McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes (pre-launch speculation)

[Holm86]

Interesting idea

Would it work? Not sure, i believed side pods have also the function to prevent turbulent flow coming from the front tires going on the rear.
By this way, you can get more flow around the car, but the quality of the flow is not assured
you risk to have downforce in the wrong place (due to wings) while having poor diffuser/floor/beam wing rear downforce (same problem Allison found in R31)

PS: surely if this is true they have run simulation, and simulation was good, but simulation said their Silverstone '10 blown diffuser was efficient and that Octopus was 2 sec faster than on the pitch

Not quite the same. Regular bodywork is easier to get credible results out of. Blown diffusers and octopus-like exhaust is hard to simulate in a tunnel.

[shelly]

Agree with Holm: it is far easier to test such a shape than exhausts.

@frukostcones: I think that you have designed what conni hinted at. The desing could be even celaner, as no mid crash structure is required, just one upper and one lower. The onnly other thing I do not agre with your design is the fact that you extended the rmpit rad inlets down to the floor leve: I think the lower part of bodywork should be closed as it constitutes the leading edge of the floor.

[Holm86]

Would it be possible to extend those inlets a bit and then give them a 90° bend inwards on top. So they continue in right over the shoulders of the driver??

That could either give you more air to the radiators or you could raise the buttom of the intakes off the floor ...

[beelsebob]

Would it be possible to extend those inlets a bit and then give them a 90° bend inwards on top. So they continue in right over the shoulders of the driver??

That could either give you more air to the radiators or you could raise the buttom of the intakes off the floor ...

Why would they want to do that though?

[FrukostScones]

Would it be possible to extend those inlets a bit and then give them a 90° bend inwards on top. So they continue in right over the shoulders of the driver??

That could either give you more air to the radiators or you could raise the buttom of the intakes off the floor ...

Why would they want to do that though?

To make the ones on the side narrower. And there is already a radiator situated underneath the air intake I think. I don't now if this would be permitted by the regs. It would a bit bulky (airbox and radbox in one) and maybe would block too much air going to the rear wing(top section). I don't know...

[Richard]

Interesting thoughts, but I think the natural evolution of the U pods is to lower them. It maximise the clean air flow between the front wheels to the back, while the radiators are placed in the already turbulent zone behind the wheels and low down for better CoG.

[raymondu999]

I agree. the U-pods is still an evolution from the MP4-25's side pods; with the 25 taking an "over the top" approach at guiding air with the 26 taking an "over the top and straight through" approach

[ajdavison2]

Why is it not possible to mount radiators on their sides? I'm assuming this isn't possible/feasible/gives any benefit because men much smarter than me design these cars and I'm sure they would have done it if it was of any benefit then it would've been done.

[beelsebob]

I really, honestly, don't get this... What is it that you think is better about this design, than a refinement of the U pods?

Advantages that I can see:

• Provides possibly more clean airflow to the rear

Disadvantages that I can see:

• Doesn't clean up the flow from the front wheels.
• Pushes the radiators higher up the car, raising the CoG.
• Probably makes it very hard to pass the crash tests.

Why would they not concentrate their efforts on the opposite axis... try to lower the radiators, make the U channel deeper, get more airflow to the rear, but still clean up the front wheel wake, and keep the CoG low.

Hell... if you're going to go with this crazy design, why would you not put the vertical rads right on the edge of the car... Then you get the same huge channels, you can carry the pipework through the crash structures, and you still clean up the front wheel wake.

There's just too many obvious downsides and methods of getting rid of them for this design to be actually be what they're thinking.


p.s. Where do the exhaust manifolds go in any of these designs?

[Richied76]

And I know there's a lot of discussion about CoG but the closer everything is to the centre line of the car, the easier is should be to change direction. Plus with the weight further out it may shift more weight to the outside tires causing more tire wear maybe? Anyway, biggest problem I can see with pushing more further away from the centre is, longer wires, longer pipes, tubes ect.. Just adding more weight that nessicary. PLUS think back to buttons race last year at spa! Only a brush but it ruined his race

[shelly]

I really, honestly, don't get this... What is it that you think is better about this design, than a refinement of the U pods?

Advantages that I can see:

• Provides possibly more clean airflow to the rear

Disadvantages that I can see:

• Doesn't clean up the flow from the front wheels.
• Pushes the radiators higher up the car, raising the CoG.
• Probably makes it very hard to pass the crash tests.

Why would they not concentrate their efforts on the opposite axis... try to lower the radiators, make the U channel deeper, get more airflow to the rear, but still clean up the front wheel wake, and keep the CoG low.

Hell... if you're going to go with this crazy design, why would you not put the vertical rads right on the edge of the car... Then you get the same huge channels, you can carry the pipework through the crash structures, and you still clean up the front wheel wake.

There's just too many obvious downsides and methods of getting rid of them for this design to be actually be what they're thinking.


p.s. Where do the exhaust manifolds go in any of these designs?

I do not agree with you: I think instead that the disadvanteages you list are not there.

With the design sketched there is no need to raise the raidators; crash test is more or less the same difficulty, and you hvae more freedom to deign shape to manage the wake of the front wheels.

[wesley123]

I cannot understand how you can even package the radiators in there. someone has to explain that to me. The points beelsebob raises actually are a problem.

1. It makes it harder to pass the crash tests, current side impact structures are surrounded by bodywork, adding strength, in this case it does not.
2. You are giving front wheel air free flow towards the back of the car
3. How are you going to package the required Radiators in there?
4. To fit everything in that you need an longer, much longer wheelbased car, and the McLaren this year is already one of the longest.

I really would like to know where this 'insider info' comes from, there is no obvious advantage to this solution compared to at least 4 disadvantages. If you use your brains, take a look at current cars you can already image it is pretty much impossible to even accomplish that. Even if it is doable it requires half an meter increase in wheelbase to be able to house everything in there. Fuel tank has to be smaller and longer, radiators have to be laid really really flat and be really really long. It is pretty obvious that it wouldnt even work.

[shelly]

@wesley: what you state as obvoius, is not.
So, even if probably the design is not exactly as frukost depicts, there is no need for this kind of bashing.
"use your brains" is a good suggestion: let's go then.
1) side crash: I thought everybody knew that bodywork does not add any significant side crash compliance
2) you have the possibility to manage the front wheel wake with effective aeroshaped surfaces, plus bigger barge boards
3) packaging: the packagin fo the radiator would not be much different from the current rbr-ferrari approach
4) agree that maybe the wheelbase should get longer, but half a meter is out of the ballpark.

I think probably you misunderstood radiator packaging of this solution: it is more the inlet position that changes.

[timbo]

I think probably you misunderstood radiator packaging of this solution: it is more the inlet position that changes.

The inboard inlet position is not new for F1. Lool at this car for example http://f1-facts.com/gallery/d/1841 or Ferrari 641. But in both cases the actual sidepod size didn't change.

[shelly]

Exactly. The radiator positioning could be quite conventional. The big different is in exposing the side impact cones, which has in part been done already by Ferrari and Mclaren.

It has to be seen where and how the 75mm radius rule applies.

Now on the Mp4-26 upper crash structures seem really small,much smaller than merc's or renault's for example. Can anyone guess where it is?