Monza: Rear End Analysis

One of the most insightful views of an F1 car is from the rear. From this angle we can easily assess the amount of rear wing, cooling, exhaust position\effect, suspension geometry and important elements of aero\diffuser design. At Monza this weekend XPB images kindly allowed us to show these images, which clearly show different elements of some of the cars running this weekend.

Ferrari


The F2012 has followed its own aero philosophy, so it looks different to many other cars from the rear. For Monza specifically we can see the low drag rear wing, much shallower than the usual rear wing and with the “V” cut outs on the trailing edge. Also for Monza Ferrari cut down the beam wing, the small amount of drag the beam wing creates is reduced by slimming the outer spans of the wing, to reduce the tip vortices.
Ferrari’s sidepods are laid out differently to other cars, most of the cooling outlet area is on the flanks of the sidepods, through the Acer ducts and in the area of the tail of the coke bottle shape. So when we look at the car from the rear, the central tail funnel cooling exit is not present. This design may hinder flow in the coke bottle area, but does leave far more airflow to reach the rear wing. Additionally several cooling vents are made in the narrow bodywork around the gearbox.
Around the diffuser Ferrari have gone further than other teams, with the aero parts around the perimeter. Teams often fit gurney flaps or flaps at the diffusers trailing edge to lower the pressure behind the diffuser and encourage more air to pass through the diffuser for more downforce. In Ferrari’s case the diffuser now sports two flaps above the diffuser, one lower down and the larger one above. This larger one is clearly visible, the lower one is mainly visible through the arched shaping. Having a two element design to this flap means it can be angled more aggressively to have a greater aero effect.


Along with trailing edge the flap the tall flap formed under the crash structure has also gained a two element design. Evident in this picture is the starter motor hole, the end of the shaft that the starter motor engages with is clearly visible through it, but although the starter motor shaft is round the resulting hole is far from circular. Teams exploit the ruling for this opening, by making the hole a blow slot to improve airflow through the middle of the diffuser. Rules dictate only one hole must be used and of a maximum surface area. In Ferrari’s case their two holes are joined by a small slit to make them effectively one hole. Most teams exploit this area in one form or another.

Lotus


In comparison to the Ferrari the Lotus is a more conventional shape with the sidepods, although the exhaust position is evidently different. As Lotus are one of the most successful teams to race this year without a downwashed exhaust solution blowing the diffuser. In the case of Lotus the exhaust blows into the duct formed by the rear wing. Cooling for the E20 is largely exited through the middle tail funnel.
For Monza this wing is very small indeed, the reduced drag helping the Renault powered Lotus reach higher top speeds on the long straights of Monza. Unlike other cars described here, the Lotus beam wing is not waisted away and also retains the taller flap exploiting free bodywork zone the middle 15cm of wing span. Also interesting to note with the tidy rear end of the Lotus is the extreme convergence of the wishbones where they meet the gearbox.


There are two distinct features on the E20 diffuser exit; the side exits and the trailing edge flap. Lotus expands the diffuser not only upwards but also outwards, such that the diffusers exit passes sideways out of the maximum 1000mm width allowed for the diffuser. This increases the diffusers expansion ratio, for more downforce, the trick being keeping the airflow attached to the aggressively shaped diffuser walls. Above the trailing edge Lotus fit a flap in-between the rear wing endplates.

McLaren


McLaren is very similar to Lotus with the conventional sidepod and cooling arrangements, of course McLaren exploit different exhaust positions, with the side exiting exhaust being downwashed to blow the side of the diffuser. The central cooling funnel has been augmented by two small outlets near the cockpit. These sit just inside the free area for sidepod bodywork, any further outboard and they would be subject to the strict rules on openings and curvature in the sidepod bodywork.


McLaren run a low incidence Monza spec wing, but this is not as slim as some other teams. Likewise their beam wing is slightly revised with the outer tips eased off to reduce drag they create. Below this the diffusers trailing edge is treated to a flap around most of its perimeter and inside the diffuser large single opening for the starter motor is apparent.

