Autocar - First for car news and reviews

BulletTrainMcKane March 12, 2010 12:35 PM

One stop forward from drivers moving their heads to one side during high speed straights to allow more air into the intake.

Richard H March 12, 2010 12:41 PM

He's just annoyed that none of the Renault guys thought of it.

McKLaren cleared the concept with the FIA  ages ago, so its no surprise that it has been declared legal.

All the teams are looking for what Colin Chapman called "The unfair advantage" and when someone, like Brawn, Williams & Toyota did with the diffuser last year, they get a bit sore about it.

Its always going to happen, unless they all run the same chassis, which won't happen.

Its part of the game, get over it.

pabs March 12, 2010 12:54 PM

I wonder where McLaren stole the idea from ?

Splash n Dash March 12, 2010 1:00 PM

Its interesting to read elsewhere that Bob Bell reckons this will start another "arms race when teams are trying to cut costs". Spoken like a person who's team is being run by accountants trying to make a a quick buck from selling ad space. Does he want people to stop innovating because it will cost money to catch up? Surely this goes against the ethos of what F1 is.

nicksheele March 12, 2010 1:27 PM

'"They have driven a cart horse through the spirit of the rules and regulations.'

oh dear, the 'director' knows not his metaphors. 'to drive a coach and horses through...'. Ring a bell, Bob? Stick to the oily bits.

MattDB March 12, 2010 1:53 PM

Well done Mclaren for finding something innovative.  Who cares what Renault thinks, they won't win in 2010 anyway.

trocadero March 12, 2010 2:02 PM

THe photo attached to this article shows Sebastien Vettel looking closely at the rear wing of the McLaren. Any bets on Red Bull having something similar soon?

Freelance journo March 12, 2010 2:09 PM

Told you all so, I STILL wouldn't rule out the FIA declaring it illegal when McLaren start winning - such is history.

Of course, there's one way of stopping all these annoying squabbles...have virtually no rules.

Peter Cavellini March 12, 2010 2:33 PM

To be perfectly honest if they want fairness,equality then give them indentical cars within minimal scope for improvement and weight penalties for winning and reduce prize money and costs to be in F1,you now what?there'd be no F1!,it's just a money making execise.

VirginPower March 12, 2010 3:44 PM

I'm afraid one or two again make the sort of  statements about F1 technology that is typical of the opinions unwittingly causing the decline of the sport.

With the regressive homologation of chassis and engines, development of these vital components is limited to a tiny portion of the year, and squeezes further the opportunities for teams to showcase a vanguard of mechanical science and compete in a setting that is genuinely worthy of the title 'Formula One'.

The primary raison d'être of motorsport's pinnacle Formula is not to be the stage for the best drivers in the world to scrap for every corner of a circuit, that is secondary. The reason why aces naturally filter upwards to the top-flight series is because of the technological warfare that is necessarily engaged in this rarefied arena.

I'm afraid the naive do not realise that unless they start making the right noises as soon as possible, the FIA will continue to serve its own political interests and legislate further and further to blunt the cutting edge. The FIA often needlessly meddles in this way simply to have its dominant presence felt.

The unperceptive do no comprehend the threat of a future where these restrictions reduce Grand Prix racing to the stale spectacle that inevitably follows technical standardization.

For the sake of the joke that is Virgin Racing (owned by a destructive egomaniac) and at least one of the cars from the Hormone Replacement Team running around at six seconds off the pace, we have prevented the technical geniuses from performing at their glorious peak.

As an aside, the cars this year look absolutely awful, with horribly scrawny front tyres and dimensions that give the appearance more of a flatbed lorry than a car. The track width hasn't been increased, so the balance of the car is fundamentally flawed, and if refuelling is not to come back, the larger floorplan required for huge fuel tanks should be accommodated with a wider and shorter layout, using wider rear tyres combined with the 270mm front tyre width of last year.

Another thing that should be considered is the return of active suspension to cope with the significant change in chassis dynamics as fuel weight reduces over a race distance.

At the moment, it is potentially dangerous (especially with the struggling fledgling teams) to require the set-up to cope with a rising ride height. This could leave cars vulnerable to severe bottoming at the early part of the race, and make them very aerodynamically inefficient when the suspension is unloaded at the latter stages. Comparisons with historical data are not useful, since downforce is much more substantial now than it was in the bygone age.

To return to the issue of the McLaren leg flap, which stalls the airflow to the rear wing on the straights, there are two points of interest.

Firstly, if the driver is operating any sort of levered or moving device that will effect drag, it can be logically argued, by teams appealing to the FIA, that it's not really relevant that the flap itself is far removed from the area of effect, and therefore it is a mechanical aero device. As far as I can make out, that is the rub.

Secondly, this latest episode has broader political implications, as did the double-diffuser scandal. The teams work together to form what are, in reality, gentlemen's agreements under the auspices of FOTA. The only reason for this organisation is to enable teams, through honouring these arrangements, to regain some control of the direction of the sport. The problem that stitched-up teams have is that when a renegade team steals a march with a system or design that had a de facto FOTA ban, the whole organisation is undermined.

It speaks more to the potential irrelevance and, perhaps, delusion of FOTA in a world where winning, and not the Federation/Association supremacy struggle, is everything.

Vidge 123 March 12, 2010 4:12 PM

not to be rude Virgin power, but  frankly i cant be bothered to read all you have posted!

VirginPower March 12, 2010 6:15 PM

Not to be rude in any way at all, but I don't think you'd understand it, mister.

John McToon March 12, 2010 7:18 PM

Vidge - your loss. Muppet.

Virgin - top post.

Leslie Brook March 12, 2010 8:39 PM

McLaren should stop trying to bend the rules with dodgy rear wings, it's unfair to poor old Renault. They should do something decent, like asking Jenson to crash into a wall so that Lewis can win a race. Oh, hang on a minute, that's already been done by someone else...

Phillip McCavitie March 13, 2010 5:13 AM

Good post VirginPower.

Phillip McCavitie March 13, 2010 5:14 AM

Vidge,  poor show.

Pol Medhi March 13, 2010 6:47 AM

VirginPower u have a good view point. What is the real problem is the loopholes which clever engineers exploit n end up creating a disadvantage for the rest.

Last year was Brawn ; now the day of the McLaren seems looping.

Lanciaman March 13, 2010 9:22 AM

As soon as the regulations for next season come out, any racer with any sense, from club racer to F1, spends time going through the rules to see how he can get round them. If you can gain an advantage over everyone else neither the car or driver have to work as hard, so reliability is increased. Of course, you might turn up at the first race and find someone else has found an even bigger loophole, thus showing you weren`t as clever as you thought you were, but that`s racing.

FR3000 March 13, 2010 9:56 PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Uncle Mellow March 14, 2010 12:12 AM

Surely the wing only becomes a problem if the car turns out to be a pace-setter . At the moment , any advantage seems to be theoretical ( unless they haven't told Jensen how to work the flap).

Peter Cavellini March 14, 2010 10:44 PM

V-POWER, your writing on the wrong website, try motoring news or practical mechanic,snore city man!

tonym911 March 15, 2010 10:44 PM

There may be some good points in there but they'd be a lot more accessible if you turned down the Supercilious Bombast *** a bit.

tonym911 March 15, 2010 10:47 PM

Ha ha the three asterisks in my post were meant to be a four letter word beginning with k and ending with b, with an n and an o in between. Should have put 'control' maybe.