Mclaren Mercedes MP4-25

[Pandamasque]

I thought that was one oh his photos. I remember looking at them and seeing nothing of any interest (too blurry).

[ringo]

Just rambling here, since we have to wait a couple months before we see any signs of the MP4 25,
FOTA came to a gentleman's agreement not to have KERS used in 2010 by any team right? However regulations says it is perfectly legal.
What if Mclaren pulls a fast one and incorporates a lighter less powerfull KERS systems that has less of a weight penalty than last years?
If we look at the end of 2009, the Mp4 24 seemed to be doing ok with it's KERS compromise, with some more development it could have been on par with the top 3 cars.

It would be an ingenious move if the New car is not only quick without the KERS but is made in such a way that when the KERS is added for specific tracks, the KERS is only but something on the order of a little ballast weight, the smaller power increase could prove useful.
It would piss of the other teams if Mclaren had a hidden baby KERS on the car, but it would still be legal.
I am not sure how much lighter this system can be from 2009 KERS, or if Mclaren can opt not to have it part of the telemetry available to all (since no one else is using it ), but it surly would make a world of a difference for next years fueling regulations changes.
In fact the KERS could be programed along with the engine mapping to have a zero net increase in power to the wheels, in the sense that the engine power will be turned down by the driver to save fuel, but the KERS will put out enough power to duplicate the very same power curve as if the engine's power was never turned down.

The question is whether the added KERS weight is worth it's weight in saved fuel weight.

[EL_XR6]

Just rambling here, since we have to wait a couple months before we see any signs of the MP4 25,
FOTA came to a gentleman's agreement not to have KERS used in 2010 by any team right? However regulations says it is perfectly legal.
What if Mclaren pulls a fast one and incorporates a lighter less powerfull KERS systems that has less of a weight penalty than last years?
If we look at the end of 2009, the Mp4 24 seemed to be doing ok with it's KERS compromise, with some more development it could have been on par with the top 3 cars.

Wasn't McLaren's KERS made by Mercedes?

[Saribro]

No, McLaren's KERS was developed by Zytek.

[Richard]

FOTA came to a gentleman's agreement ...
What if Mclaren pulls a fast one ...

They would have all of FOTA against them.

[csponton]

Talk about sensationalism. Look at this article on a Ferrari fan website:

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/12/18/ha ... oly-grail/

Some of you to something more OR PICTURES ON THIS PARTICULAR AERODYNAMICS OF THE NEW MCLAREN?

[Confused_Andy]

Talk about sensationalism. Look at this article on a Ferrari fan website:

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/12/18/ha ... oly-grail/

Some of you to something more OR PICTURES ON THIS PARTICULAR AERODYNAMICS OF THE NEW MCLAREN?

What?

[donskar]

Talk about sensationalism. Look at this article on a Ferrari fan website:

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/12/18/ha ... oly-grail/

Sensationalism? Maybe. BUT the piece does end with:
"Or it could all just be nothing more than forum talk."

Just trying to be fair.

[Giblet]

As much as it would be nice, battery and motor tech has made no techncal leaps and smaller packaging would be minimal.

[ISLAMATRON]

Just rambling here, since we have to wait a couple months before we see any signs of the MP4 25,
FOTA came to a gentleman's agreement not to have KERS used in 2010 by any team right? However regulations says it is perfectly legal.
What if Mclaren pulls a fast one and incorporates a lighter less powerfull KERS systems that has less of a weight penalty than last years?
If we look at the end of 2009, the Mp4 24 seemed to be doing ok with it's KERS compromise, with some more development it could have been on par with the top 3 cars.

It would be an ingenious move if the New car is not only quick without the KERS but is made in such a way that when the KERS is added for specific tracks, the KERS is only but something on the order of a little ballast weight, the smaller power increase could prove useful.
It would piss of the other teams if Mclaren had a hidden baby KERS on the car, but it would still be legal.
I am not sure how much lighter this system can be from 2009 KERS, or if Mclaren can opt not to have it part of the telemetry available to all (since no one else is using it ), but it surly would make a world of a difference for next years fueling regulations changes.
In fact the KERS could be programed along with the engine mapping to have a zero net increase in power to the wheels, in the sense that the engine power will be turned down by the driver to save fuel, but the KERS will put out enough power to duplicate the very same power curve as if the engine's power was never turned down.

The question is whether the added KERS weight is worth it's weight in saved fuel weight.

McLaren would destroy the field if they decided to follow the letter of the rules and not the BS FOTA agreement, and they would not need a smaller lighter KERS, the one they had last year was already the lightest and the 15kg(or is it 20?) extra ballast in the rules this year and also the smaller front tires(thus more rear weight bias) play right into the hands of KERS. If I was McLaren I would go for it, It would be a good kick in the teeth for all the DDD teams of last year... they would probly win as many races as in 1988.

[Giblet]

Didn't the teams commit real money to the BS FOTA agreement to keep this from happeneing? To force the spirit of the agreement? Or was that just for the Breakaway?

[xpensive]

Talk about sensationalism. Look at this article on a Ferrari fan website:

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/12/18/ha ... oly-grail/

Sensationalism? Maybe. BUT the piece does end with:
"Or it could all just be nothing more than forum talk."

Just trying to be fair.

Xcerpt from the article: Speculation is, that the “dead zone” is an aerodynamic area, yet uncharted, where Bernoulli’s principals no longer apply and where the dynamic pressure is zero. Thus the name dead zone.

Those were my xact words in a post on F1T where I was heckling "goony's" talk about the "Dead zone"?!!!
All made up of course, Jesus Christ, those journos!

[ringo]

As much as it would be nice, battery and motor tech has made no techncal leaps and smaller packaging would be minimal.

Maybe they can reduce the number of batteries, and have less energy.
here is the pack


It can be split in half between both side pods as well, or even use some space reserved for the larger fuel tank; knowing that there will be fuel savings with the device.

Control unit:


Who knows, they should be able to reduce it's size and possibly place it under the driver's kness or something. Make it more long and flat? It seems to be made of plastic, It can be made in carbon, and if conductivity is a problem the carbon can be laminated.

Generator/motor:

not much improvement here. Better materials maybe; magnesium alloy,
carbon casing ??



Engine with generator

Mclaren should be able to even have an overall improvement. It shouldn't be as expensive since the technology is already developed. It may ruffle some feathers, but it's no different than what Brawn and the other DDD teams did last year with the regulations.

Where ever the "dead zone" is on the car they should stuff the Kers in it so no one finds out

[axle]

I don't think McLaren are that blatently underhand. If they have agreed to something then that's what they will do.

[Terrible3]

hmmmmmm....