McLaren MP4-28 Mercedes

[GrandAxe]

What do you mean by scaling of design?? If you look at the bit you quoted yourself it says full-scale windtunnel. So its not a downscaled version.

Teams are not allowed to operate full scale wind tunnels, only 60% at max. What he means is that air behaves differently over a 60% model than it does over a full sized car. They can do all kinds of things to try and make it behave as similarly as possible, but ultimately they can't make it exactly match how the car will make the air behave.

Wind can also work differently if you don't have programs and algorithms to account for the pressure distortion that occurs when wind interacts with the walls of the tunnel.

Perhaps some teams had better correlation with smaller models because there wasn't as large air displacement that could possibly interact with the tunnel walls.

Not just the walls of the wind tunnel. It could be any of several things, for example some of the teams that have built new wind tunnels might still be using code that was written for an older installation (that might be part of the issue with McLaren and Ferrari); the data models for 3rd party items (especially tyres) could also be wrong; data gathering might be faulty etc. In the very worst of cases, someone is getting the math or algorithms wrong (doubtful that can happen in F1 though).

For McLaren in particular, the data model they had of the old tyres seems to have been wrong, so that while the model behaved well in the wind tunnel, the car experienced porpoising under braking. Without a complete understanding of the physics governing the dynamics of the tyre, I guess teams would simply have lucked into good or bad tyre models. Correlation with the wind tunnel is not to blame, though McLaren has given that as the reason for their below par performance.

Interestingly, now that tyres with firmer sidewalls have been introduced, perhaps McLaren can test the low setup that produced a super quick time at the Barcelona test again (if in season development hasn't veered too far away from it). The car should be able to sit lower now, even under braking.

[Holm86]

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/4607 ... __McLaren/

Looks like they are still willing to develop the 28 after having found a new path. So as I said many pages ago they haven't stopped developing it. This will help them in the design of the MP4-29.

[Shaddock]

Observers have said in the past (2008) that McLaren have 'lucked in' with their car and they didn't understand why it was so fast. 2012 seems to have been another one of those years with 2013 an out of luck year.

McLaren believes that some of its problems this season were caused by its 2012 car "overdelivering" towards the end of last year.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with AUTOSPORT, team principal Martin Whitmarsh said that the combination of the 2012 car overperforming compared to its windtunnel model and the 2013 car underperforming led to McLaren losing its way at the start of this year.
"Sometimes you're lucky in life and you stick all the elements together and they add up," said Whitmarsh. "Sometimes they just don't.
"There were times when it's come good and we don't really know why.
"At the end of last year, some of the developments overperformed. We were actually overdelivering at the track.
"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]."

[raymondu999]

About "lucking in" or not with the car design, I do remember that Newey noted in 2006 that the 2007 McLaren, which was an evolution of Newey's own 2005 McLaren design, would be a match made in heaven with the Bridgestones.

[GrandAxe]

About "lucking in" or not with the car design, I do remember that Newey noted in 2006 that the 2007 McLaren, which was an evolution of Newey's own 2005 McLaren design, would be a match made in heaven with the Bridgestones.

Newey is someone who is very clued up about aerodynamics, there are no "wind tunnel correlation" issues in his history. His cars tend to either be blindingly good or so tightly packed they have mechanical problems. The man never blames the wind tunnel.

In my opinion, there are yawning technical gaps at McLaren. These gaps might be with their backroom software/electronics teams, this viewpoint is especially helped by the numerous issues with the catalogue of serious ECU faults this season (McLaren even apologised to Red Bull for compromising Webbers car in Australia). You would expect that parts McLaren produces for the F1 field would be top Dollar.
2013 ECU faults match with 2013 dud car. Coincidence?

It is possible too that their software/electronics teams are up to scratch, but we are witnessing a general malaise in one or more of; intra team communication, facts gathering/production of accurate technical specs, standards and quality control.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the wind tunnel (its new and modern anyway), but everything wrong with either understanding its parameters or faulty communication. So long as equations are wrong, one can roll dice and feed in a million parameters, add some hair pulling, splice in some voodoo; the result will still be wrong. That's the real "correlation."

[adrianjordan]

About "lucking in" or not with the car design, I do remember that Newey noted in 2006 that the 2007 McLaren, which was an evolution of Newey's own 2005 McLaren design, would be a match made in heaven with the Bridgestones.

Newey is someone who is very clued up about aerodynamics, there are no "wind tunnel correlation" issues in his history. His cars tend to either be blindingly good or so tightly packed they have mechanical problems. The man never blames the wind tunnel.

In my opinion, there are yawning technical gaps at McLaren. These gaps might be with their backroom software/electronics teams, this viewpoint is especially helped by the numerous issues with the catalogue of serious ECU faults this season (McLaren even apologised to Red Bull for compromising Webbers car in Australia). You would expect that parts McLaren produces for the F1 field would be top Dollar.
2013 ECU faults match with 2013 dud car. Coincidence?

It is possible too that their software/electronics teams are up to scratch, but we are witnessing a general malaise in one or more of; intra team communication, facts gathering/production of accurate technical specs, standards and quality control.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the wind tunnel (its new and modern anyway), but everything wrong with either understanding its parameters or faulty communication. So long as equations are wrong, one can roll dice and feed in a million parameters, add some hair pulling, splice in some voodoo; the result will still be wrong. That's the real "correlation."

