New McLaren fairings.

[mchammer89]

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/0/615....

Thoughts?

Are McLaren now as bad as the rest of those pesky teams that used wheel covers last year?

[FourWheelDrift]

Of course not, within the rules and smart technical engineering. Just what Formula One was all about until they started reducing the scope of design through tighter design rules and turning all the cars into carbon copies of one another.

Granted they all do it now, but something new that gets around the never ending array of FIA regulations is something to respect.

[RJB_666]

The Mclaren was one of the teams to use wheel covers last year. Just not as developed as on the new car.

[mchammer89]

I know I may be flamed for this, i'm not saying this to be confrontational, but last year there was a lot of complaining about these because of the aero effect, now that McLaren have done it, and by the looks of things these are even more directed towards aero advantage, nothing is said. If F1 is all about smart engineering within the rules, why are Ferrari's mirror stalks attracting so much criticsm for "not being within the spirit of the rules" etc?

[FourWheelDrift]

I thought it was the Ferrari exhaust not their mirrors that were called illegal. 2009 rules state they must be covered and the Ferrari exhausts at the moment aren't. That's not being outside the "spirit of the rules", it's breaking them. Unless of course it's just an interim solution before the proper full 2009 car is taken to Melbourne with covered exhausts.

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Sunday 25th January 15:57

[Holst]

mchammer89 said:

I know I may be flamed for this, i'm not saying this to be confrontational, but last year there was a lot of complaining about these because of the aero effect, now that McLaren have done it, and by the looks of things these are even more directed towards aero advantage, nothing is said. If F1 is all about smart engineering within the rules, why are Ferrari's mirror stalks attracting so much criticsm for "not being within the spirit of the rules" etc?

Ferrari had them approved because they claimed the were for brake cooling, not aero.
It was funny when they had to remove them because the brake temps were too high at one race (I forget where it was, singapore?)

The way the rules work is that the teams develop a part and then ask the FIA if its legal or not, in the case of these wheel covers Ferrari got approval for them as a cooling aid.

As for the Ferrari mirror mounts, we will have to wait untill melborne to see if Ferrari run the same configuration. If the other teams complain then Ferrari will be punished, or the FIA may feel that they are within the rules but against the spirit ad may ammend the rules to ban them. Something similar happened with the Renault mass damper system, where it was initially legal but was subsequently written out of the rules after complaints from other teams.
Its unusual that a team will deliberately break the rules, just find a clever way to circumvent them. The only time I can think of a team "cheating" is when Honda were disqualified for cheating on the car weight with a hidden tank.

You always see this sort of thing at the beginning of a new ruleset, I think it makes things more interesting.

[FNG]

mchammer89 said:

I know I may be flamed for this, i'm not saying this to be confrontational, but last year there was a lot of complaining about these because of the aero effect, now that McLaren have done it, and by the looks of things these are even more directed towards aero advantage, nothing is said. If F1 is all about smart engineering within the rules, why are Ferrari's mirror stalks attracting so much criticsm for "not being within the spirit of the rules" etc?

It's not really because "now McLaren have done it" that nothing is said, it's because the precedent is now set because Ferrari implemented the idea and has not been ruled illegal.

If it's not illegal, what more is there to say about them regarding whether they are fulfilling their proscribed function or not? If they are being used and they are not being appealed, you have to accept that they are here until ruled otherwise and allow anyone who wants to, to develop them.

I do wonder what will happen at the start of this season, though, if McLaren's wheel covers are more enveloping or more aggressive than other teams'. I wouldn't be too shocked to see them ruled illegal or fail scrutineering in that instance. The happy thing about that is that we know from the Ferrari false floor precedent in Adelaide that if a rule clarification is needed following a post-race appeal from another team, the drivers and teams still keep the points... don't they...

I hate the things, by the way.

[Nick M]

Holst said:

mchammer89 said:

I know I may be flamed for this, i'm not saying this to be confrontational, but last year there was a lot of complaining about these because of the aero effect, now that McLaren have done it, and by the looks of things these are even more directed towards aero advantage, nothing is said. If F1 is all about smart engineering within the rules, why are Ferrari's mirror stalks attracting so much criticsm for "not being within the spirit of the rules" etc?

