Venting about McLaren's vent

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 12 Mar 2010, 08:14

First off-- required reading.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81997

Okay, now that you've read that and came back here:

This is complete crap. I'm all for technical innovation and the like, but this involves aerodynamic manipulation from drivers, which is illegal.

Thoughts?

Valrys · Post by **Valrys** » 12 Mar 2010, 08:48

I'm sure it meets the letter of the law, but I would support it's banning. It's a very clever idea, but it's just a pisstake, and against the spirit of the regulations, particularly in todays cost-cutting era.

P_Friesacher · Post by **P_Friesacher** » 12 Mar 2010, 08:50

I found this to be incredible clever idea - if it really is within the regulations I don't know, becuase, to be honest, I don't know them well enough to judge.
However, I think it should not be legal in the long term because of the security risk if the rear wing should ever unexpectedly stall in a fast corner (image ine Eau Rouge or Blanchimont) because of some uncontrolled movement by the driver.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 12 Mar 2010, 08:54

P_Friesacher wrote:I found this to be incredible clever idea - if it really is within the regulations I don't know, becuase, to be honest, I don't know them well enough to judge.
However, I think it should not be legal in the long term because of the security risk if the rear wing should ever unexpectedly stall in a fast corner (image ine Eau Rouge or Blanchimont) because of some uncontrolled movement by the driver.

This is an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that aspect. What happens if someone pulls a Mark Webber (food poisoning) unexpectedly, too? There's definitely too much at stake with this, from my point of view.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 12 Mar 2010, 08:57

This was quick.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82006

Thanks, Renault. Should be Double-Deck-Diffuser-Debate all over again.

Paul Hayes · Post by **Paul Hayes** » 12 Mar 2010, 09:09

Bob Bell was not a happy man on the BBC Red Button, was he?

Post by **mario** » 12 Mar 2010, 09:30

thehemogoblin wrote:This was quick.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82006

Thanks, Renault. Should be Double-Deck-Diffuser-Debate all over again.

He wasn't mincing his words, was he? On another note, though, whilst everybody talks about the driver altering the airflow through a duct, it does seem a little difficult to see how this would work, and there is no definitive proof that it will actually work.
Not that this has stopped Mark from taking a look into the matter:

But, then again, it's kind of hard to see what he would have seen that was of value, given that this picture is doing the rounds:

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 12 Mar 2010, 09:31

Valrys wrote:It's a very clever idea, but it's just a pisstake, and against the spirit of the regulations, particularly in todays cost-cutting era.

It's a hole in the car, how much can it cost!? This looks exactly like the kind of simple but effective innovation we are allways hoping to see.
And I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to be less close to illegality than the double diffuser was last year, and that got approved.

Post by **mario** » 12 Mar 2010, 10:34

Pedestrian wrote:
Valrys wrote:It's a very clever idea, but it's just a pisstake, and against the spirit of the regulations, particularly in todays cost-cutting era.

It's a hole in the car, how much can it cost!? This looks exactly like the kind of simple but effective innovation we are allways hoping to see.
And I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to be less close to illegality than the double diffuser was last year, and that got approved.

It's not just as simple as 'making a hole in the car'.

Firstly, if this vent does work in the way it is supposed to, then they would need to find a way to integrate an air duct from that vent through or around the driver's safety cell. Not easy, given the existing packaging constraints due to electronic components etc. But, given that the chassis and driver's safety cell are now homologated, the teams can only change those parts if they have a valid reason (for safety reasons etc.) - it cannot be for performance reasons alone. So, they will need to get the FIA to approve the change - which is not going to be easy - and they still need to actually work out what airflow they would need to stall the rear wing.

I would agree that perhaps, in some ways, it is pushing the boundary of the rules a bit - but, then again, F1 is, in some ways, similar to legal practise: it doesn't matter what is written down, it is how it is interpreted that matters - even if it results in something that is the opposite of what was intended. Besides, the DDD were arguably even more marginal, but were allowed - that all turned on the definition of where certain planes stopped and started (and thus where the floor of the car lay), which would allow you to put the extra ducts for the upper deck of the diffuser.

Jordan · Post by **Jordan** » 12 Mar 2010, 12:55

This reminds me of...I think it was McLaren too, a couple years ago, when they had a mechanical linkage to one of the rear brakes the driver could hit mid corner to get the cars to rotate more quickly.