I agree with most of that, though I'm not so sure that there's a correlation between the performance of the MP4-28 and the problems with the ECU's - have they really been that widespread as I don't recall any aside from Webber's??

It does make you wonder though. If they can produce race-winning and championship contending cars with the problems they have...how much better would they be if they brought in a Newey or similar and gave them free-reign over the technical team?!?!

[GrandAxe]

About "lucking in" or not with the car design, I do remember that Newey noted in 2006 that the 2007 McLaren, which was an evolution of Newey's own 2005 McLaren design, would be a match made in heaven with the Bridgestones.

Newey is someone who is very clued up about aerodynamics, there are no "wind tunnel correlation" issues in his history. His cars tend to either be blindingly good or so tightly packed they have mechanical problems. The man never blames the wind tunnel.

In my opinion, there are yawning technical gaps at McLaren. These gaps might be with their backroom software/electronics teams, this viewpoint is especially helped by the numerous issues with the catalogue of serious ECU faults this season (McLaren even apologised to Red Bull for compromising Webbers car in Australia). You would expect that parts McLaren produces for the F1 field would be top Dollar.
2013 ECU faults match with 2013 dud car. Coincidence?

It is possible too that their software/electronics teams are up to scratch, but we are witnessing a general malaise in one or more of; intra team communication, facts gathering/production of accurate technical specs, standards and quality control.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the wind tunnel (its new and modern anyway), but everything wrong with either understanding its parameters or faulty communication. So long as equations are wrong, one can roll dice and feed in a million parameters, add some hair pulling, splice in some voodoo; the result will still be wrong. That's the real "correlation."

I agree with most of that, though I'm not so sure that there's a correlation between the performance of the MP4-28 and the problems with the ECU's - have they really been that widespread as I don't recall any aside from Webber's??

It does make you wonder though. If they can produce race-winning and championship contending cars with the problems they have...how much better would they be if they brought in a Newey or similar and gave them free-reign over the technical team?!?!

Thanks. The 2013 ECU had pretty shocking issues when it was introduced. I think it tells a deeper story and an incisive mind like Newey's would make a World of difference; McLarens only mistake might be running itself like the civil service in a cutting edge, high tech World.
Here's something about the subject from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):

"This year, McLaren introduced an upgraded ECU in anticipation of the turbo V6 engine to be used starting in the 2014 season; that engine, racing officials hope, will draw fans back to Formula One racing. However, in February’s preseason winter testing in Barcelona, several racing teams were bedeviled by software “glitches” that resulted in problems such as the loss of communications between race cars and racing crews and malfunctioning of the cars’ kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS). The problems were so severe that McLaren reportedly had to revert for a time to the previous ECU software version, which has apparently worked reliably since it was introduced in 2008.

McLaren was confident enough that it had fixed the preseason ECU problems that the new software version was used for the inaugural Formula One Grand Prix race in Melbourne. While no problems were discovered during pre-race qualifying, at the beginning of the race, the second fastest qualifying car, driven by Webber, experienced an ECU problem that cut the Red Bull Racing team's ability to monitor the car and shut down the car’s KERS system. The team was forced to reset the system, which cost the Webber valuable time. The KERS system wasn't restored to full functionality until lap 20."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/com ... are-issues

[gary123]

The McLaren without pull rod suspension in 2014?
According to rumors the car for the turbo engine will return to a more traditional front solution
he experiment would last only one year, McLaren, who has converted this year the front suspension layout with pull rod, after the results obtained from the MP4-28 would have decided to go back to the car of 2014 which will be powered by the turbo V6 turbo Mercedes.

A Woking have not put on the bench of the accused cinematisti front for the lack of results of the MP4-28, since it was found a serious lack of load in the rear, but the benefits of aerodynamics were not such as to justify an upright that from the mechanical point of view ensures a lower structural stiffness that is reflected on the duration of the tires.

The technicians directed by Tim Goss that they are considering the two solutions, but on what will be the MP4-29 are planning to return on roads already beaten, leaving only the Ferrari to continue on a theme tecnic that has not been followed by any other
Source: http://translate.google.it/translate?hl ... d-nel-2014

[Javert]

Basing on what we have seen on these 2 years high-nose front pull-rod cars:

- For some reason qual pace is completely f u cked
- What you lose in Q pace you gain in race pace
- The advantage in race pace of pull rod is slightly falling back as cars gain more rear downforce

Maybe it was the right solution if you can produce low rear downforce, as it's an "easy" solution for air to go to the rear
What you lose in front grip isn't a matter, in the race, because you couldn't use it

But this year cars, with FRICs and optimal Coandas, are starting to have enough rear df to nullify the aero advantage of pull rod and require more front grip

[stefan_]

Belgium 2013 - Thursday (22.08.2013)

[JDC123]

when McLaren said they wont bring any 2013 upgrades any more does that mean they will just use last years monza package. just wondering cos wont that be designed for the push rod suspension

[Blackout]

First time I see this beam wing

[JimClarkFan]

New wing?

[patrik]

Certainly. And no monkey seat.

[Jackles-UK]

The way they've removed the monkey seat is pretty bold! I'm presuming the omission is a drag reduction technique but is there likely to be a reason for the abrupt cut-out?

Also, am I mistaken or is that the same multi-adjust rear wing solution they first brought to Spa last year? Can't remember seeing it this year (somewhat surprising given their predicament). How long before someone assumes that the DRS hydraulics on the RW endplates is some form of DRD?!