As an appalling man once said: there are known knows, there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. Do we have to restrict ourselves to the first category?

So he suggested something that's fundamentally incorrect, so what? Gives no reason for anyone to correct him in a condescending manner.

Yeah, but it's difficult to know if people are being genuinely naive or just trolling. I'd assumed the latter because the idea was so silly, and I appear not to be the only one.

Ben

No, but the amount of ballast in an F1 car is such that speculation is a pointless exercise.

Ben

I am only also using supposition based on my untrained eye!

OK. The rear wing must be higher and thinner than before, the diffuser has been moved back and reduced in size, whilst the front wing has been widened and lowered. The ancillary ban does not affect the balance too much as they were generally placed in the centre of the wheelbase, if not just before the rear tyres. The first two rules, regarding the rear wing and the diffuser, reduce downforce. I reckon that the central section in the front wing negates the gains gained by a wider and lower profile (both of which produce more downforce). Thus, the front wing stays at 2008 levels (this is all a wild but educated guess by the way!!) whilst the rear end of the car has reduced downforce, thus the aero bias will move forwards this year, in conjunction with a grippier front tyre, thus the weight bias must also follow suit.

Simple?

Very nice:

- mac slightly longer wheelbase
- the cockpit is way back in the mac
- the sidepods start at almost exactly the same place
- cockpit and nose are higher in the mac

Interesting ...

I agree, it was a pointless and nonsense comment. But let's not start that one up again.

The first and the second category. The 3rd is really silly.

So McLaren didn't need a spy afterall since they only need an aerodynamicist and a picture.

So tomorrow is the shakedown at Portimao.
Hope they will release footage.

How can his post be seen as trolling? I see nothing potentially offensive.

Which makes it even worse you jumped someone else the way you did.

Since you didn't care to answer my question earlier I just wanted to let you know there is nothing in the rules which would suggest the weight distribution and aero bias to be moved to the front. Actually the whole purpose of doing so over the last two season was, that the front tires could be warmed up faster and thus they had grip earlier. Whether or not McLaren changed these two balances is not visible from the pictures. Neither is the fact whether they need to. They seemed to know pretty well how to use the Bridgstones since they have to use them. They actually never complained about the tires unlike every other team.

23 - http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/92219

24 - http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/121626

Someone might have the high def versions about their person, but those were all I could (be bothered to) find. The 23 looks like it's been running through barbed wire in comparison.

When you compare those photo's there is so much less on the new car that the weight of KERS shouldnt cause much of an issue at all.

I must say the wide front wings and high rearwings are not disturbing anymore. Soon all formula classes will try to look like that.

Looking at the pictures and reading everyones thought I have the feeling the 24 is either going to be the outstanding car of the field or a mid field runner!

The High Res details : http://www.gurneyflap.com/formule109.html

Nothing like having your bases covered.

well like someone said earlier, cant remember who, you get one shoot this year, if your car is a turttle when its born, its going to be near impossible to rectify during the season because off the testing restrictions

So you think they've gone safe and conservative and are planning on fine tuning through the year, Autosport does say thou this one looks the most technically advanced.

Is it written into the rules that under the nose must be a downforce generating component free area or are the teams just trying to clear a path to the splitter.

Of the 3 cars so far, I notice that Toyota have their splitter fruther forward in the car. Wouldn't this push the centre of downforce further forward in the car ?


And just a word of note. Some people in this thread seem to be doing nothing more than bickering, name calling and general rudeness. Its very sad to see. This is a forum for debating and where warranted, constructive criticism, not personal attacks.

You can see the KERS Armed? Light on the monocoque here http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/MAC2.jpg wander if thats an FIA thing seems very sensible.

You can with this

Craig Scarborough's article is very interesting. I think perhaps there has been too much focus on the profile view of the side pod. Compare the following images:





The Ferrari's sidepods are low but wide at the rear, while the Mclaren's is high but tapers and becomes very narrow at the rear. I must admit the F60 is 'seriously' undercut towards the rear.
BTW, on the MP4-24 you can see the cooling air outlet below the lower A-arm ahead of the diffuser.

