McLaren MP4-28 Mercedes

[Holm86]

I can understand the decision to for pullrod this year. Nex year those noses wil be a lot lower, and so the pullrod will bring more advantages. Taking this year to understand it is the right way to go, even though they have to go through a difficult time now.

I am suprised though. Ferrari last year had some problems with their pull rod, but nowhere near what mclaren looks to be facing, and Ferrari changed the back AND the front to pullrod back then. McLaren should have been able to get it working.

Am I right to say that the coming race will suit them better? Melbourne is more about traction and suspension setup for the bumpy surface, Malaysia more about downforce. They should fare atleast a bit better.

How will the pulll rod bring advantags next year?
It could go either way depending on design philosophy. there are many many successful low nose push rod layout suspension cars that seem to indicate push rod may be better.
If the thinking that the pull rod provides better alignment of the airflow over the pull rod to the flow under the car then its clear that next year with lower noses the push rod will prvide the same benefit

The pullrod provides an aero benefit. But it also provides a CoG benefit. Lower noses plus pullrod shoud give an even better CoG.

[turbof1]

I can understand the decision to for pullrod this year. Nex year those noses wil be a lot lower, and so the pullrod will bring more advantages. Taking this year to understand it is the right way to go, even though they have to go through a difficult time now.

I am suprised though. Ferrari last year had some problems with their pull rod, but nowhere near what mclaren looks to be facing, and Ferrari changed the back AND the front to pullrod back then. McLaren should have been able to get it working.

Am I right to say that the coming race will suit them better? Melbourne is more about traction and suspension setup for the bumpy surface, Malaysia more about downforce. They should fare atleast a bit better.

How will the pulll rod bring advantags next year?
It could go either way depending on design philosophy. there are many many successful low nose push rod layout suspension cars that seem to indicate push rod may be better.
If the thinking that the pull rod provides better alignment of the airflow over the pull rod to the flow under the car then its clear that next year with lower noses the push rod will prvide the same benefit

I was thinking more in the line of CoG and less extreme rod angles, making set up much easier.

[KingHamilton01]

Interesting article here, anderson believes that McLaren`s problem`s stem from there front wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21821853

[Neno]

Interesting article here, anderson believes that McLaren`s problem`s stem from there front wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21821853

Anderson is idiot, he proved that countless time. His predictions, belives are from different planet, anyone who has a bit a knowledge about f1, dose not trust one word from his mouth. This article is only intersting to this point to see what he now discovered new. Maybe Mclaren should hire Gary to solve them all their problems, maybe they could get a 10% more downforce then anyone else.

[sAx]

I can understand the decision to for pullrod this year. Nex year those noses wil be a lot lower, and so the pullrod will bring more advantages. Taking this year to understand it is the right way to go, even though they have to go through a difficult time now.

I am suprised though. Ferrari last year had some problems with their pull rod, but nowhere near what mclaren looks to be facing, and Ferrari changed the back AND the front to pullrod back then. McLaren should have been able to get it working.

Am I right to say that the coming race will suit them better? Melbourne is more about traction and suspension setup for the bumpy surface, Malaysia more about downforce. They should fare atleast a bit better.

How will the pulll rod bring advantags next year?
It could go either way depending on design philosophy. there are many many successful low nose push rod layout suspension cars that seem to indicate push rod may be better.
If the thinking that the pull rod provides better alignment of the airflow over the pull rod to the flow under the car then its clear that next year with lower noses the push rod will prvide the same benefit

The pullrod provides an aero benefit. But it also provides a CoG benefit. Lower noses plus pullrod shoud give an even better CoG.

The realtive mertits of push rod v pull rod are well understood. However, the design philosophy for 2013 is not going to roll-over to 2014 with linear correlation when there is such a fundamental change in power train. I'm not sure where the new V6's place the CoG, but i'd bet a few $$$'s that it won't harmonise well with this season's V8's. So whatever benefits that come out from pull-rod in 2013, will in all likelihood offer little benifit in 2014.

[JimClarkFan]

Interesting article here, anderson believes that McLaren`s problem`s stem from there front wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21821853

Anderson is idiot, he proved that countless time. His predictions, belives are from different planet, anyone who has a bit a knowledge about f1, dose not trust one word from his mouth. This article is only intersting to this point to see what he now discovered new. Maybe Mclaren should hire Gary to solve them all their problems, maybe they could get a 10% more downforce then anyone else.

To be fair to Gary he seems to be more often right than wrong. This article seems fine, though I am puzzled as to how he come to his conclusions of who has improved the most since last year. That list is clearly wrong .

