McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes (pre-launch speculation)

[raymondu999]

I've been noticing that McLaren's sidepod philosophy has changed quite drastically year to year. In 2009 they had "normal" side pods, then in 2010 they went for square inlets and a sloping design where it sloped from top to bottom. It kind of tapered to a horizontal "line" at the back rather than Red Bull's philosophy of tapering to a "point" on the back, if you catch my drift.

And this year they have done their... well we all know about their 2011 side pods.

I'm just wondering what you guys think about 2012. Will this U-pod design continue? How will it fare in the exhaust regs, do you all think? What I can't picture is, where will their exhaust nozzles be, if they continue with a U-sidepod design?

They suffered quite a bit in the only race with minimized hot/cold blowing from the exhaust, which kind of leads to the conclusion that (at least at that stage in the season) they don't have much rear downforce; so with that gone I'm thinking they have a lot to catch up in rear downforce stakes.

[beelsebob]

I would expect that actually the U-pods may turn out to be pretty handy in 2012 – if they exhaust exits were placed on the ends of the channel walls, they could be used to keep airflow in the channels and nicely directed at the beam wing.

[raymondu999]

I take it you mean the "trailing edge" of the "outside walls" of the McLaren side pods? and use them as an air curtain in the same way today they're used for allowing more rake?

[beelsebob]

I take it you mean the "trailing edge" of the "outside walls" of the McLaren side pods? and use them as an air curtain in the same way today they're used for allowing more rake?

Exactly, yes.

[wunderkind]

I think we might see an evolution of the side-pods next year. But there is scope for even more extreme side-pods when the smaller turbo V6 comes along.

I'd love to see some innovative designs of the side-pods. But the side impact regulations pretty much rules out anything radical.

I don't think there is much scope to use the 'outside wall' of the side-pods given the coke bottle shape.

[raymondu999]

I think you're kind of missing the point on the V6 2014 rules though. The u-pods are more aimed at supplying good air to the beam wing; which I believe is gone for 2014

[beelsebob]

I think you're kind of missing the point on the V6 2014 rules though. The u-pods are more aimed at supplying good air to the beam wing; which I believe is gone for 2014

I would imagine that they're also aimed at lowering the CofG, while maintaining the high side crash structure, so their use wouldn't entirely disappear in 2014.

[Coefficient]

I think you're kind of missing the point on the V6 2014 rules though. The u-pods are more aimed at supplying good air to the beam wing; which I believe is gone for 2014

The beam wing is gone for 2014 but the main wing element will be much much lower too so the the U Pod could still be a functional option.

[raymondu999]

I would imagine that they're also aimed at lowering the CofG, while maintaining the high side crash structure, so their use wouldn't entirely disappear in 2014.

True; hadn't thought of that. Having said that this is very arguably, and probably calculably, less of an advantage than it is providing this year.

The beam wing is gone for 2014 but the main wing element will be much much lower too so the the U Pod could still be a functional option.

Really? I thought the wing trailing edges were going to stay where they are, and the wings will go shallower? i.e. the leading edges will be higher

[Richard]

in 2010 ... tapered to a horizontal "line" at the back rather than Red Bull's philosophy of tapering to a "point" on the back, if you catch my drift.

And this year they have done their... well we all know about their 2011 side pods.

The U pods are a natural evolution of the 2010 tapering to a horizontal line.

The RB philosophy is to push the air sideways around the pods then pull it back in, so that leads to a coke bottle, or perhaps we could think of their rear as an inverse snow plough.

Meanwhile McLaren were playing with the air that goes over the pod and then back down, ie horiz deflection of the air flow is only around the width of the airbox. We saw that in 2010 with the pods tapering to a flat horiz line. Then the U pod this year provides even better flow over the top.

[raymondu999]

I see what you're getting at. But it's quite a different philosophy still though, no? The 2010 aimed to get it above the side pods and flowing down towards the beam wing/top of diffuser. While this design just tries to get a straight flow through.

I have no problems with McLaren doing well; but for my eyes' sake I hope we won't see a grid of U-pods next year. Those things are massively ugly IMO

[Richard]

Same principle, the air flow in plan is parallel to teh centre line, not pushed out to the side. The U pod simply evolves 2010 to 2011 with a more direct up-and-over route. (note it is still up and over because the air has to get up and over the pod at the bottom of the U)

It will be interesting to see where they place the exhaust next year. The regs will require exhausts to exit out of the top of the side pod. So the U shape will help feed that to the rear.

[astracrazy]

i struggle to visualize how they can improve the U pods. How could they change shape wise? tighter at the rear?

[munudeges]

The sidepods are definitely one way of getting more air to the rear of the car, but what doesn't look very efficient to me is what's happening around the sides of those sidepods. I can't help but feel that's where McLaren are missing out versus Red Bull.

I'm not sure where they go with the current sidepod arrangement next year either.

[siwillems]

The sidepods are definitely one way of getting more air to the rear of the car, but what doesn't look very efficient to me is what's happening around the sides of those sidepods. I can't help but feel that's where McLaren are missing out versus Red Bull.

I'm not sure where they go with the current sidepod arrangement next year either.

Were they not oversized because the thought they needed more cooling than they needed? With the benefir of running the car this year and understanding how the air flows beneath the skin as much as over it there should be lots of little areas were they could tighten things up a little?