Firstly Mclaren are not using Batteries, they are using Flywheel like Williams
Second, you cannot put 15 or above KG of Ballast inside the nose cone(as from 2006 onwards) so after the boot space u cannot put anything inside the nose cone!!
You can certainly make the nose cone bulkier ...but what u say cannot be achieved!

And besides, putting batteries in a nosecone sounds pretty suicidal, no?

Yeah, especially with the 2009 shovels

It seems to be very tricky for the teams to get the new cars working immediately.
Only 100 km for the Ferrari and 85 for the McLaren, yet.

Hadn't heard anything about this and can't see a mention of it anywhere. Could you point me in the right direction?

As to the lack of running, it's an entirely new car compared to the heavily evolved 23, a bit of debugging is inevitable. Pedro sounds happy anyway, look forward to seeing some pictures and mondays test.

Me too. Algarve will be a great scenery for the MP4-24. http://www.autodromodoalgarve.com/articles...r-park-develop/

Funny thing in yachting 25 years ago, boats were eliminating coloured gelcoat from their constructions. The result were translucent composites, with clear and therefore lighter gelcoats which did not provide colour. They remove the colour batch in order to so save weight. With carbon fibre, "paint" free composites would produce a dirty black appearance - because the carbon fibres are black. While not sponsor friendly, I'd have thought painting F1 cars would be required in the rules.

I wonder too if the paint has a surface advantage. Such finishes have been banned in yachting - finishes which have release agents in them, which makes boats go faster in the high drag water environment. I have never heard of aero release agents or paint which is low drag in an aero environment - but maybe they have been developed? I'd imagine the gains would be very small - if they exits - but who knows?

IMO the most likely innovation is thinner paint, hence lighter. Having 8 hours for a coating to dry indicates its not a two pot formulation - which is surprising because such finishes are normally tougher and hence can be applied more thinly. On thinking about it, a super thin application of a two pot mix would take a long time to dry, because there is not as much chemical reaction going on due to the thinness of the polymer. I am ignorant of how such finishes work by the way - maybe someone here does know about them from a professional knowledge base?

IF the pictures indicate anything - I am still unsure about this though - it appears the McLaren driver sits further back. Which would have a major effect on the weight balance.

As an example, Mark Webber said he would have issues this year with his car setup, because he is over 13 kg heavier than Vettel, and with the forward enforced CofG, he'd be less able to balance the car.

If the driver position really is further back in the McLaren - remember that the reports say the air inlet is further back from the driver than before - then if the driver really is further back than in the Ferrari for instance, then the McLaren must be a very different car underneath. I presume the flywheels therefor are further forward and also they are likely much lighter than the Ferrari's batteries.

One of the curious things is that the rules only preclude energy output use of battery or flywheel storage - via the drive wheels by using an electric motor. However the rules do not preclude having extra batteries or extra flywheels! The side effects of batteries seem known - they are heavy, and they get hot. We know less about the flywheels secondary effects it seems. They appear more able to store and release energy though. But their secondary effects seem less documented.

I doubt McLaren would use flywheels for anything but energy storage - but I'd love it if they did. Or if Williams did. Unfortunately if they did, they would not tell anyone. So if there was an innovation, we'd find out next season or maybe three seasons from now. A bit like it took a long time to discover the Tuned Mass Damper, or the trick shockers McLaren used for several years. I think the secondary effects of flywheels must have had the engineers dreaming about the possibilities available. Who knows if any of those are achievable. But McLaren would be the most likely to have a go IMO.

I cant help but feel mclaren are hiding something with the rearsuspension, it is completely hidden, and watching

the video of the launch on itv website just now, the front suspension is completely different from previous years

too. The rear is completely hidden and the bodywork doesnt really 'follow' the suspension to gearbox

it stops outboard and looks like there's a lot of room under it for a secret 'thingamajig' in there somewhere.

Don't remember where I read it. I could be wrong, but looking at the coming first few tests, both Ferrari and McLaren have scheduled one driver per day.

