8 replies to this topic

[Mclaretino]

Is the main difference that the "Mclaren Concept" has more of the downforce increase (vs current rules) generated by the floor whereas the "Red Bull" Concept has more of the downforce increase generated by the wings?

 

Is there a big difference between the size of the downforce increase between the Mclaren and Red Bull Concepts? I keep reading the Mclaren Concept is regarded as a "compromise".

Edited by Mclaretino, 22 April 2016 - 21:06.

[Marklar]

The chassis width in the Red Bull proposal is 180 cm, in the McLaren proposal 160 cm. Pirelli wanted 140 cm, hence why the McLaren proposal is a 'compromise'. The time gain in the Red Bull proposal was 5 seconds, while with that what Pirelli wanted we would have 'just' got 3 seconds...

 

Edit: here the reference

Edited by Marklar, 22 April 2016 - 21:22.

[FPV GTHO]

Red Bull originally wanted a 2m wide front wing ad well.

[vista]

Additionally, Lets hope they write some new nose rules. Since 2014, noses have been utterly ridiculous..

[myattitude]

I thought you meant the Gran Turismo style concepts. Now that would make a great discussion

[turssi]

What are these 'concepts' here discussed?

[Maustinsj]

*Big M, little c, big L

[GrumpyYoungMan]

The 2017 rules need to simplify the aero so that the cars can actually follow each other a lot more closely, but they still need to maintain some of the F1 looks...

As for all the 2016 noses being bad, Mercedes have managed to make a decent nose design!

Red Bull probably want wings as it is a an area they know very well and have excelled in...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 23 April 2016 - 12:48.

[Mclaretino]

Thanks Marklar for that link. Here it is translated.

 

https://translate.go...tml&prev=search

 

And Sky's article:

http://www.skysports...ressive-cars-at

 

What about the floor. Keep hearing that Mclaren's proposal had more emphasis on underbody downforce generation than Red Bull.