McLaren MP4-28 Mercedes

[wesley123]

At Spain McLaren introduced a new front wing that is in line with common trends. It was completely different compared to the previous designs.

[Pup]

Actually there was much ado over the fact that McLaren's "new" wing in Barcelona followed the same philosophy as the old. Gary Anderson was practically apoplectic about it. They've made incremental, and subtle, changes, but they've yet to stray too far from the basic wing profiles that were on the car pre-season. If they were doing what Jenson says, I would have expected the inboard sections of the wing to have been dropped substantially and the outer section beefed up with more & steeper elements to make up that lost DF, much like Anderson recommended, and much like what RB run. You could say they've done a bit of that, but its hardly been a radical change.

[wesley123]

The complete wing itself was redesign. Now following the single flap solution most teams run. It got the small diffuser-like solution inboard.

Quite a large change to the old double flap solution they have been using and much more in line with what the other teams are running.

[Pup]

I don't know what you mean by single- and double-flap.

[wesley123]

The earlier design had one fixed profile at the main plane and 2 adjustable flaps. The new design follows a two fixed profiles and a single flap design. Just like pretty much every team does. However Ferrari, Lotus and Red Bull have split up this single flap design into two smaller flaps.

[Pup]

I don't know how you're defining flaps vs elements vs planes. If you're talking about them changing the wing adjustment from moving both the upper and middle elements together to only moving the upper one, I personally think that's the smallest change they've made.

Regardless, the changes that I know they have made are...

a) curve the middle and upper elements forward as they approach the centerline - probably the most dramatic change though it rarely shows up in photos.
b) Taper the middle element as it approaches the centerline, opening that small gap between it and the top element
c) Change the center vertical finn to a winglet
d) Lessen the offsets on the middle and top elements, moving the offset out and curving the top edges or the inside sections down a bit, and changing the short vertical finn/connector at the offset to little split in the top element, with the outside piece curves up slightly to form the vertical finn.
d) Change the endplate to a single-gap
e) Change from a double vortex generator "scroll" at the bottom to a single one

It seems like a lot of changes when listed out, but really I think we've seen less wing development than we've seen in past seasons. And if you look at the profiles of the elements, which is what counts, there really is little difference. Unless those subtle changes are making a huge difference in the airflow, or I'm missing something major, then I don't see how the wing is really doing much different than on day 1. Hey, I could be wrong, but I don't see it. And Gary Anderson didn't think it was much change in philosophy either and he's seen it in person.

The main thing I can't figure out is if they're trying to send more air between the wheels to get it to go around the sidepod, why is the upper element still flying out there like the Union Jack.

[wesley123]

It seems like a lot of changes when listed out, but really I think we've seen less wing development than we've seen in past seasons.

McLAren has had very little front wing development compared to other teams. And now I think it is partially the case because of the 2014 rules.

And if you look at the profiles of the elements, which is what counts, there really is little difference.

This is not true. There are huge differences. Mainly like i pointed out the diffuser like section with the bend to the regulated center area. But also the wingtip of the adjustable flap. These are quite big changes in itself, certainly compared to the previous design.

Previous design also had a similar chord over the whole width of the wing, this is also changed. The overall length of the wing inboard is much, much smaller than outboard, this also follows the current trend.

Unless those subtle changes are making a huge difference in the airflow, or I'm missing something major, then I don't see how the wing is really doing much different than on day 1. Hey, I could be wrong, but I don't see it. And Gary Anderson didn't think it was much change in philosophy either and he's seen it in person.

of course we cannot be very sure if it changes the philosophy of the front end much. But my thought is that the front wing has a large point in sending quality airflow down the rear. This is where the wingtips come in handy for example. So therefore I think it gives a large change in how it forms the airflow towards the back, maybe it does not give a huge improvement directly, but it opens up this area for new developments. The Red Bull and Ferrari front wings didnt start with slots all over the place either.

The main thing I can't figure out is if they're trying to send more air between the wheels to get it to go around the sidepod, why is the upper element still flying out there like the Union Jack.[/quote]

[Crucial_Xtreme]

GA's analysis of the Hungary updates..


via AutoSport

[Pup]

There are huge differences....Previous design also had a similar chord over the whole width of the wing, this is also changed. The overall length of the wing inboard is much, much smaller than outboard, this also follows the current trend.

To me, that's the biggest change - perhaps it's all enough to concede the point, but I'm not completely convinced.

The other thing that bothers me is that if McLaren were originally trying to get the air over the car instead of around, then why did they go with the higher nose to begin with? Or, why didn't they bring back the bullwinkle sidepods? It just seemed to me that from day 1 they were trying to get more air under the car and around the sidepods as opposed to over.