I see where your coming from, it's a shame we don't get to hear from the engineers, pat fry etc. Alot of people seem to question McLaren's 'rear biased' philosophy, but i'm sure they know exactly what they're are doing. Either it'll be a flop like the MP4-18/9 or a streak of lighting like the MP4-20.

The time since Brazil has elapsed very quickly, seems to have slowed down and it's taking ages for the first race to come. Can't wait.

McLaren must have been onto something doing the rear aero like this. With these new rules it's a step to something unknown, and it's only natural we see different solutions at this time. Each team have independently looked at their options and done their choice on the direction where to start. I applaud McLaren for doing things their own way, even if the design look pathetic compared to what we are used to think is visually competent design. But with no flips and flaps and new wings, who knows, they might hit gold with it. I'm waiting with interest and hoping the worst

Costa confirms what I wrote earlier this year:



I'm not 100% sure whether teams will be allowed to bring two cars to a test (like 2008 in-season testing), I think they can but we'll find out for sure in tomorrow looking at the pictures.

A quote from Pedro: "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."

It appears that whatever design philosophy Mclaren adopted its seems to be working well and they seem very happy with it.

Mark Hughes mentions a Mac tyre simulation program:

"But knowing what that ideal distribution is when they have run only the bare minimum of testing on the new tyres is extremely challenging.

McLaren, with its super-sophisticated tyre modelling software – a programme it initiated almost 10 years ago – is confident it has fully understood the new requirements."

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughes&id=44948

Every analysis thats coming is out is helping me grow in confidence about the new car. Ferrari has also built a competent car and im awaiting an indepth comparison of the cars.

Teeny bit drunk so exceuse the errors

Does the regulation prohibit a flywheel energy storage system that can be adjusted (rotated, tilted, etc) automatically or react to forces while the car is in motion?

If not, can the flywheel be used to counterbalance certain forces in cornering and yaw?

The regulations would prohibit a flywheel that could be rotated etc - because doing so would be acting similarly to the TMD, which was found to have an aero benefit, due to the car being able to be lower. There are other ways to make such a device illegal, such as it being an active suspension component, and not connected to the suspension system. But the aero by-product ruling was the approach the FIA took over Renault's Tuned Mass Damper.

The flywheel has always been known to have secondary effects - and the FIA has permitted it. In fact Mosley has praised the concept, because he says its cheap and it is able to quickly release its energy. Incidentally batteries have secondary effects too - the issue with them though is that their effects might not be beneficial. Such as their heat. But they could be mounted lower I believe than a flywheel, which would provide a lower CofG compared to a flywheel.

The FIA intends energy recovery systems to become more prominent in F1. Ultimately I imagine they'll recover energy from front braking as well as the rear. And the amount of KERS power able to be used will I image not be limited. That's the direction the FIA wants to go - these early days have limited outputs, due to trying (vainly it seems) to keep the costs down.

An interview with FIA President Max Mosley was translated by AFCA in the technology post area, the thread being "Technical Regulations for 2009. In the translation, Mosley said:

The KERS example clearly shows how sick Formula 1 has become. Engineers rather work on optimising details such as wheel nuts or brake ducts, instead of doing research into big projects like Coling Chapman and Keith Duckworth used to do in the past.

This is a little gem from Max.Blame the engineers for focussing on detail.... What scope for 'big ideas' would Colin Chapman or Keith Duckworth have under Max's regulations? Just a thought, Max, but if you regulate the basic architecture of the engine and the layout of the vehicle itself, what is left but detail?Every attempt at innovation has been stamped on by the FIA over the last few years....including - lest we forget - KERS technology as projected by McLaren.

We'll know the weight distributions of the cars when it retires and gets lifted by the crane. Until then it would be premature to say that McLaren didn't put the weight distribution forward.

Because of the way the grooves are being removed, there will be a proportionally larger gain in grip at the front compared to the rear. However, that is assuming all else is held equal. In 2005 and 06 both the Bridgestone and Michelin conformed to the same tyre rules, and yet Renault extracted such good performance from the tyres with a rear-ward bias. In 2007, one of the reasons they were slow was because of their partially due to their weight distribution affecting rear tyre wear, requiring the traction control to be more vigilant, losing them time in every corner. Anyway, a change in tyre's internal construction can affect the optimal weight distro just as much as eliminating grooves. So maybe McLaren knows something and didn't put it more forward. But who know/can tell by the looks?

