McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[ringo]

I'm not denegrating them. by their own standards they fell short with the 26.
Winter testing showed that.

Flow around the back of the car, the lower regions, is compromised with the U pods.
It is only alleviated with exhausts blowing in those regions.

If there is no blowing at those lower region then you have inefficient flow to the back because the U pods are very wide and don't taper as smoothly to the gear box from a top view.

To retain U pods they need to be very narrow at the rear. This runs the risk of overheating, and it still will have a lower L/D than redbull's.

An F1 car is like Lego, all components have to be optimized individually and they have to "click" together. If it is lacking in one aspect then the integral performance will be lacking.
Isolating the part is actually a good indication of how well it works, especially if you can quantify it.
2010 and 2011 exhaust and diffuser regs were the best opportunities for U pods. 2012 is yet to be seen.

[Javert]

I'm not denegrating them. by their own standards they fell short with the 26.
Winter testing showed that.

Flow around the back of the car, the lower regions, is compromised with the U pods.
It is only alleviated with exhausts blowing in those regions.

If there is no blowing at those lower region then you have inefficient flow to the back because the U pods are very wide and don't taper as smoothly to the gear box from a top view.

To retain U pods they need to be very narrow at the rear. This runs the risk of overheating, and it still will have a lower L/D than redbull's.

I substantially agree with you.
If beam wing could have been blown, U pods maybe would have still been useful

But this is not possible, and we have seen how much downforce suddenly disappears without exhausts gases in release (Silverstone gp and Abu Dhabi tests), these sidepods are 1,5s handicap

[wesley123]

since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.

Apart from that, we all know that McLaren relied a lot on the exhaust blowing, and I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing. McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod. If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.

[Javert]

since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.

Apart from that, we all know that McLaren relied a lot on the exhaust blowing, and I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing. McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod. If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.

Don't agree. Silverstone saw ALL teams losing blown (in-release) diffusers, with McLaren losing 1.5s more than others. So if RB lost 1s of performance, 1+1.5=2.5s.

Having good flow above the diffuser helps much creating downforce, with U-pods and no blowing diffuser works too badly, and the BW/RW advantages don't compensate this

[beelsebob]

since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.

Apart from that, we all know that McLaren relied a lot on the exhaust blowing, and I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing. McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod. If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.

Don't agree. Silverstone saw ALL teams losing blown (in-release) diffusers, with McLaren losing 1.5s more than others. So if RB lost 1s of performance, 1+1.5=2.5s.

Having good flow above the diffuser helps much creating downforce, with U-pods and no blowing diffuser works too badly, and the BW/RW advantages don't compensate this

To be fair though, McLaren made a series of impressive cock ups that race involving car set up and fuel weights. I do still think they will lose more DF than RBR do from this, but not as much as 2.5 seconds.

[aral]

I'm not denegrating them. by their own standards they fell short with the 26.
Winter testing showed that.

Flow around the back of the car, the lower regions, is compromised with the U pods.
It is only alleviated with exhausts blowing in those regions.

If there is no blowing at those lower region then you have inefficient flow to the back because the U pods are very wide and don't taper as smoothly to the gear box from a top view.

To retain U pods they need to be very narrow at the rear. This runs the risk of overheating, and it still will have a lower L/D than redbull's.

An F1 car is like Lego, all components have to be optimized individually and they have to "click" together. If it is lacking in one aspect then the integral performance will be lacking.
Isolating the part is actually a good indication of how well it works, especially if you can quantify it.
2010 and 2011 exhaust and diffuser regs were the best opportunities for U pods. 2012 is yet to be seen.

Refer to the Scarbs sketch that you posted on the 26 site. With the exhaust blowing into the u-pod channel, the gasses would be accellrated and directed to wing and /or beam wing. I understand that several teams are considering such a move but require clarification from FIA. However, the FIA are attempting to prevent this, so if such wing blowing is ruled against, THEN the u-pod design might fade into obscurity. But one way or the other, upper sidepod design will probably be varied next year as teams rush to maximise airflow above the body

[wesley123]

Don't agree. Silverstone saw ALL teams losing blown (in-release) diffusers, with McLaren losing 1.5s more than others. So if RB lost 1s of performance, 1+1.5=2.5s.

Having good flow above the diffuser helps much creating downforce, with U-pods and no blowing diffuser works too badly, and the BW/RW advantages don't compensate this

I disagree. An different sidepod design can increase floor df yes, but without the blown diffuser you still loose the same whatever floor design you have. Why? Because you take away the same thing so you lose similair.

So if we go by your theory then Ferrari's sidepod design is the best, since they lost the least. We all know that isn't the case and that McLaren does rely more on the EBD than others, simple theory tells you that when you rely more on an specific object you lose more when that specific object is taken away, simple as that and the U-sidepod have berely anything to do with that.

I agree the U-sidepods reduce floor df but I am very sure this is more than made up by the Beam wing being easier to reach.

What people tend to forget is that McLaren planned to run an octopus exhaust system, located under the gearbox/crashbox. Wintertests where far from pleasing, the system proved unreliable and at first McLaren planned to introduce it somewhere in the 2011 season. This plan was ditched soon as the season starts. Thus the team ran a car made for a certain system that was never ran. The team therefore had an higher placed gearbox than usual, raising CoG. With this they couldnt do a full width beam wing, reducing df here.

Especially last called is pretty interesting with the U-sidepod. You can create unobstructed flow through the U shape towards the beamwing. I can imagine that is way more efficient than air all around the sidepod, sidepodvane etc. having an route that is 3 times longer.

[ringo]

since the floor is having a bit less importance due to the loss of the EBD i would say the U-sidepod is much more useful since it allows more air to the beamwing.

