McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes (pre-launch speculation)

[timbo]

But this raises the question -- if the frontal area of the sidepod doesn't change what are the benefits?

[shelly]

There can be more than one.
Fisrt two that come to mind:
-more downforce from floor leading edge
-less lift from upper sidepod surface

[wesley123]

Really one has to draw how you can fit an regular sized radiator in there, because I do not see it. The sidepod is twice as small in width and the Red Bull or Ferrari place it voer their whole width. I cannot see how that will fit without placing the radiator in different ridiculous angles which will not work.

I would really like to see where this 'inside info' comes from, to me it is rubbish which will not work and you do not need to be an aerodynamicist to see that.

Apart from that, the regular U-pods already generate less lift, clear front wheel air and mask the rear wheel, reducing drag, These sidepods do not.

[shelly]

Maybe not being an aerodynamicist prevents you to understand how they would work you mean? Anyway, aerodynamicist or not, there is no reason to call this idea rubbish.

Maybe is better undestadable if you look at it as an evolution of the F150th intake, with a different aspect ratio.

Interesting point is that you say masking the rear wheels is an advantage of current sidepods. It doea not work like that, because rear flicks are forbidden.Air goes around the back part of the sidepod and you have is to limit losses in this zone and provide the coke bottle zone with powerful flow.

[wesley123]

you might want to show me in what way you can fit the radiators in there. How a simple podvane can handle all the air coming from the front wheels, how an piece sitting in front of the rear wheel doesnt reduce its drag. I fail to see how this takes as much air away from making contact with the rear wheel as current designs do.

If you can explain me how an regular radiator can fit in there, if you can tell me in what ways the wheel air is better handled with this sidepod and in what way it reduces drag I might even belive in this idea.

This idea overall:
1. You cannot fit in an radiator that is full width in an sidepod that is half the width of an regular sidepod, at least not with using incredibly inefficient angles
2. How you want to manage front wheel air?
3. How do you get as much air to the beam wing with his design compared to the U sidepods or any regular design?
4. You are giving away splitter area and there is much less undercut, giving an less efficient floor.

The idea is just an stupid idea, and like i asked twice before, where is this 'insider info' coming from? The U-sidepods have way more potential and get much cleaner air to the beam wing then these sidepods.

I still find it funny that an design where regular radiators dont even fit in get so much talk, do you seriously think it is possible to use such design with more front a area, less wheel air management, less undercut, less downsloping and thus less efficient airflow to the beamwing is better then the U-pods which still feauture an undercut, got unobstructed airflow to the beamwing, less frontal area, more packaging space and better wheel air management? It just isnt logical and not even possible

[FrukostScones]

you might want to show me in what way you can fit the radiators in there. How a simple podvane can handle all the air coming from the front wheels, how an piece sitting in front of the rear wheel doesnt reduce its drag. I fail to see how this takes as much air away from making contact with the rear wheel as current designs do.

If you can explain me how an regular radiator can fit in there, if you can tell me in what ways the wheel air is better handled with this sidepod and in what way it reduces drag I might even belive in this idea.

This idea overall:
1. You cannot fit in an radiator that is full width in an sidepod that is half the width of an regular sidepod, at least not with using incredibly inefficient angles
2. How you want to manage front wheel air?
3. How do you get as much air to the beam wing with his design compared to the U sidepods or any regular design?
4. You are giving away splitter area and there is much less undercut, giving an less efficient floor.

The idea is just an stupid idea, and like i asked twice before, where is this 'insider info' coming from? The U-sidepods have way more potential and get much cleaner air to the beam wing then these sidepods.

I still find it funny that an design where regular radiators dont even fit in get so much talk, do you seriously think it is possible to use such design with more front a area, less wheel air management, less undercut, less downsloping and thus less efficient airflow to the beamwing is better then the U-pods which still feauture an undercut, got unobstructed airflow to the beamwing, less frontal area, more packaging space and better wheel air management? It just isnt logical and not even possible

Stop complaining, start dreaming.
The insider info comes from an insider, as pointed out in the thread (go back and read)!Or do you want his address or what? I think with you talk about the "insider" you scare the ones away that have access to inside info...
Maybe its all a hoax but it is still fun!
With the longer fuel tank you have the possibility to make the radiator longer...
Taller and longer could result in the same surface as you get from a "normal" one.

And don't forget, it is McLaren. It is all about technolgy in their Kingdom!

[beelsebob]

Stop complaining, start dreaming.
The insider info comes from an insider, as pointed out in the thread (go back and read)!Or do you want his address or what? I think with you talk about the "insider" you scare the ones away that have access to inside info...
Maybe its all a hoax but it is still fun!
With the longer fuel tank you have the possibility to make the radiator longer...
Taller and longer could result in the same surface as you get from a "normal" one.

And don't forget, it is McLaren. It is all about technolgy in their Kingdom!

Last I checked, this was F1 technical, and technical analysis was more on topic than rumours (even ones from previously reliable sources). Wesley makes a bunch of good points about why this design doesn't seem to work. That seems to suggest one of two things:
1) The rumour is false
2) We've not applied enough imagination to how this design could be made to work.

[raymondu999]

Having said that speculation doesn't hurt. Remember *cough* the Dead Zone? *cough* and the F-duct.

[wesley123]

Having said that speculation doesn't hurt. Remember *cough* the Dead Zone? *cough* and the F-duct.

Yet the F-Duct makes much more sense. It is fair enough to discuss such things but it is more a thing that one makes up then real 'insider info', why? I tell you why:
-The F-Duct; McLaren comes with an F-Duct, suddenly stalling is an hot item and 'insider info' is 'leaked' about diffuser stalling and what not stupid idea's
-The EBD; Red Bull returns exhaust blowing of the diffuser, suddenly this is an hot item(great fitting wordplay btw) and there are 'rumors' of blowing the nosecone, spitter, end plates and what not.

By this alone and the points I have raised before it is more likely to have made up then that it is real 'insider info'.

I have to be honest, the idea isnt that bad, but it isnt logical and got a few quite obvious downsides making an development of the U-pods more likely. Maybe discuss these sidepods in a new topic? Doesnt hurt anyone to discuss it.

[shelly]

I think ideas are here to be discussed. So wesley now that you agrre the idea isn't bad, let's start discussing.

First point to discuss: current sidepod design have/ do not have nothing to do with rear wheels drag reduction.
I think they do not

[raymondu999]

Sorry Shelly, but would the MP4-26 thread not be more fitting to discuss the U-sidepods? Given that it's very much a current item

[shelly]

I did not explain myself. With current sidepod I do not mean mp/26 u sdiepod, but all current sidepod without flicks since 2009. So the discussion which is about what conni put forward for 4/27 and its advntages/disadvantages, must start from a level ground of basic concepts. If there is no agreement on that, proper discussion can not even start. We have had bad examples of this in other threads

[Shrieker]

If you turn the L pods upside down and then remove the bit of floor under it, you get...

An aero skirt with ground effect ???

Is such a design legal ?

[raymondu999]

Would said "skirt" not be high enough to stall?

[beelsebob]

If you turn the L pods upside down and then remove the bit of floor under it, you get...

An aero skirt with ground effect ???

Is such a design legal ?

No it wouldn't. The floor of the car between 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and the rear wheel centre line must be flat, and on one of two planes – the reference plane and the step plane. The plank is mounted onto the reference plane, the rest of the floor is at the level of the step plane.