About the McLaren's front suspension - I wonder whether the steering arm is arranged different to reduce the MP4-23's tendency to lock up the inside tyre under braking and turn-in. The elimination of electronic aids meant that the rears would lock more easily under braking. To counter-act this tendency, brake bias would be cranked forward. But even a good brake balance for higher speed corners would cause the inside front to lock if the driver wasn't careful in the MP4-23.

Edit: Really good stuff in this thread from everybody too!!!

I'd settle for knowledge of this year's and last year's wheelbase, and the relative driver positions. Curiously too, they don't lift the cars with the drivers in them - so we would still need to know the driver positioning to know where weight balance point might be.

Even then we still can't compare them that way... unless the anchor point is mandated to be exactly the same with reference to the CoG of each car.

I like the look of the car (though we still have to see it on track). The paint scheme is as nice as ever and the lines seem natural enough (like the lack of many aero add-ons that cluttered the look of 2008 cars).

Hope its fast and reliable; we'll see.

The software was available 2 years ago? If so (and it's so good) why where they trying to use "the reds" weight distribution? i remember some emails about it

I know Sikkens have developed a waterborne clearcoat for automotive use and i'm also very interested in this new technology they are using on the Mclaren. I have experience of AkzoNobel 2K acrylic paint and can tell you that a thin coat will be touch dry within 5 mins.

Most modern spray booths will have heaters in them to bake the paint on, so i can't understand why it would take so many hours for Mclaren to complete a paint job.

My guess would be that they are using a waterbased clearcoat in very thin coats to keep weight down. Another good way of reducing weight would be to skip the primer stage and apply the basecoat colour straight onto the carbon fibre panel.

Those emails were about brake systems, wheelbase and tire gasses....

I don't think they were using the Ferrari weight distribution, the Mac simulator wouldn't even take it, but they wanted to know presumably as part of keeping an eye on what Ferrari are up to, like they all do. I suspect this program at least helped them be closer than the others (outside Ferrari) to the Bridgestone secret in 07.

"Hi Mike, do you know the Red Car's Weight Distribution? It would be important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator. Thanks in advance, Pedro,"

BMW Mechanic Repulsion

With 2008 spec wings I seriously think the MP24 and the F60 would be amongst the best looking F1 cars of the post 97 rule changes.

Keeping enemies closer and all that. Not condoning it but you could save millions in development simply by configuring your car to have a greater advantage at certain tracks by knowing your opponents capabilities. I believe this is more valuable spy information than finding the data purely to copy it. It is obvious from the naked eye that the McLaren and the Ferrari of the last 2 years have adopted very different approaches to weight dist. and aero.

It also included the weight distribution and plans to test it in the simulator. Claims by De la Rosa that the eventual testing did not actually happen because he suddenly deemed it unimportant was deemed unbelievable by the WMSC. It probably was tested but that cannot be proven.

Also, there was not just a passing of info, but Mclaren actively tested Ferraris secrets like its flexible wing, unlike what some fanboys here would like to convince us of.

Here is a part of the FIA WMSC statement 13 september 2007:


