjecture"(dare I say again) has been exhausted. Second issue is there're always a loss of vacuum or pressure efficiency the longer the path of action even without leaks. Why would mclaren with all that real estate of a car they have, put that thing on the nose, which by the way isn't electric; to control something on the tail end of the car? We've been fed enough of this stuff. The quality of the posts believe me or not, haven't been that good of late. It's been snorkel, snorkel, snorkel, snooorrrrkeeeeel............with no end in sight.
They, Mclaren, have no snorkel in the nose. It's in the drivers cockpit, or safety cell.
Give a single reason why a team like Macca would put a vent there just to cool a drivers knee. Seriously. The drivers are fit as can be, and don't need extra cooling, especially with a drag penalty.
Re: Reducing the drag of a two element wing through stall
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 20:34
by triart3d
I had some questions to all ( i'm not aerodinamicist.. nor engineer .. and my english is not good)
2 f1's, one with mc wing and other with 'normal' wing.
both need 1000 kilos of downforce to pas curve A at top sped of 200Km/h
Normal wing, 2 elements, had a angle of 30º, because with more, it stalls
MC wing, 2 elements with blow, had a angle of 50º to generate same downforce.
Are two wings of same size? We need to generate same downforce with diferents angles.
what happens on straits if normal 2 elementswing is bigger than Mc one?
And what happens on MC if, at speed upper than 250km/h, they can stop/reduces the air blow with over presures on the air channel, stalling the upper element?
Sorry.. spanish here.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 20:50
by Just_a_fan
Giblet wrote:
The Ferrari duct is in a completely different place. Not right where a drivers left knee is.
A switch is not allowed. It can not be part of the car. there is nothing in the rules that says a drivers knee can't plug a hole. That is why the 'ridiculous' idea of a knee is even plausible, to skirt the rules.
After reading about teh fluidic switch, that only needs a tiny change in pressure to get air from another source, like maybe the diffusers second deck?
Everything i this thread once the fluidic switch was found, is completely plausible.
The McLaren duct is no where near the driver's knee either. It's just about above his ankle. Don't forget that the driver's feet must be behind the front axle line and the scoop isn't far behind that either.
Have you looked in to an F1 cockpit? There is almost no room and the idea that the driver is going to be moving his knee around in a controlled fashion whilst been subjected to the vibration and lateral loadings that modern cars create is a bit pie-in-the-sky IMHO. Hell, some drivers even have side panels on the pedals to help keep their feet properly located!
I can see the McLaren scoop being a tuned inlet to control a valve somewhere else but the idea of the driver being involved seems a bit too contrived to me.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 21:06
by jason.parker.86
Is there a reason why the valve would be "interchangeable". I.e. it looks as if they can put it on the left or right of the nose? Maybe they will change it depending on the way they go around the track? i.e. clockwise track left side, etc?
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 21:15
by Confused_Andy
Mclaren have had those panels there on the last 2 or 3 of their cars, theres something beneath it, this time around theres a inlet ontop of one of them.
Heres the MP4/23 & 24 but its even noticeable on the 22:
Its the exact same position but the Vodafone decal has moved.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 21:27
by jason.parker.86
It's very interesting, and got us all thinking... but one wonders if it was for cooling, why they would all of a sudden require cooling around this area when they have never had this problem before.
Another thing worth adding is it very clear that this snorkel is not something they have knocked up in two minutes...
Why would they add it for cooling the driver when they already have the hole in the tip of the nose cone...
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 22:45
by deterherligt
Confused_Andy wrote:Mclaren have had those panels there on the last 2 or 3 of their cars, theres something beneath it, this time around theres a inlet ontop of one of them.
Heres the MP4/23 & 24 but its even noticeable on the 22:
Its the exact same position but the Vodafone decal has moved.
Isn't these panels just for adjusting the throttle and brake pedal? At least old Ferraris had a panel:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1108886619# at about 7:30
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 23:23
by neilbah
so if we were to rule out fancy tubes and air pressure control etc would a vent there help with pedal fade? i.e the brake fluid reservoir getting boiling hot from the increased load on brakes this year with no refuelling, this inturn gets the brake pedal hot/drivers foot and so the air is for driver comfort??? hmmm not sure..again no other team feels the need.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 23:39
by autogyro
neilbah wrote:so if we were to rule out fancy tubes and air pressure control etc would a vent there help with pedal fade? i.e the brake fluid reservoir getting boiling hot from the increased load on brakes this year with no refuelling, this inturn gets the brake pedal hot/drivers foot and so the air is for driver comfort??? hmmm not sure..again no other team feels the need.
If the brake fluid is hot enough at the master cylinder/reservoir to need air cooling, then the design of the callipers, disks and wheel cooling scoops is not going to be good enough. I do not think brake fluid cooling is the reason.
The access panels are probably for the fluid reservoirs though and just happened to be convenient for another purpose.
I think the place chosen is simply the best convenient spot for uninterupted air flow at all speeds.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 07 Mar 2010, 23:52
by Shaddock
Extra cooling on F1 cars has usually been taken care of with gills or NACA ducts unless you are feeding a matrix. The snorkel positioned into the air flow is to gather air pressure.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 08 Mar 2010, 00:11
by majicmeow
They are interchangable to save costs. Why design two parts when one will do?
As for the access panels, they are not for brake fluid or steering adjustment. Those are done with the nose cone off and the steering rack and brake resiviours visible. My guess is also that they are for brake and throttle pedal adjustments. Or simply for component access and assembly ie: wiring harness or steering column.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 08 Mar 2010, 00:28
by Raptor22
A fluidic switch although having no mechanical parts does have a moving element that can affect aerodynamics. Air.assuming they are using a fluidic switch, the air stream required to power it can be considered to be a moving device affecting the aerodynamics.
Therefore it could be considered outside the rules.
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 08 Mar 2010, 00:32
by szlaszlo84
Ahhh but then even trying to stall a wing would be against the rules.. Cause that's a switch too.. ?!
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 08 Mar 2010, 00:40
by Raptor22
yeah but there is not a moving component inducing a "stall" usually.
Once air is channeled through a cars body work to produce downforce that airstream is now a system.
However the only variable to it's performance is the cars airspeed.
With the fluidic switch, that airstream becomes intentionally interupted. Just because air is the switching mechanism does not make it legal. In this case the air is a device.
just an possible arguement to be used against
Re: Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes MP4/25
Posted: 08 Mar 2010, 01:12
by delacf
In my opinion the wing of McLaren works as follows:
Part of the air entering the airbox is sent inside the "shark fin" to the rear wing. The aim of this air is to separate the two planes of the rear wing. If the air separating the two planes of the wing is easy to enter into losses at high speeds (on line). That is the goal, I think.
Greetings