Red Bull


The unique shape of the RB8 is apparent in this image, the sidepods blend into the gearbox and rear structure freeing up airflow to the diffuser and beam wing. This is possible because so much cooling flow is ducted out of the central tail funnel. Although for the heat of Monza extra openings are created in the lower flanks of the sidepod. Drag reduction is aided by the beam wing being shorn of its central peak. Resulting in a “V” shape dip in the beam wing. Below the tail light a small electronic device with cabling emerging from it is visible. This is the back up timing transponder. The primary transponder to signal to the timing system sits under the nose of the car. Being mounted in the position, the transponder is exposed to potential damage, so teams fit covers over the device to protect it.

Timing transponder position as described in the Appendix to the FIA Technical Regulations

The exhaust position is clear in this image, the exhaust outlets despite pointing upwards, is actually diverted downwards by the downwash over the sidepods and the coanda effect of the sloping tail of the sidepods. These effects deliver the exhaust gas to the edge of the diffuser for a greater sealing effect. This sealing effect is critical as the Red Bull runs the car with a high rake angle, which is a low front ride height compared to the rear ride height. We can see the edge of the diffuser is nearly as high as the rear wheel rim; this rim is about 15cm high, so with the 5cm under floor step the rear ride height must be near 10cm.


Similar to other diffusers, the RB8 also sports an arched diffuser with a trailing edge flap. However, Red Bull curves the flap downwards over the arched sections, this results in a small flat edge on the flap above the arch. Due to the way the carbon fibre is finished around these flats, they appear like openings from some angles and have been mistaken for blown outlets. Lastly Red Bull continues to use extended rear wing end plates that form vanes behind the diffuser. While other teams have used this design, they have raised the bottom of the vanes to only sit in the wake coming over the top of the diffuser, not coming out from under it.

Williams


Aside from their waisted gearbox creating nothing but open space ahead of the beam wing, Williams follow many of the principles seen on the other cars in this article. The rear suspension geometry can be clearly seen with the near horizontal top wishbone and far less convergence in the top\bottom wishbones compared the Lotus. While the steep angle of the driveshaft’s shows just how low the differential is placed. In this picture the lack of cooling outlets on the Williams is apparent and very different to the Red bull & Lotus who run the same Renault engine.


For Monza the beam wing has been dramatically slimed down to reduce drag on the straights. While the diffuser sports a trailing edge flap and tall curved vertical gurney under the rear crash structure. Like many teams William paint the cover of the rear timing transponder in fluorescent paint to make is clear to the rear Jack man to avoid it during hurried race pitstop.

McLaren: Adjustable Front Brake Ducts

This year McLaren have had the option to alter rear brake cooling during the pit stops in a race. As a result they can vary brake temperatures and potentially alter tyre temperature slightly. This latter effect being possible from the heat conducting from the red hot brake discs through the wheel and into the tyre. This system has been used at various races and each driver appears to have preference when to use it. This system has been especially useful this year, as the tyres dropping below their operating temperature window will see grip their levels fall dramatically. At the British GP one of the mechanical updates McLaren have brought, is the front brakes now also have this adjustability.

Continue reading

F1 Jack Technology

For years the F1 quick lift jack was a simple humble tool used around the garage and at pit stops. Since pit stops have become an ever greater part of the team’s performance during the race, the jack has come in for increasing levels of development. As powered jacks are no longer allowed, teams rely on a hefty pull from a mechanic to lift the car and gravity to return the car to the ground. Improving this process has lead to most teams adopting a similar quick-release swivel jack. At first a complicated looking piece of kit, the jack is still a simple device when reduced to its component parts.

Continue reading

Red Bull: Floor Hole Legality

Its been announced today that the FIA have issued a Technical Directive clarifying the issue that emerged over the Monaco weekend around the Red Bull floor hole. This TD-13 outlines that the area 650mm outboard of the cars centreline cannot now exploit fully enclosed holes. As a result Red Bull will have to change the floor design before the next race, the Canadian GP. Although their design has now been deemed to be illegal retrospectively, so they are allowed to keep their results from the three races in which the design has been raced, including the win in Monaco.
Having introduced a “tyre squirt” slot into the floor ahead of the rear tyres at the Bahrain GP, Red Bull had completed two complete GPs before rival teams raised questions about its legality. On the morning of the Monaco GP, several teams started a discussion regarding the slots legality, as it did not follow the practice of Sauber or Ferrari in linking the hole to the edge of the floor. No formal protest was made, but the Technical Working Group (TWG) wanted the rules around holes in the floor clarified.