3.10 Mr. de la Rosa’s e-mail to Coughlan specifically stated that he wished to receive
Ferrari’s weight distribution for the purposes of testing it in the simulator the
following day (“It would be important for us to know so that we could try it in the
simulator”). Mr. de la Rosa explained to the WMSC at the meeting of 13
September 2007 that when Coughlan responded with the precise details in
question, he (de la Rosa) decided that the weight distribution was so different to
the McLaren car set up that it would not, in fact, be tested in the simulator. Mr de
la Rosa says that thereafter he regarded the information as unimportant. It seems
highly unlikely to the WMSC that a test driver would take a decision of this sort
on his own. It also is not clear why, if Mr. de la Rosa regarded this information as
unimportant, he would still convey and discuss it with Mr. Alonso some days later
in his e-mail exchange of 25th March. Mr. de la Rosa’s evidence also makes clear
that there was no reluctance or hesitation about testing the Ferrari information for
potential benefit, but only that on this occasion he says that there was a technical
reason not to do so.
3.11 McLaren's Chief Engineer Mr. Lowe gave clear evidence that decisions relating
to simulator testing would normally involve a number of engineering and other
staff (as would running the tests themselves). It seems highly unlikely that
decisions about what would be run in the simulator would by taken by a test
driver on his own.
flexible wing and aero balance
3.12 In the same e-mail exchange of 25 March 2007, Mr. de la Rosa states that tests
had been carried out on a flexible rear wing which Mr. de la Rosa says is “a copy
of the system we think Ferrari uses”. The Ferrari car’s precise aero balance at 250
kph is also identified. While it is conceivable that the former item could have
been copied from observation of the Ferrari car, it is clear from the context of the
exchange (it being part of the information that Mr. de la Rosa describes as being
“very reliable” because it comes from Stepney) that the latter item is confidential
to Ferrari and that it was passed to Mr. de la Rosa by Coughlan, who got it from
Stepney.
tyre gas
3.13 Mr de la Rosa’s e-mail to Mr. Alonso on 25 March 2007 at 01.43 identified a gas
that Ferrari uses to inflate its tyres to reduce the internal temperature and
blistering. The e-mail concludes with a statement (in relation to the gas) that
“we’ll have to try it, it’s easy!”.
3.14 Mr Alonso replied at 12.31 that it is “very important” that McLaren test the gas

Don't start a discussion about that here...

http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95831

Can you piss off out of here and go destroy another thread, all you're proving is the court case was full of bullshit as the following proves



Unlike with other teams, they was found guilty with nothing being proven which is a total distortion of law and order.

Go start another thread if you want to drag it back up.

I didnt bring it up or started that discussion, son. And watch your tone.

For sure rear tire wear was the biggest issue in testing with the new tires. A more rearward weight distribution should increase traction and reduce wheelspin; this should help the rear tire life.

As for the front suspension, there's probably nothing mysterious about the angle of the upper and lower wishbones; it's just that the nose section was raised so high that the lower wishbone had to follow suit. Having said that, the resulting high roll center of this arrangement will result in increased front roll stiffness - useful for working the front tires, especially as these would seem to have some extra margin, compared to the rear. Would also explain how they could live with the side scrub (lateral displacement of the contact patch in bump) inherent in this arrangement.

The siting of the steering rack between upper and lower wishbones may be as a result of inadequate room at the top of the tub, or just to keep the CG lower. Whatever the reason, it's not the optimal location for minimizing bump steer (toe variation in bump), but this must have been considered and mitigated for. Still curious to see how far out the rack end points are located.

On that picture, is the air inlet above the drivers head bigger then the show cars?

It's more important to keep things simple (and light) than to introduce extra complications into the design of a car.

Nope still the same smaller shape.

watch your tone??, just get this discussion out of here asap,

No but as usual you had the most to say, none if it relevant or important. As to tone yours is about as negative as it comes.

The discussion is about the MP-24. If you want to discuss ancient ( and in the world of F1 2007 is ancient) history there is another place for that.

I already know that the car looks good but on track, it looks even better

I *still* hate those rear wings.
But that looks nice!

I'm starting to like the new rear wings

We'll get used to them. Sooner or later.

If it doesn't "fix" the show I am sure there will be a bunch new rules for 2010 heck Max can change any rule he wants if he calls it for "safety" reasons.

All he needs is for a few drivers to complain that it is dangerous to follow a car with the new wing and he has all the excuses he needs.

Any particular reason that there's only one random website carrying a single photo of saturdays shakedown?

Barely even notice the wings now myself.

Much more better looking on the track

Better pic;

http://www.motorsport-magazin.com/images/5...rivo/175745.jpg

They only released the one "good" picture?

It was a private test wasn't it?