On the contrary. The floor is even more critical now.
It is much more difficult to get air smoothly to the rear.

The exhaust was big bandaid for the 26.

I do not see the relevance between the U-sidepod and exhaust blowing.

It is there. Look on any image of the U sidepod in the area of the gearbox on the floor; right between rear wheel and body.

McLaren lost 1.5 seconds due to the loss of exhaust blowing, not because of the sidepod.

Well, you saw the true performance of the car. The exhaust was a bandaid worth 1.5s.

If they had different sidepods they still would have lost the same amount since you only remove the blown exhaust out of there, this sudden rule change didnt place a massive block there. U-sidepods or any toehr sidepod, they would still lose the same amount of time.

You are not looking at it correctly.

Let's say you and I are 100m sprinters. I'm naturally faster than you and can run 100m in 9.85s. You can't go bellow 10s, and you run 10.1s, that's your natural speed.
Suppose there was a loophole that allowed all runners to ride segways in the 100m sprint. Logically my advantage would be reduced because you can use to segway to negate your inferior speed. In fact we may be as equally fast over the 100m distance with both of us on segways, maybe both doing the distance in 9.75s.

The segway is the proverbial blown diffuser. Silverstone was where the "segway" was taken away and our raw abilities exposed.
I lost less from the banning of the segway's 9.75s speed and retuned to my 9.85s speed, a loss of 0.1s.
You lost about 3 tenths of a second after the banning of the segway, back to your normal 10 second speed.

It only makes sense that i blame your true level of performance for a bigger dip in speed.

You can't say it was the segways fault, it's your fault for being slow in the first place with the loophole acting as a bandaid.

So before the point is lost in this example, let's remember that the exhaust was a crutch for the Mp4 26. The chassis itself was never on the level of the RB7.

[wesley123]

I can in no way diagree with that, the RB7 was better in every way, but to blame it on the u-sidepod is just wrong. The both are completely different strategies.

From what I have read the RB8 is going to be an agressive development, the RB5-6 and 7 are at it's end of what they can do where the MP4-26 with the U-sidepods are a whole new development. If they can make the rear end tighter(which they surely can) then the U-sidepods are the way to go.

[aleks_ader]

I can in no way diagree with that, the RB7 was better in every way, but to blame it on the u-sidepod is just wrong. The both are completely different strategies.

From what I have read the RB8 is going to be an agressive development, the RB5-6 and 7 are at it's end of what they can do where the MP4-26 with the U-sidepods are a whole new development. If they can make the rear end tighter(which they surely can) then the U-sidepods are the way to go.

I m not sure that is Win-Win combination!!
Beacuse there are U pods in my opinion take to much compromise im comparison U pods vs. teardrob side pods (the level downforce lost is without EBD to much)!!

But is true that concept will work just im correct development proces. The design must be adapted or constructed around U pods structure... They must tight stick to their concept...

On the other side we couldt now that Mclaren will keep unconventional U pods so there are a lot X factors!!

[raymondu999]

Ringo, wesley's point is not that the U-pods Were equals to the red bull shrinkwrap. Yes as a chassis it was slower as Silverstone showed. But the blame lies in the whole package. To isolate it in the u-pods is either untrue or simply without empirical evidence

[Richard]

It's tempting to reveal why, just to alleviate your befuddlement, but i promise not to until next year.

All i can say it's more than eyeballing. Some serious theory is involved.

ringo - you keep posting that you know more than anyone else about the cars but then say you won't make any comment until the season is over.

You also said the same in the RB7 thread, something about know the secret to their success that you would not reveal until the end of the season.

The season is now over, so please do share your unique insights into the RB7 and MP4-26 - in the appropriate threads of course!

[kalinka]

The development of the car during the season is pointing towards U-pods being a non-issue for McL. If the U-pods were so bad, they would constantly tweak it during the season. We should saw different shaped U-pods, different winglets...etc at least on fridays, showing they were experimenting at trying to solve something...Sure they can't get rid of it beacuse it would probably require homologation, but nothing prevented them from experimenting if there's a problem.
I can't remember a single statement from any team member who even had a hint about U-pods being an issue. I'm pretty sure that U-pods will stay for 2012 too.

[adrianjordan]

It's tempting to reveal why, just to alleviate your befuddlement, but i promise not to until next year.

All i can say it's more than eyeballing. Some serious theory is involved.

ringo - you keep posting that you know more than anyone else about the cars but then say you won't make any comment until the season is over.

You also said the same in the RB7 thread, something about know the secret to their success that you would not reveal until the end of the season.

The season is now over, so please do share your unique insights into the RB7 and MP4-26 - in the appropriate threads of course!

+1 Continuing to claim you know the secrets of the RB7 but won't disclose them until a later date (which keep moving) just sounds like someone trying to sound knowledgeable... If you do indeed know something then prove it, otherwise admit that you don't.

[munudeges]

I had a bit of a go at the U-L-whatever shaped sidepods in this thread as soon as the car was launched. To my mind they were just simply a lazy bandaid to get more unrestricted airflow to the back of the car. However, if you think about air moving three or even two dimensionally the sidepods have an awful lot of compromises, especially at the back of the car. All McLaren did was to take space from one aspect of the sidepods and compromise it elsewhere.

One immediate problem I had was the effect of yaw on the sidepods. I just couldn't see how what McLaren had produced was ever going to be as consistent as the Red Bull in direction change in a corner. In my opinion the concept was only saved by McLaren copying Red Bull's outer diffuser exhaust idea and using it to draw the air they needed over those sidepods in a brute-force fashion.

The whole U-L sidepod thing is dead for me next year. You aren't going to be able to use the exhausts to cover deficiencies in your chassis and we're going to be back to ever tighter coke bottle rear ends. Depressingly, that makes me feel that Red Bull will be even further ahead.