Wonder if that will provide an extra bonus with the test restrictions.

some high res pic

http://www.mclaren.com/mediaroom/2009-launch.php

You are right, its not forbidden. I recalled it wrong.

But the airbox does not ram air into the engine - at least if we believe in f1technical article:



HaPe

Nobody going to pipe up about that awful rear spoiler on here, I still think its in really bad taste, but as I have some left field bets on for this year I'm happy if it makes for much closer racing.

*********************************
MYF1DREAM - join us for free

the ferrari exhausts from that angle look like they are pointing the heat towards rear tires maybe to keep them warm

Ferrari said 25 hp, only 3.3% now I work it out

The rev reduction is 5.2%. So possibly with that inefficiency in the last 1,000 rpm a bit more of a reduction in heat output?

The rear tires wont ever have problems getting heated up F1 cars are RWD. Last year the problem was for the fronts entirely.

i know that's why i did

was bored so got into trying to make pic with the three cvars on the same scale so that we can make some comparisons.

1. To resize into the same scale I used the tyres size in photoshop. Understand tyres and wheel sizes are standard for all, so when all three tyres were the same, we have the cars under the same scale.

2. Lined them up on the back end of the rear tyres and compared the wheelbase and total lenght of cars. Some surpises.





Seems like ferrari has the shortest wheelbase of the three, but is clearly the longest car, and while toyota is the shortest car (to the nosecone, if we compare to front end of the front wing, it would be the longest), it features the longest wheelbase.

It also suprises me how tall and bulky the maclaren is, thought it was a effect of the pic, but once you have them in the same scale is clear its way taller at the cockpit and front part.

comment!

Thanks for the updated pic, appreciate the work. Surprising to see the ferrari is the shortest wheelbase. It's also brilliant to see that we have three very different concepts even with very limited rules. Group test on monday so hopefully get some rough indication of where they all stand with their basic package.

Keep up the good work

nothing can or ever will compare to this. the sound, the atmosphere, the screaming of the car over the line the, crushing pole!

about exhaust pipes, longer the more power (probably more torque as well), plus each exhaust for respective cylinders have to be the same length (or lengths to get the same output out of each cylinder) before conjoined together, but aero-wise, for the upper body exhaust system first introduced by ferrari circa 1999, better to be placed at fore part, rather than far back, as much as possible. for a long time until 1999, exhaust was placed under the difuser or somewhere between defuser and rear wing almost at the very back, so it was easy to secure certain pipe length. but because of aero demands required by the new exhaust, the teams had to come up with complex design to secure enough pipe length. look at recent engines, you'll notice how complex they are. that's what i read in some motorsport magazine before. so it's interesting that toyota's and macca's exhausts for 2009 cars are placed quite at the back.

anyway, yea, cant wait for on track testing!

But the Toyota wing seems to extend a little further, is the distance from the center line of the front tyres to the commencement of the wing element the same as Ferrari, another thought does having the wing further away from the front tyres create more leverage at the front tyres so slightly affecting the rear weight on the ground under full down force.

Something to think about great comparison though thanks for that, I love the new cars they look like what F1 cars should be aside from the rear wing but I am already used to it.

When does the shakedown of MP4-24 start?

Thanks a lot Rafo!

I think Ferrari's decisions make sense, if it is true that teams want more weight at the front. Such a long nose should certainly help, especially if Ferrari has space for ballast there.

The McLaren looks pretty rear-heavy with the driver so far back, and consequently the engine as well.

It seems that Ferrari and McLaren have different approach for the new regs. It will be interesting to see which one has got it right

For my eye the Ferrari is much slimmer and smoother, where McLaren is much bulkier, but they might have a reason for that and found something new to compensate the size, who knows. Cant wait for the start of the real racing to see the true balance of force

Fair enough! The mechanical side of the car isn't my strong point, I must admit... So the airbox is simply to filter air into the engine and cannot force it in beyond a certain speed, or what?

On Monday, also the day that the Williams and the Renault come out...

No, the shakedown is today at Portimao. It's a private test. Hope they release some footage though.

There is a directory "MP4-24 On Track" in the media site, so I'm sure they will release some pics today.

I have quoted the explanation from f1technical.
I have nothing to add (cause I dont know better).

