- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
McLaren MP/4-29 launch
- Thread starter prisonermonkeys
- 189 comments
- 13,184 views
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
Yes and it is a very good job because that livery try to hide the uglyness of the nose.
Waiting for someone with common sense to figure out some rules to balance the look and performance, liveries that try to mask that are the best option.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
You cannot mandate good-looking cars. Teams will always produce a car based on its performance, and while they could have easily designed an aesthetically-pleasing car, doing so likely would have compromised performance.
There is a lot of interesting stuff on the MP4-29. It has a very sophisticated front wing, which has been fully integrated into the nose as a single piece. The team has returned to using pushrod suspension, and have shifted the size and location of the gearbox to reconfigure the rear suspension to produce the same effects as the old beam wing. Their sidepods are triangular with a steep angle that allows maximum airflow into the engine for cooling, but also allows more air to pass over the rear floor.
But all anybody cares about is a few inches of carbon fibre.
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
Yeah I know that but my point is it's all about what the regulation allow and what not. How many stuff they banned through the years, for several different reasons. This would be only another ban in the endless story of F1 regulation bans. Afterall, regulation is supposed to be the same for everyone.
Don't forget F1 is a visual sport, the charm of F1 race cars is part of it, sponsors pays huge money to appear there, but if the cars sucks and angry people stop watching races because of that, now that's a problem.
If they make mandatory the front nose to have a regular shape from left to right and they decide it can be inclined only to a certain degree (ugly red crocodile anyone) they would fix that. We would be back to 2003 - 2005 nose style which was the real goal of new regulations but failed because of badly written rules.
Teams trying to exploit them is the logical result of too many gray areas.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
I think the grey area stem from the FIA looking at the current designs, adding "no go zones" and other constraints in order to try to govern the designs, allowing certain room for other considerations.
What they need to do is have someone design the car how they want and then put the no go zones around that instead. Someone like Ross Brawn would be ideal for this, someone who could see the loopholes and close them before we ever saw them on the cars.
EDIT: I would like to say that I'm not against these new designs. I love the variety and the solutions the teams find. I propose the solution based on missing the rules intent everytime they come about.
What they need to do is have someone design the car how they want and then put the no go zones around that instead. Someone like Ross Brawn would be ideal for this, someone who could see the loopholes and close them before we ever saw them on the cars.
EDIT: I would like to say that I'm not against these new designs. I love the variety and the solutions the teams find. I propose the solution based on missing the rules intent everytime they come about.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The rule mandating low noses came about because the FIA was concerned that, in the event of a side impact, a car could penetrate the safety cell of another. Those concerns were not unfounded; Michael Schumacher spun on the opening lap of the 2011 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and nearly got a face full of Force India when he was hit by Tonio Liuzzi.
The finger noses came about for two reasons: first, the teams are unwilling to sacrifice the benefits of a high chassis. If they can get more air under the front of the car, they can pass it over the splitter and into the sidepods, creating more downforce and more cooling. Secondly, the rules themselves were written in such a way that the nose only required a minimum cross-section, which inadvertently led to the creation of finger noses. Some people will accuse the FIA of a lack of forethought, but the truth is that this is an outcome that was not considered when the rules were written because it never occurred to the authors. In hindsight, it was something that they could have seen coming, but these regulations were first published in August 2011. And every time a rule is written or re-written, loopholes naturally come about. People get outraged when the FIA amends the rulebook midseason, but they only do it because they have to - because the teams found a loophole and the FIA was only made aware of it because someone exploited it.
Personally, I think the teams haven't got a leg to stand on when they complain that their cars are ugly. They had the ability to design a good-looking car, but prioritised performance first, even if performance came at the expense of aesthetics. To then complain that the cars are ugly is a case of trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
The finger noses came about for two reasons: first, the teams are unwilling to sacrifice the benefits of a high chassis. If they can get more air under the front of the car, they can pass it over the splitter and into the sidepods, creating more downforce and more cooling. Secondly, the rules themselves were written in such a way that the nose only required a minimum cross-section, which inadvertently led to the creation of finger noses. Some people will accuse the FIA of a lack of forethought, but the truth is that this is an outcome that was not considered when the rules were written because it never occurred to the authors. In hindsight, it was something that they could have seen coming, but these regulations were first published in August 2011. And every time a rule is written or re-written, loopholes naturally come about. People get outraged when the FIA amends the rulebook midseason, but they only do it because they have to - because the teams found a loophole and the FIA was only made aware of it because someone exploited it.