I believe that, too, was legal to the letter of the law, but they banned it eventually also, no? I just remember they 'almost got away with it' but teams began to notice the rear rotor glowing, on one side only, in the corners, when the car would be accelerating rather than braking and the others got wise.

Anyway, so my point is McLaren is just employing a nice bit of creative engineering, and I, for one, say well played boys, well played.

DonTirri · Post by **DonTirri** » 12 Mar 2010, 14:08

Jordan wrote:This reminds me of...I think it was McLaren too, a couple years ago, when they had a mechanical linkage to one of the rear brakes the driver could hit mid corner to get the cars to rotate more quickly.

I believe that, too, was legal to the letter of the law, but they banned it eventually also, no? I just remember they 'almost got away with it' but teams began to notice the rear rotor glowing, on one side only, in the corners, when the car would be accelerating rather than braking and the others got wise.

Anyway, so my point is McLaren is just employing a nice bit of creative engineering, and I, for one, say well played boys, well played.

1998, which is said to have contributed the most on the stunning "We lapped everone" 1-2 at Australia.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 12 Mar 2010, 14:48

I can see the point-it could be considered illegal because the aero is manipulated by the drivers, and, as far as I know, that mustn't happen. But they at least deserve some appraisal for such a wity idea.

Keirdre · Post by **Keirdre** » 12 Mar 2010, 16:23

I think its very clever, and I'm sick of teams not being allowed to innovate!

JeanDenisAlcatraz · Post by **JeanDenisAlcatraz** » 12 Mar 2010, 16:48

Keirdre wrote:I think its very clever, and I'm sick of teams not being allowed to innovate!

My sentiments exactly.

If we're going to have Lotus back (in name only, at least) then let's at least have some mental tech advances/experiments.

IdeFan · Post by **IdeFan** » 12 Mar 2010, 17:02

It sounds like the driver is manipulating the airflow simply by using his body. I'm being somewhat flippant, but if a driver is not allowed to use his arm to manipulate airflow, then he shouldn't be allowed to manipulate airflow by moving his head, all drivers helmets should be fixed in place and the fixings stress tested like the wings.

Its a smart innovation, I approve!

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 12 Mar 2010, 17:09

Well at least they've found a use for those great big engine fins...

I say wait till tomorrow, if the McLaren's disappear down the straight then something needs to be done, either the others catch up or ban it. I don't think it's going to offer anything like the advantage suggested though, in which case teams won't need to adopt it and will only do so if they choose.

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 12 Mar 2010, 18:10

Regarding the homologation issue: Witmarsh does certainly believe this will slow down the competition, but other team principals (Brawn, Horner,...) are alleady talking about copying the McLaren design, so they must have thought of a way to get it past the FIA.
I kind of hope the controversy will convince the FIA to ban shark fins completely (they are extremely ugly anyway), but not now. Let McLaren reap the benefits of their inventivity.

On the other hand, the McLaren system demands an additional input from the driver. We do not know how easy it is to use and if the drivers will remember to manipulate the airflow at the exact time every lap. Once everyone has it, some might be better at using it than others, thus gaining an advantage. Will this system allow the driver to make a greater difference in a race?

ADx_Wales · Post by **ADx_Wales** » 12 Mar 2010, 18:25

You cant strangle all forms of ingenuity.
Looks like McLaren arent the only ones, BMW (Bite My Wedgie?) Sauber Ferrari appear to have TWO on their cars, albeit smaller.

Apparently this vent isnt expensive to build. Unlike the double confuser, which made the non diff teams have to repuzzle their rears.

Post by **mario** » 12 Mar 2010, 19:41

Pedestrian wrote:Regarding the homologation issue: Witmarsh does certainly believe this will slow down the competition, but other team principals (Brawn, Horner,...) are alleady talking about copying the McLaren design, so they must have thought of a way to get it past the FIA.
I kind of hope the controversy will convince the FIA to ban shark fins completely (they are extremely ugly anyway), but not now. Let McLaren reap the benefits of their inventivity.

On the other hand, the McLaren system demands an additional input from the driver. We do not know how easy it is to use and if the drivers will remember to manipulate the airflow at the exact time every lap. Once everyone has it, some might be better at using it than others, thus gaining an advantage. Will this system allow the driver to make a greater difference in a race?