The problem with this car is that they changed so much that they cannot point to one thing that has messed up performance, there are many new parts and therefore many potential areas that could cause problem(s). Worst of all it doesn't seem like there is one single issue holding the car back, the amount of head scratching at Macca indicates that it is not one single problem but several combined making fixing it altogether more complex.

[KingHamilton01]

Interesting article here, anderson believes that McLaren`s problem`s stem from there front wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21821853

Anderson is idiot, he proved that countless time. His predictions, belives are from different planet, anyone who has a bit a knowledge about f1, dose not trust one word from his mouth. This article is only intersting to this point to see what he now discovered new. Maybe Mclaren should hire Gary to solve them all their problems, maybe they could get a 10% more downforce then anyone else.

Really....? an idiot that worked countless years in formula one building F1 car`s! Maybe they should hire you! =D>

[Neno]

Interesting article here, anderson believes that McLaren`s problem`s stem from there front wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21821853

Anderson is idiot, he proved that countless time. His predictions, belives are from different planet, anyone who has a bit a knowledge about f1, dose not trust one word from his mouth. This article is only intersting to this point to see what he now discovered new. Maybe Mclaren should hire Gary to solve them all their problems, maybe they could get a 10% more downforce then anyone else.

Really....? an idiot that worked countless years in formula one building F1 car`s! Maybe they should hire you! =D>

maybe they should =D>

[Owen.C93]

But then from the outside it's hard to see what McLaren tried to achieve with this car. The nose is higher and they went for pullrod, but past that the body work is bigger, the undercut is less and they've gone for a sidepod entry from 08 that only Williams have stuck with so far. Even most detail changes have just been un doing of previous upgrades or simplifications.

[CjC]

For me Gary is abit hit and miss with his info, he does however suggest that the car is creating a stall somewhere, which I have suggested twice in 2 days on this thread, I'm not saying we're both right, it's just a thought.

Gary suggests that the Mclaren has an aggressive coke-bottle, I'm no technical director but I just can't see it myself.

Mclaren are 'convinced' that the 28 has more downforce than the 27 they just need to unlock it....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106141

Its reminding me this problemof the 2010 25, it had a massive double diffuser on which probably gave huge readings in the simulations but it needed a stiff platform and the lack of ride bounced the downforce off the car, not literally but you get what I mean

[WhiteBlue]

Ferrari got it to work, so there is no reason to suspect that McLaren will not be able to overcome the tuning difficulties.

Well, there is also the chance that they designed their geometry faulty. No very likely considering the simulation facilities they have but not inconceivable either. If that is the case they might never recover the car.

[WhiteBlue]

The realtive mertits of push rod v pull rod are well understood. However, the design philosophy for 2013 is not going to roll-over to 2014 with linear correlation when there is such a fundamental change in power train. I'm not sure where the new V6's place the CoG, but i'd bet a few $$$'s that it won't harmonise well with this season's V8's. So whatever benefits that come out from pull-rod in 2013, will in all likelihood offer little benifit in 2014.

I do not agree with your view. The relevant change for 2014 with regard to pull/push front rod design isn't likely to be the power train, it is going to be the low nose configuration. And I can relate to the advantages of a pull rod config when you are dealing with the extremely low noses we are going to have from next year on. It makes sense from a design strategy point to sort this out well ahead of the 2014 season, unless you experience the difficulties that McLaren now found. But I bet they did never consider to have the problem in the first place. If you remember how long it took Red Bull to get their exhaust solution to work last year you see the potential gravity of the problem. There are potentially big rewards, but you can fight an uphill battle for six or eight races which is very nerv racking to do.

[kilcoo316]

Its even possible that they've got their structural design wrong. With that pullrod geometry, there must be stresses well above what any other team is experiencing, acting through both the uprights and the front bulkhead.

[Richard]

Its even possible that they've got their structural design wrong. With that pullrod geometry, there must be stresses well above what any other team is experiencing, acting through both the uprights and the front bulkhead.

I did some sums on that last year http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 71#p319671

[Holm86]

The realtive mertits of push rod v pull rod are well understood. However, the design philosophy for 2013 is not going to roll-over to 2014 with linear correlation when there is such a fundamental change in power train. I'm not sure where the new V6's place the CoG, but i'd bet a few $$$'s that it won't harmonise well with this season's V8's. So whatever benefits that come out from pull-rod in 2013, will in all likelihood offer little benifit in 2014.

I dont get what you are saying. Its not only the engine that determines the CoG of a car. Albeit its the largest factor.