Ferrari had them approved because they claimed the were for brake cooling, not aero.
It was funny when they had to remove them because the brake temps were too high at one race (I forget where it was, singapore?)

The way the rules work is that the teams develop a part and then ask the FIA if its legal or not, in the case of these wheel covers Ferrari got approval for them as a cooling aid.

As for the Ferrari mirror mounts, we will have to wait untill melborne to see if Ferrari run the same configuration. If the other teams complain then Ferrari will be punished, or the FIA may feel that they are within the rules but against the spirit ad may ammend the rules to ban them. Something similar happened with the Renault mass damper system, where it was initially legal but was subsequently written out of the rules after complaints from other teams.
Its unusual that a team will deliberately break the rules, just find a clever way to circumvent them. The only time I can think of a team "cheating" is when Honda were disqualified for cheating on the car weight with a hidden tank.

You always see this sort of thing at the beginning of a new ruleset, I think it makes things more interesting.

Firstly, the mass damper was, I believe, only queried by one team, a team which wasn't winning at the time.... It was banned on the grounds that it was a moveable aero device and the season had been littered with similar 'issues' in the form of flexible rear wing mountings, closing the slot gaps between wing elements, bendy front winglets, etc., etc.

Honda's "cheating" was actually another example of an interpretation of the rules. Their extra tank was simply a very large swirl pot for the fuel system, and I gather other teams had been using similar devices of a similar size, but Honda's got picked up because they were inspected closely at the end of the race when the teams are allowed to refill or drain (can't remember which) the fuel systems as part of post-race weighing. So, I think it's harsh to call it cheating IMHO.

[Nick M]

FNG said:

mchammer89 said:

I know I may be flamed for this, i'm not saying this to be confrontational, but last year there was a lot of complaining about these because of the aero effect, now that McLaren have done it, and by the looks of things these are even more directed towards aero advantage, nothing is said. If F1 is all about smart engineering within the rules, why are Ferrari's mirror stalks attracting so much criticsm for "not being within the spirit of the rules" etc?

It's not really because "now McLaren have done it" that nothing is said, it's because the precedent is now set because Ferrari implemented the idea and has not been ruled illegal.

If it's not illegal, what more is there to say about them regarding whether they are fulfilling their proscribed function or not? If they are being used and they are not being appealed, you have to accept that they are here until ruled otherwise and allow anyone who wants to, to develop them.

I do wonder what will happen at the start of this season, though, if McLaren's wheel covers are more enveloping or more aggressive than other teams'. I wouldn't be too shocked to see them ruled illegal or fail scrutineering in that instance. The happy thing about that is that we know from the Ferrari false floor precedent in Adelaide that if a rule clarification is needed following a post-race appeal from another team, the drivers and teams still keep the points... don't they...

I hate the things, by the way.

As I understand it, nothing is actually illegal at this stage, because the cars haven't been presented for scrutineering. Hence there won't be any rulings until a) the car is found to be outside the regs as part of the scrutineering process, or b) another team protests on the basis they feel it is against the regs.

[andyps]

Nick M said:

Holst said:

mchammer89 said:

I know I may be flamed for this, i'm not saying this to be confrontational, but last year there was a lot of complaining about these because of the aero effect, now that McLaren have done it, and by the looks of things these are even more directed towards aero advantage, nothing is said. If F1 is all about smart engineering within the rules, why are Ferrari's mirror stalks attracting so much criticsm for "not being within the spirit of the rules" etc?

Ferrari had them approved because they claimed the were for brake cooling, not aero.
It was funny when they had to remove them because the brake temps were too high at one race (I forget where it was, singapore?)

The way the rules work is that the teams develop a part and then ask the FIA if its legal or not, in the case of these wheel covers Ferrari got approval for them as a cooling aid.

As for the Ferrari mirror mounts, we will have to wait untill melborne to see if Ferrari run the same configuration. If the other teams complain then Ferrari will be punished, or the FIA may feel that they are within the rules but against the spirit ad may ammend the rules to ban them. Something similar happened with the Renault mass damper system, where it was initially legal but was subsequently written out of the rules after complaints from other teams.
Its unusual that a team will deliberately break the rules, just find a clever way to circumvent them. The only time I can think of a team "cheating" is when Honda were disqualified for cheating on the car weight with a hidden tank.