Continue reading

McLaren: Adjustable Rear Brake Ducts

With the switch to Pirelli tyres, their rear tyre construction has needed a lot of care in managing degradation. This drop in tyre performance happens when the tyres drop out of their operating temperature window, and this can come from the tyres running too hot or too cold. As the preceding RenaultSport article explains managing rear temperature takes a lot of effort and understanding. McLaren have been active in understanding this problem and over the past year have developed an innovative method of controlling tyre temperature via its relationship with Brake temperatures. It’s come to light in the past two races McLaren have an adjustable brake duct set up and this can have an impact on tyre temperature.

Brake discs (red) visible inside the Brake Duct

F1 carbon brake disk temperatures can peak at over 1000-degrees centigrade. The discs being 278mm diameter inside a 305mm wheel means that there is little space between the two and heat inevitably passes from the disc into the magnesium alloy wheel. In previously years this was avoided to try to reduce heat conducting into the tyre, but McLaren have found a way to harness this.

By altering the flow of heated air coming from the periphery of the brake disc, the amount of heat passed into the wheel and tyre and can be altered. Already teams tune brake cooling with different inlets scoops, but these tend to stay fixed from qualifying onwards (wet races excepted). If the team want to alter brake and thus tyre temperatures during the race then normally there’s no path open to them. However McLaren have fitted an adjustable window in the rear brake ducts. A mechanic can adjust this in the pits to tune the brake and tyre temperature to suit conditions. Depending on the wording of the Parc Fermé rule, this could also be altered on the grid as one of the areas allowed to be changed is brake cooling blankings.

The heated flow from the brakes (arrowed) exits around the brake duct

To do this McLaren have altered their brake cooling design from most other teams. More typically the round brake drum cooling ducts exit the brake flow through the rounded outer face of the duct; this passes out through the wheel spokes. McLaren’s brake discs vent their through openings in the outside of the brake drum, with its outer face closed off from the disc. So all the heated brake flow passes between the duct and the wheel before exiting through the wheel. To accommodate this flow, McLaren’s wheel spoke arrangement has been altered. The Enkei wheel features 29 drillings around the face of the rim, with the more conventional spokes positioned inside these drillings. Brake flow is directed through these drillings and relatively little passes through ten holes between the main spokes. With this set up the heated brake flow has far more contact with the wheel, both as it passes to wards the spokes and even the spokes themselves have more surface area to absorb heat from the brake flow.

The heated brake flow passes through the outer drillings (red)

Normally teams tune the brake cooling via the inlet, taping it over or changing to a different sized inlet scoop. With the McLaren system the inlet scoop remains largely the same, but brake cooling is tuned via a threaded adjuster (Yellow in the following diagrams) moving a flap to either open or close the openings in the brake drum. This is analogous to the cars engine cooling, the inlet tends to remain the same and the outlet area is tuned for optimum cooling. A larger than required duct will create extra drag, but I suspect the operating window the adjustable duct is within quite a small range. Probably smaller range than switching to the next size brake duct inlet.

The flap (grey) is closed to cover up the cooling outlets

When the flap closes the opening, more heat is retained within the duct for hotter brakes, but cooler tyres.

The duct is open to expose more of the cooling outlet (red)

Conversely opening the flap to expose more duct exit area, brakes run cooler and more heat is passed into the tyre.

Also, see these images comparing the adjustable brake ducts of Hamiltons car (right) and the unadjustable ones on Buttons (left). via Russell Batchelor XPB.cc.  The silver coated section inside the brake duct on the right, is the adjustable part.  This semi cylindrical panel winds in to open up more cooling outlet area.

We have seen the adjusters fitted to the rear brakes in Bahrain, but they’ve reportedly been on the car since China and F1 insiders tell me they were used even last year. I’m also told the front brakes are adjustable too, but I’ve seen no evidence for this. One thing is clear, these are quoted as secret devices, but most rival F1 engineers know about them!