---------

BTW, those multi-element turning vanes that Anderson is talking about aren't completely new - they were on the car at the very first winter test in Jerez, then discarded, I believe because they were having trouble accessing the lower suspension. Maybe McLaren found their box of ratchet extensions...

[trinidefender]

There are huge differences....Previous design also had a similar chord over the whole width of the wing, this is also changed. The overall length of the wing inboard is much, much smaller than outboard, this also follows the current trend.

To me, that's the biggest change - perhaps it's all enough to concede the point, but I'm not completely convinced.

The other thing that bothers me is that if McLaren were originally trying to get the air over the car instead of around, then why did they go with the higher nose to begin with? Or, why didn't they bring back the bullwinkle sidepods? It just seemed to me that from day 1 they were trying to get more air under the car and around the sidepods as opposed to over.

---------

BTW, those multi-element turning vanes that Anderson is talking about aren't completely new - they were on the car at the very first winter test in Jerez, then discarded, I believe because they were having trouble accessing the lower suspension. Maybe McLaren found their box of ratchet extensions...

http://www.formule1.nl/media/uploads/me ... 899.68.jpg

I think you have it mixed up. I read an article somewhere that was quoted as saying that they started off by trying to get most of the airflow around the side of the side pods rather than over them, as most teams on the grid are doing. Then they realised their mistake and changed that philosophy with the newer side pods that we see with the vortex generators and lip on the edge rather than the leading edge slot.

[Pup]

I'm referring to Jenson's quote - look down a few posts...

[trinidefender]

I'm referring to Jenson's quote - look down a few posts...

Looking for it....saw one a few pages back of him saying they made progress but other than that can't find anything...help lol?

[edit] okay found it [edit]

[SectorOne]

This is really about last year´s car but i think it´s still somewhat relevant to today´s car.
and gives an insight in the CFD/Wind Tunnel and Reality correlation.

“That was another thing that caused this: we’re always looking at the correlation between full-scale windtunnel and CFD, and there’s always an offset between those, and we work on that.

“That was another thing that has exacerbated this situation. The real [2012] car was actually better than the windtunnel [model].”

I guess it goes to show it´s still a little bit of a hit and miss before the season starts. ´
http://www.formula1blog.com/formula-1/m ... -too-good/

Maybe this years car in the wind tunnel is showing to be better then last years but in real life it´s different.

[Racer X]

That might have had something to do with how the tires behaved in the tunnel. They said something I forget where I read this soo sorry. But they said the 60% scale tires behaved differently then the full size. So this would have given them diffetent data that would not transfer over to real life like yuve put it. If the thing with the 60% scale tires is true I think this supports your statements.


The question I have is how much of a gap were the other team gaining over McLaren by inverting the tires. Like some teams did. Also why didnt other team suffer as much as McLaren if this is true about the windtunel tires behaving differently.

With the construction of the tires being the 2012 spec how much of last years data on tires could they transfer over to this year.

I have somany questions.

[marcush.]

I always thought the 50% tyres were the " bad "ones and reason for theose teams who still had to make do with 50% tunnels getting under pressure?

the claims made are just confirming you cannot really base your development work on cfd and tunnel and other sorts of simulation are potentially massive development tools but only within limits.
Leave the boundaries in which these tools and your conditions (assumptions ,simplifications) work and suddenly your results do not correlate anymore at all .Mind you all are using some fudge factors to correlate one to another not really knowing what that difference or delta is made of or caused by and in consequence you hve no idea when results will diverge too much to be usable in reality.

I think in Aero it is possible but not really useful to calculate aero completely ,so at some point you will have to make simplifications...the turning wheel is surely one area you need to simplify and help yourself with rotating mesh models to be able to calculate ...but then the front wheels do not just rotate but also turn ....the tyre does not just rotate but also deform ....the tread moving relative to the rim under sideloads and oscillates ..I ´d think these things are a bitch to put into a cfd calc .you will also have to make choices when it comes to turbulence models in use and where and how you separate areas of importance and areas you don´t evaluate in great detail.
You can of course put temperature gradients into the fluid stream going through and over the car in a calculation -but how would you perform the exhaust plum trick in a windtunnel ? the heat you put into the system will need massive heat exchangers to even have the slightest hope of arriving at near constant entry temperatures into the measuring zone .....
you need to soak up the equivalent of a formula 1 engine on full song ....
Obviously the modern world of exhaust plum usage is a field were all teams easily get on very thin ice without realising..
Funny enough all the pains they went through with a new car this year does not pay off for next year as the set of rules is just too different to make use of the newly aquired knowledge..It all serves one purpose -to realise you don´t know it all and never will -it pays off to question your expertise.that´s suerly a lesson learned for some boffins in woking .