Just a question about the McLaren side on photo shown so often here for comparisons : the rear of the photo looks contorted to me. Was that photo supplied by McLaren, or was it taken by an independent photographer?

When I looked at another comparison photo - the shadowed comparison of the F60 v MP4-24 - I thought the Ferrari should have been placed further back than the overlay had placed it.

Concerning SCARB's article, my interpretation of his description of the McLaren was that it was using battery energy storage, while I thought the McLaren was using a flywheel. Which is what Mosley has said Ferrari is using - and I think McLaren have said so too.

I thought perhaps the higher sides pods on the McLaren might be big enough to house a vertically placed flywheel? I also think that a vertical flywheel in the centre of the wheelbase, would lessen most of the centrifugal forces which would have the effect - I think - of increasing the polar moment of the car. A horizontal flywheel though would act like a stabilizer bar, stopping body roll but without effecting the suspension geometry. I'd image also a flywheel might assist in restricting pitch changes, also lessening suspension work.

Any news on where the supposed flywheels might be?

I cannot believe that McLaren have not shifted the weight forward - I thought that would be mandatory.

Airboxes, at one time, did create a ram air effect. I believe they were even achieving VE's greater than 100% this way.

I seem to recall there being a rule now though that requires holes to bleed off pressure.

that was in 1994, when there was bleed required in air box
but it was scrapped in 1995!
There is no such rule now

My impression is that the McLaren was photographed with a wide angle lens and closer to the car, whereas the Ferrari had been taken from further away with a slightly longer lens.

While both practices (in this case) result in a similar perspective, the wide angle lens usually gives some barrel distortion to the image. The car seems to bend more the further you go to the edge of the image (in this case left and right, because the image has been cropped at the top and/or the bottom). You can clearly see this by looking at the tyres: Instead of having a "frontal" view on them, we see more if the side of the tyre that's closer to the center of the image.
The same goes for the rear wing: instead of both end plates matching up, the one further away from us can clearly be seen behind the first one.

This lens-induced distortion is the biggest with McLaren, the least with the Ferrari and Toyota is in between.

It certainly has to be taken into account: As the McLaren is more distored than the Ferrari, its nose is "pushed further to the back", making it appear shorter and meaning that a nose length comparison isn't 100% accurate.

Nevertheless I think we can say that the McLaren front overhang is shorter than that of Ferrari.

exactly my thoughts too

We don't know their weight distribution.

Well in about 2 and a half months your either gonna eat those words or embrace them. I'm pretty sure McLaren know what their doing, they've been planning this beast for 18 months. I hope its not a repeat of the mp4-18/19.

And another Dutch company enters F1. Allthough im not a fan of Mclaren i thought it is worth a comment in this thread.

It appears the MP4-24 will have a special kind of paint, developed by Dutch chemical giant AkzoNobel.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/article1133...rf_in_Formule_1

I dont have much time to translate it now but will try tonight, or perhaps one of my fellow Dutch board members can do a litle.

Yesterday they announced they have a deal with Mclaren to do all the teams painting, the pitbox floors, the trucks and of course, the race cars. According to a spokesperson the paint adds to the cars performance but declined to elaborate what exactly.

Im guessing its probably by saving weight.

I am in total agreement. The rules require a shift forwards in weight distribution to match the aero bias, which has also moved forwards thanks to the new rules, like it or not. If they didn't match the two, you would have different proportions of wear (specifically, the rears would wear out more if there is weight over them but not aero bias). All of this means that 2009 cars will need to have oversteer tendancies, or else the rear tyres would just wear out every time the cars try to get the power down.

I have thought of another analogy to help people understand oversteer/understeer and how it is affected by aerodynamics/downforce. Imagine a spoon with the handle bent upwards so that the spoon is in a curve, now balanced in the centre rather than on the edge of the handle and the spoon section. If you press down on the handle, the back will go down, but the front will rise up in the air - therefore, the front is not in contact with the ground... the spoon has understeer (the front is not able to grip so goes straight on). If you press on the spoon part of the spoon (the round bit, I'm sure it has a proper name ), then the front goes down and the rear goes into the air, causing oversteer (the spoon pivots around the front, so if you push it along the rear is very light and unable to grip, so the spoon is always trying to pivot around the front - oversteer). This is downforce in action, since you are applying a force but the spoon still weighs the same...

