F1technical.net

not if the "valve" is a fluidic valve where this duct is merely providing a pilot flow(actuated by driver's knee or foot or something else) to entice and drive a main flow in the airbox. At least thats the popular belief and really the plausible explanation for this being legal...

Pandamasque wrote:

conni wrote:i think you are misleading yourselves??

the air that comes in through the snorkel ONLY actuates the main valve which opens in the airbox and allows the excess air going through the airbox to do its job

conni

The valve would be a movable aerodynamic devise.

Only if you define air as a moveable aero device. And if you do that then every car on the grid would be illegal...

I think what this thread needs is more pointless going round in circles.

I think driver interaction with aerodynamics has opened pandoras box, especially for next year as this years tubs are homologated after this race.

What will the next generation of trick aerodynamics bring to the world of F1, things that have crossed my mind.

Can the same trick be used on the front wings to stall those as well, an aperture under the front of the nose maybe.

Is it possible to direct air across the front of the side pods or internally within the side pod to manoeuvre air away from the matrix to reduce drag on the straights.

The tunnels and channels that feed the diffusers could also be subject to aero trickery to reduce drag on the straights.

Neweys head is probably exploding with the possibilities.

Word for word the regulations says nothing about moving aerodynamic devices that don't move , especially on the inside of the body work.
The construction of the car is rigid, meaning it does not move. Nowhere on the Mclaren car is there any moving device influencing aero.
A foot or knee is not part of the construction and is not considered a device.

ferrari got the wheels mclaren got the snorkel!

Shaddock wrote:I think driver interaction with aerodynamics has opened pandoras box, especially for next year as this years tubs are homologated after this race.

What will the next generation of trick aerodynamics bring to the world of F1, things that have crossed my mind.

Can the same trick be used on the front wings to stall those as well, an aperture under the front of the nose maybe.

Is it possible to direct air across the front of the side pods or internally within the side pod to manoeuvre air away from the matrix to reduce drag on the straights.

The tunnels and channels that feed the diffusers could also be subject to aero trickery to reduce drag on the straights.

Neweys head is probably exploding with the possibilities.

You made mine explode right now!

Giblet wrote:Everyone says it's legal, but not within the spirit of the rules. Problem is there is not a section in the rules called "spirit".

Indeed, the system has no moving parts, that is very clear. And, now that the FIA have passed it as OK, we can only assume the system is also safe. I think the second part is key, as all of the anti-movable aerodynamics rules were enforced due to safety concerns.

From what I heard I came to this conclusion;

http://f1t-bahrain.piczo.com/post/66502 ... 9_Sca?cr=3

Would this be right?

If not could you correct me?

bajan-f1 wrote:From what I heard I came to this conclusion;

http://f1t-bahrain.piczo.com/post/66502 ... 9_Sca?cr=3

Would this be right?

If not could you correct me?

The air from the snorkel doesn't appear to be the air that comes out of the slot in the wing. The air from the top of the roll hoop above the driver's head is more likley going through the slot in the wing. The snorkel air is being used to control whether the roll hoop goes to the wing or is just vented at the rear of the car.

We think.

Manchild is correct. The McLaren's tyres did not look nice at all when they came off.

thestig84 wrote:Ha nice on manchild. Get rid of my quote form Vettel saying the Mclaren is with Ferrari as the one to beat and put a sensationalised headline in bold!!!

Why are you quoting Vettel? He doesn't drive for McLaren. Of course he's going to say something diplomatic to rival teams. He said absolutely nothing about the topic at hand - McLaren's general tyre wear.

You produced a meaningless quote from Vettel. Manchild produced meaningful quotes from McLaren's own drivers about their own difficulties.

Ignoring the headline and reading the drivers comments doesnt suggest to me they are massively worried. More concerned with finalising the setup tomorrow.

Those comments can only be construed as some slight covering for their problems. No other teams and drivers are talking about tyre degredation quite like that. They wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. It did appear to be worse for Hamilton than Button however. He was on new hard tyres. Not good.

Diesel Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:13 pm Report this postReply with quote
Talent


Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:27 pm
Posts: 428 Private message n smikle wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Look inside the airbox, two channels.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 4_25_2.jpg

Dead zone located, I was suspecting all this time the inside of the bodywork could be used aerodynamically, however i did not want to spoil it for everybody. After the whole Goony thing from the start of the thread we all avoided the whole deadzone thing. Being a Mclaren fan too, i don't want other teams using Mclaren's innovations

That opening under the air intake, may well be linked to the shark fin round back, Similar to the 2008 Ferrari nose.

I'm not talking about under the airbox, that's just like they had last season and probably isn't an opening, just some clever aero.

No deadzone, it was just bullsh*t from somebody who wanted to make new friends by being a know-it-all.

Inside the air box you can see something at the top sectioning it off. I suspect the bottom half feeds the engine and the top half is for cooling.

i had a pm from goony he said to tell diesel to KISS MY ARSE and he has plenty of friends im not sure i should repeat the rest of it but i think it sounded about right for you and a few others on here =D>

conni

I think all teams are experiencing the tyre wear issue, just that they haven't mentioned it or run enough laps for the issue to come up.

From what I've read and judging from the ruling by the FIA, there is no flap at all. The flow from the "snorkel" influences the flow in the shark fin. Unblock the flow from the snorkel and the flow from the front of the car continues on to the engine cover, where it acts as a barrier that deflects the faster moving air from the extra intake at the roll hoop and directs it rearward to the slot in the wing. Block the flow from the snorkel and the fluid barrier is no longer there, which would allow the air from the roll hoop to follow its normal path much lower in the engine cover/shark fin arrangement (probably the open rear to allow for extra engine cooling or something of the like).

Again, no engineer here, but after reading the paper that I linked to in my earlier post, I think I get what's going on here. If one of the more technical minds would care to let me know if this is what's happening, I'd appreciate it (always good to get verification since I lack the education and experience to know if this is actually what's happening).

jason.parker.86 wrote:

Hmmmmm. Michael Schumacher did that once and found out McLaren had two brake pedals..............

Ciro Pabón wrote:

Shaddock wrote:Can a mod move this thread back to the MP4/25 section where it now BELONGS!

Shaddock, this thread was "drowning" the MP4/25 one..

Fair enough, but do we need five separate threads in the aero section discussing various aspects of this system?