You always see this sort of thing at the beginning of a new ruleset, I think it makes things more interesting.

Firstly, the mass damper was, I believe, only queried by one team, a team which wasn't winning at the time.... It was banned on the grounds that it was a moveable aero device and the season had been littered with similar 'issues' in the form of flexible rear wing mountings, closing the slot gaps between wing elements, bendy front winglets, etc., etc.

Honda's "cheating" was actually another example of an interpretation of the rules. Their extra tank was simply a very large swirl pot for the fuel system, and I gather other teams had been using similar devices of a similar size, but Honda's got picked up because they were inspected closely at the end of the race when the teams are allowed to refill or drain (can't remember which) the fuel systems as part of post-race weighing. So, I think it's harsh to call it cheating IMHO.

The word which always seemed appropriate regarding the Honda incident was scapegoat. And the sprung floor, out of size bargeboards and the no, I'm not going there again!

[mchammer89]

Nick M said:

As I understand it, nothing is actually illegal at this stage, because the cars haven't been presented for scrutineering. Hence there won't be any rulings until a) the car is found to be outside the regs as part of the scrutineering process, or b) another team protests on the basis they feel it is against the regs.

Yes, nothing is illegal as you say, but we're talking about if the cars are used as they are (which, i'm sure is the intention) they would or would not be within the confines of the rules.

[MrKipling43]

It seems that some people haven't paid much attention to the article.

[s3fella]

I heard from someone who has dealings with Mclaren that the development of the wheel covers to jut forward like that was in no small part to provide some protection to the tyre sidewall from these bonkers front wings and endplates on other cars!

Maybe they think Massa will be up to his tricks again! !LOL

[danrc]

I love the look of the Ferrari with the exhausts popping out. We don't see enough of the raw machinary.

[Martin Keene]

s3fella said:

I heard from someone who has dealings with Mclaren that the development of the wheel covers to jut forward like that was in no small part to provide some protection to the tyre sidewall from these bonkers front wings and endplates on other cars!

Maybe they think Massa will be up to his tricks again! !LOL

McLaren ran something simialr during testing last year, apparently they are sensors for monitoring something on the tyres, what escapes me...

[Alfie Noakes]

If the Macs wheel trims get any more silly they will have to call the car a Fiat.

[mchammer89]

s3fella said:

I heard from someone who has dealings with Mclaren that the development of the wheel covers to jut forward like that was in no small part to provide some protection to the tyre sidewall from these bonkers front wings and endplates on other cars!

Maybe they think Massa will be up to his tricks again! !LOL

Surely it would be a better idea to have them covering the rear of the tyre as opposed to the front, unless they're planning on taking out a few front wings themselves.

[flemke]

mchammer89 said:

s3fella said:

I heard from someone who has dealings with Mclaren that the development of the wheel covers to jut forward like that was in no small part to provide some protection to the tyre sidewall from these bonkers front wings and endplates on other cars!

Maybe they think Massa will be up to his tricks again! !LOL

Surely it would be a better idea to have them covering the rear of the tyre as opposed to the front, unless they're planning on taking out a few front wings themselves.

It could be that they actually are being used to cool the brakes

[mchammer89]

flemke said:

mchammer89 said:

s3fella said:

I heard from someone who has dealings with Mclaren that the development of the wheel covers to jut forward like that was in no small part to provide some protection to the tyre sidewall from these bonkers front wings and endplates on other cars!

Maybe they think Massa will be up to his tricks again! !LOL

Surely it would be a better idea to have them covering the rear of the tyre as opposed to the front, unless they're planning on taking out a few front wings themselves.

It could be that they actually are being used to cool the brakes

Oh yes, of course they are just being used to col the brakes. I'm talking about those really handy side effects that they were in no way designed to do

[mw1987]

Martin Keene said:

McLaren ran something simialr during testing last year, apparently they are sensors for monitoring something on the tyres, what escapes me...

Yep.


From Silverstone 2008 test.