Sikkens is the brand name of AkzoNobel automotive paint. I use their industrial paint at work (Cromadex), great quality paint.

You are probably right about it being less weight.

It's just a load of PR but here you go:

Special paint from Sikkens, affiliated to the Dutch AkzoNobel paint and chemical company, is to make the new MP4-24 faster. Yesterday a contract with the Woking based team was announced, it expires at the end of 2010.

AkzoNobel offers McLaren a whole range of things: varying from the paint on the car and the paint for the floors in the pitbox, to trucks that are to transport the paint and equipment to the racing venues.

Researcher at AkzoNobel Mark Korsmit explains, although he's not willing to reveal anything about the properties of the paint: ''In Formula 1 every second counts. The competition is fierce. But there are special elements in the varnish that increase the performance.''

In a time span of four our the paint is put on the car in four layers. ''The varnishing process is pretty complex and usually takes eight hours. But with this varnish we halve that time. It's a real gain in time for the team and it allowes them to have more time to make final adjustments.''

General Manager of Car Refinishes Jim Rees: ''Developing our products the most important thing is to stretch the technological boundaries and that's what we've succeeded in doing in this case. Therefore we're able to supply McLaren with a superior paint that contributes to their demand of performance, speed and precision.''

-----

The pain is undoubtedly lighter than what they had before, Ferrari has gained 1 kg of ballast to play with by using a different paint this year.

Interesting.
I expected teams to start experimenting with more exotic solutions once their aerodynamic opportunities had been slashed, and it seems this is the first step

MP4-23 -MP4-24 Comparison

1. The nose is quite raised and has a rather round shape, it's a lot bigger than the one used last year.

2. The front wing is bigger and is closer to the ground. It has simple endplates. The two planes it comprises of have a round and wavey shape.

3. The front part of the body is very high from the ground.

4. Like Ferrari and Toyota, McLaren has built little barge boards in front of the sidepod inlets.

5. The front of the sidepods is high and round with the inlets being very small.

6. The rear of the sidepods is almost as high as the front, this was notably different in 2008.

7. The exhaust pipes no longer stick out of the bodywork. There's a little bulge where the hot gasses come out of.

8. The air inlet above the driver's head is very small and sophisticated. It is further away from the headrest, the design in that area seem to be well worked out.

9. The engine cover is probably what resembles most to last year's car.

10. The rearwing is higher and narrower but the endplates still have many slits in them.

I seem to remember RD describing their system as electro-mechanical - not sure this automatically implies a flywheel system. The flywheel (like a battery) is just the energy storage module that makes up the system along with electric motor, generator, power control electronics. Either way, this can be considered an electro-mechanical system.

A flywheel energy storage module located near the CG of the car would have a negligible effect on the polar moment of inertia of the car. The operation of the flywheel would not result in any centrifugal forces on the car, but rather torque reaction loads (when the flywheel is being loaded and unloaded, i.e. charged and discharged) and gyroscopic loads from the fast spinning wheel when rotated along an axis other than its own axis of rotation.

Certainly all these loads are relatively small if the flywheel system is being considered for use. Probably the weight and size (compared to a battery) are more important criteria.

Any news on the testing today?

I would surmise the bulkiness of the McLaren indicates a complete commitment to KERS, in that they're making sure they've got the battery-bulk to handle fast charging completely?

The fat nose is probably full of batteries. I think Ferrari is erring on a conservative side battery wise perhaps, in keeping a traditional weight balance expansion of previous iterations of their cars.

If you know you're going to have an excess in HP available (via KERS) without TC you've got to put weight at the back - but then you've got an understeery mechanical situation. So you have to allow for weight at the front - as far "front" as possible. You can't put the driver in the nose, but you can put batteries there. Move the driver back to compensate. Then, spread the remaining batteries wide for yaw stability, while probably increasing side impact resistance without the least amount of trade off in structural material weight.

So they're "stretching out" the weight distribution relative to Ferrari.

The longer wheelbase means it should be more stable under braking than the Ferrari; maybe they've got a hidden-in-the-suspension KERS charging system?