I understand the brake ducts can be adjusted from a single point near the fuel filler flap, so I presume cables (Grey in the preceding diagrams) run from the threaded adjuster back to the middle of the car. At a pitstop the mechanic can adjust the brakes with a tool accordingly.

See this picture from the Spanish GP (via F1talks.pl) shows the adjustment in operation.  Cables from each of the adjusters meet at the fuel flller flap and the mechanic, who is usually there to hold the car steady and clear out the airbox, can adjust the ducts with a pre-agreed number of turns on the hand tool in the adjuster.  As the adjustment is done via a mechanic it is a legal change to set up, allowed once the race starts, but not during qualifying or whilst the car is in Parc Fermé. When the car is stationery at a pitstop, the system is not considered moveable aero.

Changing the brake ducting will alter the amount of brake cooling, opening the duct will allow more heat to escape and reduce brake disc temperatures and vice versa with closing the ducts. Adjusting the rear brake temperature may be the sole reason for this season. With changing tyre balance and KERS usage the rear brakes have been prone to overheating. But the more likely benefit is the effect of the brake heat altering tyre temperature. As the brake heat passes through the smaller set of drillings in the wheel, this has a greater surface area than the more usual 8-10 spoke wheel; this allows more heat to transfer into the wheel. Heating the wheel will transfer heat into the tyre; this will be useful when the driver is struggling for tyre temperature. The contrary is reducing the heat transfer into the wheel to reduce tyre temperature when the driver is struggling with heat related degradation.

Of other teams are able with their current wheel and duct arrangement to alter tyre temperatures via heat radiated from the brakes, then this will be an easy modification to make to the car. However many other F1 Engineers suggest that they find little effect of brake temperatures altering tyre temperature, making the solution unattractive to them. So it’s not clear if this is a must have solution or other teams are able to tune tyre temperatures with more conventional means. As yet I have not seen any other team run these types of brake ducts.

McLaren: Front End Aero Development

McLaren have long since followed their own path in aero development. Certainly since 2009 the car has increasingly diverged from other team’s aero concepts and the 2012 MP4-27 is no different. However the current car has a clear lineage in some of the design solutions and the whole front end is an evolution of recent cars.

Development Chronology

2009

Their first car to the current aero regulations in 2009 sported a conventional nose, front wing and cascades.

2010

The car that was launched in 2010 had a very different front end. The drooped nosed of the MP4-24 was gone replaced by a more horizontal and shallower nose cone. Beneath this was fitted large aero device, I term a “snow plough”, Williams had run a similar solution in 2009.

From a horizontal leading edge positioned between the front wing mounting pylons, the snow ploughs surface splits into left and right sections and eventually forms a pair vertical vanes protruding below the nose. This creates a “V” section mid way along its length and the twist of the airflow along with the pressure differential between the upperlower surfaces creates vortices trailing from the rear of the vanes. This is an aggressive solution compared to the simpler turning vanes other teams use. This device probably creates some downforce in its own right, but I suspect the primary purpose is to direct the strong vortices along the Y250 axis, to drive a better airflow towards the floors lower leading edge.

Later in 2010 after a series of different iterations of endplate and cascade design, the wing substantially changed for Singapore GP.  The main plane was effectively split into two; a section ahead of the front tyres and a section inboard of that. The intersection between the sections formed an upright for the main cascade winglet. While the less aggressive inboard wing span gains a simple “r” shaped vane.

2011

McLaren continued the 2010 design of snowplough nosecone and split front wing into 2011 with the MP4-26. Again later in the year, the wing was simplified for the Indian GP with similar endplates and cascades, but the complex split shape wing profile was changed to be straight across its width.

2012

Again this format was brought forward to the launch and initial test version of the 2012 MP4-27. Only in the last days of Barcelona testing did the revised front end appear. Gone was the snowplough and the straight wing profile. In their place was a simpler nose cone and a pair of vanes dropping vertically from the nose. While the more complex split wing profile was reintroduced. With EBDs less powerful this year, teams are finding downforce levels are lower. We could conclude that the snowplough and straighter wing arrangement were better for downforce, so the new simpler arrangement may be a more efficient way of producing less downforce.