Whitmarsh was pretty blunt when he was asked about it; he reckons that most teams are going to be trying to find access holes in the chassis which they can convert to running such vents, so their advantage will not last long.
As to be expected, the Mclaren's were quick on the straights; 311.5kph for Button and Hamilton. However, for all Renault's complaints about engine parity, they don't seem to be that far behind; Kubica was just as fast as the Mclaren cars, with Petrov just 1kph behind.
Speed trap data for the day:

noisebox · Post by **noisebox** » 12 Mar 2010, 21:17

Can anyone explain in simple terms what stalling the rear wing means, and how this device does it? I can see that it allows additional when the vent is open, but how does it change things when it is closed? Also, are their any pictures of the slots in the rear wing. Generally I can get my head around most technical innovations in F1, but this one has me.

Klon · Post by **Klon** » 12 Mar 2010, 21:31

noisebox wrote:Can anyone explain in simple terms what stalling the rear wing means, and how this device does it? I can see that it allows additional when the vent is open, but how does it change things when it is closed? Also, are their any pictures of the slots in the rear wing. Generally I can get my head around most technical innovations in F1, but this one has me.

To put it simple, if the drivers are on the straight, they use their legs to modify the hole. If that happens, the airflow goes through the hole into a complicated system which puts it to the wing. This causes the air coming from the ... well, air ... to be "deflected" from the rear wing, reducing turbulences dramatically, allowing more straight line speed and easier control on straights. In corners, the hole doesn't come into effect which is why the corner speed isn't influenced.

noisebox · Post by **noisebox** » 12 Mar 2010, 21:42

Klon wrote:
noisebox wrote:Can anyone explain in simple terms what stalling the rear wing means, and how this device does it? I can see that it allows additional when the vent is open, but how does it change things when it is closed? Also, are their any pictures of the slots in the rear wing. Generally I can get my head around most technical innovations in F1, but this one has me.

To put it simple, if the drivers are on the straight, they use their legs to modify the hole. If that happens, the airflow goes through the hole into a complicated system which puts it to the wing. This causes the air coming from the ... well, air ... to be "deflected" from the rear wing, reducing turbulences dramatically, allowing more straight line speed and easier control on straights. In corners, the hole doesn't come into effect which is why the corner speed isn't influenced.

OK, that helps, so they actually open the vent on the straight to allow airflow to the rear, which stalls the wing? So a stall is when the air does not hit the wing at the optimum speed?

Post by **mario** » 12 Mar 2010, 21:49

noisebox wrote:Can anyone explain in simple terms what stalling the rear wing means, and how this device does it? I can see that it allows additional when the vent is open, but how does it change things when it is closed? Also, are their any pictures of the slots in the rear wing. Generally I can get my head around most technical innovations in F1, but this one has me.

Now, I'll admit that this is not my area of expertise, but I'll try to give you some idea of what is said to be going on. I'll admit that my explanation would probably be laughed at by somebody who does aeronautics, since I deal with an entirely different branch of fluid dynamics, but I'll try my best.
Imagine that you have a wing, which is initially horizonal, and moving horizontally - for the purpose of this, I'll use an aircraft wing. Now, imagine that you start to angle that wing upwards. Initially, the lift that the wing generates increases, but the airflow over the top surface detatches and becomes turbulent.

Eventually, you reach a critical angle at which the airflow over the top surface becomes so disrupted that it detatches completely from the upper surface - at this point, the lift that the wing produces drops dramatically, and the drag increases, due to the difference in air pressure on each side of the wing. Normally, this produces a graph which looks something like this:

Note how the lift suddenly drops off, and the drag increases rapidly, once the airflow over the top of the wing detatches.
Now, for an F1 car, this becomes much more difficult. Because F1 cars are trying to create as much downforce as possible, the angle at which the wing is compared to the airflow is very extreme. A conventional airplane wing would stall at about 15º, but F1 cars use something in the order of 50º - so, for an F1 car, the wing would already be starting to stall, although they can get around this by using extreme cambering (the curved profile of the wing) and other tricks.

