McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes (pre-launch speculation)

[shelly]

I will try to sketch my ideas later to explain myself better.

@richard_leeds: I think that putting the rad inlets near he wake of the front wheels is not a good approach, as you get poor mass flow rate. I don't think current 4-26 design is about that.

The point could be this: get the cleanest possible flow into the intakes to exit it from a rbr type mid central outlet.
If the flow quality is good enough the rad outlet can be used for aero purpose (e.g. blowing rear wing). Maybe rbr are already doing something like that

[Richard]

Shelly - isn't the the bulk of the 26 radiator behind the front wheels?

[shelly]

richard: they are behind the front wheels, bt that does notimply thy get air from the front wheel wake. Flow around the car in that zone has a relevant transverse component

[beelsebob]

richard: they are behind the front wheels, bt that does notimply thy get air from the front wheel wake. Flow around the car in that zone has a relevant transverse component

Or at least it does, if you design your front wing and splitter to do that. The current McLaren's snow plough and front wing are designed to push the air straight back towards the U-channel.

[beelsebob]

Random thought for the day... This is probably off the wall, but lets see what you all think.

What if the idea of this design were not to feed the beam wing, but instead, the bottom of the rear wing. You could drive all the air that flows down the side channels straight up and under it. Not only that, but combine that with the flow from the exhausts on the top edge and you might be driving a *lot* of hot air straight under the rear wing. The only problem I can see is that it pretty much makes the beam wing useless, but is that an issue if your main rear wing is awesome?

Apologies for the rather hastily constructed model to demonstrate the concept:

[Shrek]

i would think that the sidepods are already low enough to feed the bottom of the rear wing.

[shelly]

@beelsebob: are you suggesting an extremisation of the double floor concept with rads on the inside (thus alleivaing the cog issue)?

There is one thing I would like to poit out: that sidepod design is not all bout cleaning flow for rear wings and coke bottle zone, but is very relevant for floor functioning (leading edge and side edges)

[PhillipM]

@beelsebob: are you suggesting an extremisation of the double floor concept with rads on the inside (thus alleivaing the cog issue)?

I haven't really seen how any of this is better than what they have at the moment, but you mentioning an extreme double floor sort of clicked when visualising it for me, using the same basic L-pod shape as the -26 rotated and translated.

However, it still leaves a massive chunk of area up against the chassis to get enough radiator depth in?

Tbh, the new exhaust regs should mean the -26's L-shape solution could become even more powerful - it's a bit compromised by the exhaust packaging at the moment, I'd be surprised if they didn't just refine it.

[marekk]

@beelsebob: sorry, but with this one you lose most of floors downforce and all of both rear and beam wings downforce. Just drag and turbulence, nothing more.

[allstaruk08]

@TheFifthDriver McLaren
#socialfriday @PaulKirton asks: "Will the team be developing this chassis? Will the sidepods stay?"

@TheFifthDriver McLaren
The regs for next year are fairly static, so the MP4-27 will develop all the strengths of this year's MP4-26, yes.

so it looks like they will be keeping the U sidepods, or will they :S they answered them questions quite sneakily

[ringo]

Well if things are going to be like silverstone 2011, then i hope they make a lot of changes.

[onewingedangel]

The rear-end will likely see the biggest changes, the gearbox positioning was slightly compromised this year due the original exhaust concept.

So we can expect a lower gearbox for a start even if it's not taken to the extremes that Williams have - that should allow some more extreme packaging for clean airflow to the beam wing - which could be worked more aggresively in tandem with the diffuser with sufficient high-quality airflow.

I'm still wondering how the exhaust will be used for aerodynamic gain - to energise the flow over the sidepods or to blow the beam-wing or rear-wing.

[raymondu999]

Given the mandated exhaust radius and trajectory I'd say it would be difficult.

I'd be willing to venture a guess that quite a few teams will let exhausts be exhausts

[onewingedangel]

If they can get an aerodynamic advantage under the new rules any team would be foolish not to unless there were greater compromises to gain the effect- teams went to periscope exhaust initially as there was an advantage for developing the engine when there was free development - with the engines frozen that wouldn't be a benefit, and the only real advantages to not use the exhaust gases for aerodynamic purposes would be if it increased fuel consumption or lowered engine power that had more of an impact than the aerodynamic gains - but even this may vary from track to track and so the 'blowing' map could not be used for tracks where it would not benefit.

[raymondu999]

What would you blow though? And how, when you can't control where it's pointing?