Personally, I think the teams haven't got a leg to stand on when they complain that their cars are ugly. They had the ability to design a good-looking car, but prioritised performance first, even if performance came at the expense of aesthetics. To then complain that the cars are ugly is a case of trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
@prisonermonkeys What are you talking about? Are you saying Liuzzi was at FI because he was with HRT I don't remember the incident..
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Maybe it was 2010. If it was 2011, it was definitely a Force India. Schumacher spun at the chicane and the Force India mounted his car.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I checked the pictures I have saved from over the years and found it, and clearly 2010. Thanks for the memory PM 👍
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
And that is why you should not try to fit a McLaren nose into a Lotus nose.
- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
A picture of that exist, but it's NSFW, so I can't post it here.
However, I can tell you its at Loose Wheel Nut.
However, I can tell you its at Loose Wheel Nut.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Fantastic look at the rear of the McLaren, Williams have similar aero pieces to replicate a beam wing...
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Of course they are grumbling about it. They didn't think of it.
Meanwhile, they will be planning their own versions of the device.
Meanwhile, they will be planning their own versions of the device.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
I know it needs testing time, but I wish they had saved running it until third Bahrain test. Will be difficult to follow for the other teams, but now they have time to do it earlier in the season.
It heralds back to the talk about Red Bull's rake. Changing the ride height front and rear is easy, but Red Bull maintained a certain advantage because the entire car was designed with the rake in mind.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Anyone trying to copy it will need to reposition the gearbox, reconfigure the rear suspension geometry, and possibly reroute the exhaust outlet. It's a major undertaking, and teams will need to understand how their cars function before they can even begin to think about changing them.
As for McLaren, the sheer intensity of the testing programmes they have to carry out this year mean that delaying the introduction of those parts was not an option. This is not something they can simply put on or take off at will - it uses the suspension arms themselves. They would have to either redesign the rear suspension geometry entirely, or run the current configuration without the baffles. Both options could easily result in a false-negative, with the feedback suggesting that the baffles would not work at all.
Whatever advantage McLaren has, they will carry it into the first race. And it will no doubt always be slightly better than anything the other teams come up with, because the car was designed around it, just like the F-duct.
As for McLaren, the sheer intensity of the testing programmes they have to carry out this year mean that delaying the introduction of those parts was not an option. This is not something they can simply put on or take off at will - it uses the suspension arms themselves. They would have to either redesign the rear suspension geometry entirely, or run the current configuration without the baffles. Both options could easily result in a false-negative, with the feedback suggesting that the baffles would not work at all.
Whatever advantage McLaren has, they will carry it into the first race. And it will no doubt always be slightly better than anything the other teams come up with, because the car was designed around it, just like the F-duct.
- 9,741
- Las Vegas UTC-8
- Wardez
- Wardez
Great breakdown of the Butterfly Suspension here:
http://www.f1technical.net/development/435
http://www.f1technical.net/development/435
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Something is happening at Woking today:
- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
Something is happening!
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
What, right now?
- 311
- United Kingdom
- GTDriver1230
I get the feeling that this has something to do with Senna. I wouldn't be surprised considering it is almost 20 years since that day.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Worked that one out all by yourself, did you? What gave it away - three of his cars, or his helmet on the pedestal?
- 3,205
The MP4/4, MP4/5 and MP4/8 that Senna drove being placed around a stage and a Senna helmet on a stand beside that same stage sort of makes me think it might have something to with something related to Ayrton Senna. Maybe.
Edit: Tree'd by monkeys.
Edit: Tree'd by monkeys.
Last edited:
- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
- 5,300
- Tijuana, B.C.
- MRT_Cinnamon
Maybe it is a title sponsor announcement
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
Thats my guess as well.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Only Ron Dennis could call a press conference and not make an announcement:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/03/ron-dennis-breaks-his-silence-we-will-win-again-soon/
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/03/ron-dennis-breaks-his-silence-we-will-win-again-soon/
Similar threads