Now, the idea is that air is injected through a gap into the wake region behind the rear wing. Doing this causes the wing to fully stall. However, by injecting air into the region behind the wing, the pressure difference between each side of the wing reduces, effectively causing the pressure induced drag to drop (or, at least, that is how I understand this works). So, although the wing would produce less downforce, it also produces less drag, which is ideal on the straights.
To do this, air is ducted, supposedly through the vent on the top of the nose, through the shark fin and through a gap in the wing, with the driver supposedly blocking the hole off.

For the gap in the rear wing, I believe that this picture shows it reasonably well:

Don't worry about struggling to understand this, though - I've seen pages and pages on various websites discussing how they could get this to work, what sort of effect it would have, and a great deal of debate about points of aerodynamics which you would probably need a MEng in aeronautics to fully understand all of their nuances.

watka · Post by **watka** » 12 Mar 2010, 22:02

mario wrote:Clever stuff

Bod!
Nah really thanks for that Mario, you're a true asset to this forum!

My personal view on this whole saga is that if it wasn't something on the McLaren that they pick on, they'd find something to complain on the Mercedes or Red Bull (not the Ferrari, the FIA is Ferrari International Assistance after all!). It seems to happen every year that if one team has something even remotely innovative it gets criticised (although Newey seems to get away with things as well).

noisebox · Post by **noisebox** » 12 Mar 2010, 22:16

watka wrote:
mario wrote:Clever stuff

Bod!
Nah really thanks for that Mario, you're a true asset to this forum!

My personal view on this whole saga is that if it wasn't something on the McLaren that they pick on, they'd find something to complain on the Mercedes or Red Bull (not the Ferrari, the FIA is Ferrari International Assistance after all!). It seems to happen every year that if one team has something even remotely innovative it gets criticised (although Newey seems to get away with things as well).

Thanks for that - you obviously spent a lot of time on that, and I think I sort of get it!

noisebox · Post by **noisebox** » 12 Mar 2010, 22:46

mario wrote:Now, I'll admit that this is not my area of expertise

& I think you're too modest!

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 12 Mar 2010, 23:06

Let's just hope and pray that this will all be forgotten in the morning.

2009 showed how starting a season with arguments is not a good move.

Post by **mario** » 12 Mar 2010, 23:11

noisebox wrote:
mario wrote:Now, I'll admit that this is not my area of expertise

& I think you're too modest!

I'm being truthful - my main experience with fluid dynamics relates to very different flows (mostly hydrodynamics, in fact), but the same principals of mass and momentum conservation apply - albeit with very different flow and boundary conditions. However, as I've said, I've tried to give an explanation of what I've garnered is going on - over at the F1technical forum, for example, they have racked up many pages on discussing how this works, and how it manages to stay within the regulations. I'm just glad that it came across ok - I was worried that I might either sound patronising, or drown you in jargon, if I went too far each way.
It does seem that Mclaren have been able to get a headstart with this, although they won't hold onto it for too long, since the other teams are probably working on their own versions already. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the other teams (and in particular Renault, given their bullish stance on the matter) does challenge the ruling of the stewards - if only to force Mclaren to reveal more details about the system as they prove the legality of the system (like the diffuser row resulted in Brawn revealing details of how they circumvented the flat floor rules at their hearing, in order to prove their case).

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 12 Mar 2010, 23:14

mario wrote:
noisebox wrote:
mario wrote:Now, I'll admit that this is not my area of expertise

& I think you're too modest!

I'm being truthful - my main experience with fluid dynamics relates to very different flows (mostly hydrodynamics, in fact), but the same principals of mass and momentum conservation apply - albeit with very different flow and boundary conditions. However, as I've said, I've tried to give an explanation of what I've garnered is going on - over at the F1technical forum, for example, they have racked up many pages on discussing how this works, and how it manages to stay within the regulations. I'm just glad that it came across ok - I was worried that I might either sound patronising, or drown you in jargon, if I went too far each way.

You still are by a ridiculous margin the most intelligent poster here, certainly when it comes to the technical aspects of the sport.

