F1technical.net

The new upper element (B) seems to have more volume than the one we're used to seeing (A). I'm guessing C is the contingency plan, to have been used if B didn't pass scrutineering. Or is it the same as B, only unfinished and in the final stages of assembly?



Kelpster

I just started working on a similar system for both the front wing and the diffuser.
I will run it past my patent agent on Monday.
Mind you this non flying aero gets boring after a while.

One question though, say if it was a "special" duct(as in it serves something other than mundane cooling), does it have to look so "out of place" and obvious? Would it not work better(assuming they are already routing something complexly through the car, that to locate it at the nose, much like whats already there?

Update on McLarens Snorkel\Rear wing here http://wp.me/sNdA9-235

Ah, here's your contingency plan, C below. C above is, I'm sure, just an unfinished wing/fin assembly.



Kelpster

scarbs wrote:Update on McLarens Snorkel\Rear wing here http://wp.me/sNdA9-235

Interesting article. I'm not sure if your explanation on your blog is based on something else you've read/heard/seen or if it was based on the interview alone. There's obviously still a lot of skepticism, but it sounds somewhat feasible, yet very hard to prove definitively that this is actually happening.

If that's really how it's working, it's ingenious and awesome all at the same time!

What about safety issue? If a piece of rubber, CF or gravel could clog it, than the driver would turn into corner believing that rear wing generates expected amount of DF and most likely face sudden unexpected overseer if not total loss of grip on rear end. Isn't that just too dangerous?

Personally, I don't find this to be something that will beat RB6, so don't think of my post as anti-Mclaren but as safety-wise.

I wonder if the rear wing is positively charged, much like a plenum chamber.

i think the snorkel vents air to the driver in the corners and vents air to the wing on the straights

manchild wrote:What about safety issue? If a piece of rubber, CF or gravel could clog it, than the driver would turn into corner believing that rear wing generates expected amount of DF and most likely face sudden unexpected overseer if not total loss of grip on rear end. Isn't that just too dangerous?

Personally, I don't find this to be something that will beat RB6, so don't think of my post as anti-Mclaren but as safety-wise.

Clogging will not allow the wing to be stalled... Regardless how the slot is fed, it needs to have air flowing through it to get the wing to stall, assuming if the assumption that its activated by driver blocking the vent in the cockpit, the air will have no where to go but to the rear wing and causing it to stall, if that does not happen(or if the inlet is blocked), the rear wing can't be stalled and everything should work as normal....

Okay I'm a noob at this.

A wing works through different speeds on the top and bottom. In F1, the bottom of the wing has fast flowing air and the top has slow moving air.

A venturi tube also works through different airspeeds on the two ends of the tube, connecting the two surfaces and using the pressure difference to produce downforce.

If the McLaren slot thingy works as essentially a hole in the wing, would this be the same as a venturi tube through the wing?
If you had a hole in a wing, the slow moving high pressure air from the top side would go through the wing to the fast moving low pressure air on the bottom, equalizing pressure and producing a force counter to the normal downforce effect of the wing.

It feels like there's a hole (no pun intended) in my logic, but I'd love to know if I'm in any way correct.

Sneaky look at the F vent pipe sitting below the vent

when should the tunnle need to provide air, when should it close?

Scania wrote:when should the tunnle need to provide air, when should it close?

it is operated by driver's knees (as is widely believed). it should provide air to rear wing when on a straight line and should close (of course by driver's knee) whilst approaching a turn.

outer_bongolia wrote:

Pup wrote:Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think the diffuser may just be missing some pieces. Mid-assembly, or something.

edit: should have checked Atlas first - yep, the diffuser in that pic just wasn't complete. Probably why it was all scooted to one side.

Here she is, ready to play...

No flames please, but I have a dumb question. I'm sure the information is somewhere in the last 100 pages, but I couldn't locate information on it.
The tube that is coming down the middle and exiting above the crash structure... WTF is that, and where is it coming from? Is it the other half of the blown wing assembly with the "pneumatic switching device" posted somewhere else?

It can't necessarily be a cooling pipe so important to exhaust separately through the cooling hole methinks.

Not dumb at all. My theory is that the air going into the airbox is directed to either the rear wing to reduce drag - or to the channel you pointed out to power the diffuser and increase downforce. The question is, how are they making the switch? Snorkel theory is the only one we have thus far, I'm still not convinced that it's as simple as moving the drivers knee...could be though, the FiA stewards said was a brilliant and simple system. I wouldn't be surprised if other teams protest it, at the very least Mclaren will then have to show how the system works to prove that it's legal. Then it's easier to copy.