Anyhow, Ferrari will be better at Monaco because of the wheelbase, but maybe someone at McLaren is thinking "we're going to get them out of the corner for a change by maximizing our charging/boost-phase operation".

The McLaren looks purposefully designed for the new rules, the Ferrari looks "adapted".

Or, how do the rules relate to making the KERS system weight be spread out across 3 units - two on either side of the chassis, one in the nose? They could spin the one up in the nose off the front wheels, and the added mass would offset the rear driver weight distribution. If they made their inertial system *wide*, instead of compact, perhaps they gain in gyroscopic stability. They could then manipulate the balance between the 3 to not only provide power, but to help the car turn or remain stable.

It could also provide some unique setup options during a race, depending on the circumstance of where their driver is starting - in the front, vs. the back.


/ just having fun speculating

Air inlet: with reduced RPMs, perhaps the issue is no longer how dense of a charge they get. Maybe the McLaren shows up without an engine inlet at all and pulls air straight from the cooling ducts, thereby allowing a little more air to hit the rear wing.

You then also could save on mass over the top of the chassis - it wouldn't have to be as thick, just an FIA acceptable roll-hoop, and you would maximize air hitting the rear wing. Then, the offset would allow you to use that offset mass reduction to make room for batteries at a lower C/G in the car elsewhere.


/ more fun

It's a fast one folks


New-look Vodafone McLaren Mercedes MP4-24 makes debut in Portugal17th January 2009

Fresh from Friday’s launch at the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes test driver Pedro de la Rosa gave the brand new MP4-24 car its first track test at the Autodromo Internacional do Algarve test facility in Portugal.

After a delayed start to the day, the test team conducted 18 laps in the MP4-24 during a private test, Pedro setting a best time of 1m 28.719s on his 13th lap. Pedro resumes the car’s pre-season programme at Portimao on Monday and Tuesday before handing over to Lewis Hamilton on Wednesday. Heikki Kovalainen will conclude the four-day test session on Thursday.

Pedro de la Rosa
"It’s always an exciting moment when you get behind the wheel of a brand new car for the first time - and, given the extent of the rule changes we’ve addressed over the winter, today was more tense than usual. However, I’m happy to report that the car behaved just as we believed it would from our data and we carried out a number of runs, gaining in confidence as we ran through a number of systems checks.
"Obviously, we have yet to really push the MP4-24 to its limits and we will start running more laps on Monday but this was a constructive start and has given us some confidence. Given the limits on testing this year, it’s now essential that we work productively in order to develop the car ahead of the first race of the season. We have a busy few weeks ahead of us but everyone within the team is really looking forward to the work ahead."

Autodrome Internacional do Algarve test data
Track length 4.687km
Weather Very bright and sunny
Track temp 20°C
Ambient temp 14.5°C
Laps completed 18
Kilometres covered 84
Best laptime 1m 28.719s

We`ll see in Oz how fast it is.

Have you got any pictures of the test?

Good work and interesting. Please could you do some modifications? Firstly, the distance from the leading edge of the front wing endplate and the front axle centre line will be constant for all and should be a useful check if any of these shots were taken with a fisheye lens. Secondly, the important thing is that they are all lined up to rear of the cockpit entry template (the leading edge of the roll hoop air inlet will suffice).

The things that are important are the distance from the rear of the cockpit entry template to the front axle centre line and also to the rear axle centre line. The length of the nose is unimportant.

No, mclaren have yet to release any, we'll probably have to wait till monday



true, however setting a new track record after 18 laps is pretty impressive (previous was 1:28.993)
I think that shows it has potential

TS says oil leaks and other problems(sportti.com reported hydraulics) shadowed McLarens testing and they only managed to do 15 laps. Once Pedro had to pull over to the side of the track.

The Portimao track record is probably not really impressive. F1 cars have only run there for like two weeks/6 days?
I'd hoped for more mileage, the 23 was reliable out of the box. It's still early days though, hope Monday goes a bit better.

Good news, with two mp4-24 they can really fix all problems.

Only one-car-tests allowed as per new cost saving rules.

Can you have two cars ready in pits but one on the track?

Don't know the details surrounding the testing regulations. AFCA surely knows more.