TeamTipper · Post by **TeamTipper** » 13 Mar 2010, 04:21

The air duct is a superb idea and a smart engineering idea from Mclaren. The idea of F1 is to create and yes it does cost money eg: running windtunnels testing developing the duct. However making the rules supertight does not cut cost. I say good on Mclaren and shame the other 12 teams.
Mario enter a F1 team for 2011. U are like a F1 dictionary :lol:

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 13 Mar 2010, 04:56

There may be one positive in it all: if the FIA eventually bans it, they could go all the way and ban shark fins outright to stop anyone from trying something similar.

thalion · Post by **thalion** » 13 Mar 2010, 11:52

JeanDenisAlcatraz wrote:
Keirdre wrote:I think its very clever, and I'm sick of teams not being allowed to innovate!

My sentiments exactly.

If we're going to have Lotus back (in name only, at least) then let's at least have some mental tech advances/experiments.

Yes, yes! Seeing creative technical solutions is one of the main things that makes F1 more exciting than other racing series. Quashing this kind of creativity is bad for us all.

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 13 Mar 2010, 13:50

Well, McLaren were certainly not impressive in qualifying. They appear to be the weakest of the big 4 on average, and unless they perform much better in tomorrow's race, the whole air vent affair might fizzle out in a few days.

noisebox · Post by **noisebox** » 13 Mar 2010, 19:28

Well, the outcome of qualifying has put the cat among the pigeons a bit... If the duct system is worth 3-4 tenths a lap, then McLaren really are in trouble.

Jordan · Post by **Jordan** » 13 Mar 2010, 19:39

Maybe they're just sandbagging and not using it until it blows over

Post by **mario** » 13 Mar 2010, 20:06

noisebox wrote:Well, the outcome of qualifying has put the cat among the pigeons a bit... If the duct system is worth 3-4 tenths a lap, then McLaren really are in trouble.

That is not the only problem that Mclaren have - if anything, their problems are set to be compounded once this race is over. http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219
It appears that whilst most people have been complaining about the vent to the rear wing, it is the diffuser which the FIA have actually objected to. They have complained that Mclaren have ben using the hole for the external starter as an additional air duct, effectively extending the diffuser. To avoid problems, Mclaren have agreed to quietly drop that part of the diffuser after Bahrein, whilst the FIA will allow Mclaren to race at Bahrein as the diffuser stands, and take no further action once the part is dropped.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 13 Mar 2010, 20:13

mario wrote:
noisebox wrote:Well, the outcome of qualifying has put the cat among the pigeons a bit... If the duct system is worth 3-4 tenths a lap, then McLaren really are in trouble.

That is not the only problem that Mclaren have - if anything, their problems are set to be compounded once this race is over. http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219
It appears that whilst most people have been complaining about the vent to the rear wing, it is the diffuser which the FIA have actually objected to. They have complained that Mclaren have ben using the hole for the external starter as an additional air duct, effectively extending the diffuser. To avoid problems, Mclaren have agreed to quietly drop that part of the diffuser after Bahrein, whilst the FIA will allow Mclaren to race at Bahrein as the diffuser stands, and take no further action once the part is dropped.

If this proves accurate, it would seem McLaren and the FIA are quite chummy these days. What a difference a couple of years and new man at the helm on both sides makes.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 15 Mar 2010, 18:39

CarlosFerreira wrote:
mario wrote:
noisebox wrote:Well, the outcome of qualifying has put the cat among the pigeons a bit... If the duct system is worth 3-4 tenths a lap, then McLaren really are in trouble.

That is not the only problem that Mclaren have - if anything, their problems are set to be compounded once this race is over. http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=219
It appears that whilst most people have been complaining about the vent to the rear wing, it is the diffuser which the FIA have actually objected to. They have complained that Mclaren have ben using the hole for the external starter as an additional air duct, effectively extending the diffuser. To avoid problems, Mclaren have agreed to quietly drop that part of the diffuser after Bahrein, whilst the FIA will allow Mclaren to race at Bahrein as the diffuser stands, and take no further action once the part is dropped.

If this proves accurate, it would seem McLaren and the FIA are quite chummy these days. What a difference a couple of years and new man at the helm on both sides makes.

It's the calm that preceeds the storm.

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 15 Mar 2010, 19:43

I think we may have heard the last of this. Certainly it didn't seem to give McLaren any kind of advantage, unless they would have been even more meh without it.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 15 Mar 2010, 22:21

shinji wrote:I think we may have heard the last of this. Certainly it didn't seem to give McLaren any kind of advantage, unless they would have been even more meh without it.

Did they even get to use it anyway?