Obi

Anyone care to guess what the air intake under the radiator intake on the Ferrari is for ? KERS cooling ?

no, its just, the room for mistakes is bigger this year, and if you make a mistake its going to be almost impossible get the car back on track, before anyone jumps me, im not saying the mclaren is a turtle

I am shocked the McLaren is so "fat". I expected McLaren to come out with a very undercut sleek car but it seems Ferrari have taken that approach.

The Tombazis effect?

Looks like there is a similar opening on the Mac as well.

The F60 has a lot of concave surfaces on the afterbody. That spells d-r-a-g. The car looks slow.

Cooling for batteries situated in the sidepods.

Actually I find both Ferrari and Toyota to be "cleaner" in their lines, specially from the side

Will be the joy of all the gay F1 fans then........

The Mclaren isn't fat, its tall and thin, the Ferrari is short and wide.

Obi

Quite true. And the back of the Ferrari looks like Scarlett Johansson while McLaren's is like Jennifer Lopez......

I think you've got that the wrong way round Zenspeed.

Suddenly, the job of operating the rear trolley-jack at pit-stops seems more appealing...

Personally, I think Toyota's design is a little more simpleton, but also loses a lot due to their poor paint job. Had the car been entirely red or used the Macs paint scheme, it would look a lot better.

McLaren has some very interesting design solutions for rear and front wings, air intake for engine, suspensions. But overall, it doesn't come close to beauty and sleekness and purity of line to the Ferrari. The Ferrari has a very interesting design for the rear mirrors, wonderful sidepods and great rear. That rear wing ruins the whole, maybe placing the Macs rear wing would make the car look even better, but obviously would not fit in in terms of performance with the rest.

All in all, the McLaren is the least pleasing to the eye, looks like that cute but too chubby girl everyone is hesitant to ask for a dance. But at the end of the day, all these considerations are rubbish. Speed is all that matters. Fat ass or ugly rear wing will be forgiven is speed is the result.

Oh no, I didn't. Jennifer's ass twice the size of Scarlett's........

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hippo


Which makes it even worse you jumped someone else the way you did.

Since you didn't care to answer my question earlier I just wanted to let you know there is nothing in the rules which would suggest the weight distribution and aero bias to be moved to the front. Actually the whole purpose of doing so over the last two season was, that the front tires could be warmed up faster and thus they had grip earlier. Whether or not McLaren changed these two balances is not visible from the pictures. Neither is the fact whether they need to. They seemed to know pretty well how to use the Bridgstones since they have to use them. They actually never complained about the tires unlike every other team. [/QUOTE]What? I did reply. And let me show you...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dentistTubster [/QUOTE]


OK. The rear wing must be higher and thinner than before, the diffuser has been moved back and reduced in size, whilst the front wing has been widened and lowered. The ancillary ban does not affect the balance too much as they were generally placed in the centre of the wheelbase, if not just before the rear tyres. The first two rules, regarding the rear wing and the diffuser, reduce downforce. I reckon that the central section in the front wing negates the gains gained by a wider and lower profile (both of which produce more downforce). Thus, the front wing stays at 2008 levels (this is all a wild but educated guess by the way!!) whilst the rear end of the car has reduced downforce, thus the aero bias will move forwards this year, in conjunction with a grippier front tyre, thus the weight bias must also follow suit.

Simple? [/QUOTE]

??? the Diffuser has been made much bigger

Look at the width of the Ferrari's rear, at the rear wheel centreline, its quite wide in comparison to the Macca.

The overall effect of Ferrari's rear is a lot slimmer, I think it was obvious I was referring to this, and the sidepods are what really gives this impression. Nobody looks at an F1 car from above, unless you are a pigeon.

but macca's one becomes tight quite steeply, while ferrari's is tight all the way.

My point exactly. So, the Ferrari looks sleek, the Macs looks Lopezish.....

yeah, if you make a pinpoint observation, say, at axle rod, macca's axle rod is more exposed than ferrari's, but overall rear end, ferrari's is way tighter.

I agree. Thats why I posted the first Mclaren image. Most views give the impression that the MP4-24 is quite bulky i.e the forward part of the sidepod. My point is that while the Mclaren may look bulky, the design isn't really as bulky as it looks.

Obi

which is good, I am happy their designs differ and I am sure there will be even more differentiation once wee see Renault, Red Bull and BMW. It will make for a more interesting season.