The other change in China was the deletion of the slots in the small cascade winglet. The slots would have reduced the strength of the vortex produced by the winglet, removing the slots will have increased them. This change will be made in order to direct a stronger airflow around the inside face of the front wheel.
As the team get to grips with the new exhaust regulations and start to develop more downforce, potentially some of these solutions could return. So any reappearance will tell us a story of development and aero load figures in 2012.

Launch Analysis: McLaren Mercedes MP4-27

As the first real launch of a 2012 F1 car, McLaren have unveiled their MP4-27. In McLaren parlance this was the cars “technical launch” and was carried out at their Technical Centre in Woking, UK.

2011
McLaren had one of the fastest cars in 2011, on its day the MP4-26 was faster than the Red Bull. So the basic approach of the new car did not need to veer too far from direction McLaren had been following. Last year the season was blighted by poor form in pre season testing. Most of the winter tests were interrupted by exhaust problems, as the now near mythical “octopus” exhaust broke after a few laps out on track. This exhaust turned out to be far simpler than the rumours suggested. The exhausts ran sideways across the floor to exit in a longitudinal slit ahead of the rear wheels. This being a complex way to achieve the same sort of fluid skirt that Red Bull achieved with their outer blowing exhaust layout. Once McLaren had followed Red Bulls lead with the exhaust, they were able to catch up. McLaren perhaps even surpassed Red Bull with the exhaust blown diffuser, as the Mercedes Hot Blown engine mappings were superior to the Renault cold blown solutions. Despite the rules trying cap the hot blown benefits as early the Canadian GP, the Silverstone GP weekend showed how much McLaren were lost relative to Red Bull when the restrictions really bit hard.

Philosophy
With a strong car at the end of 2011, the team have learnt about the damage a slow start to the year makes to their championship chances. This year evolution is required, McLaren do not need to find large chunks of time, but do need a car that will perform well at the opening races. Thus we see the refinement of old concepts and little in the way of radical development.
Thus the new car bred from the recent line of McLarens, the family resemblance goes further than the colour scheme. With a low nose and sweeping lines over rounded sidepods are now trademarks of the Woking design team. With the second year of the fixed weight distribution and Pirelli tyres, little needed to be done to the cars basic layout. Running much the same chassis, fuel tank size and gearbox, so the wheelbase is similar to the previous car.
Although the 2012 Pirelli front tyres are a new shape tyre, Paul Hembury from the tyre supplier confirmed to me that the change in the new profile is “not visible to the eye”. So only small optimisations of the front end aero are needed to cope with the change.

The nose-down, tail-up 'Rake' of the car is evident, with as much as 10cm of rear ride height

The studio photos of the car in side profile show off the amount of rake the car is designed to run. This is also a carry over from 2011, as the car could often be seen with a clear 10cm of ride height at the rear axle line. Although managing rake will be harder this year as the greater rear height introduces more leakage into the diffuser from the sides. As yet the teams solution to seal the diffuser are hidden by a simple floor fitted to the launch, although these are removable panels and more complex designs will soon be seen.

With so much to carry over in philosophy and design, what has changed for 2012?

MP4-27 in detail
The stand out points on the MP4-27 are the nose, sidepods and exhaust position.

Firstly the front wing is near identical to the late 2011 wing, so we can expect its general design to carry over, as will the snow plough vane below the nosecone. But the height of the nose at first appears to be at odds with the 2012 rules on a maximum 55cm height for the front of the nose.

Looking closer at McLarens chassis in side profile its clear the family history of low noses has helped here. The dashboard bulkhead is may be just 3cm higher than the cockpit padding (which is 55cm high), the chassis top then curves downwards towards the front wheels. By the point of the front (A-A) bulkhead the top is lower than 55cm, may be as low as 5cm below the maximum height. When compared to the maximum heights (the dotted line on the drawing), its clear this is a very low nose overall.

The snow plough vane under the nose might be part of the secret to a low nose

This creates less space under the raised nose, but the teams snow plough device under the nose works aggressively as a turning vane, so perhaps the team don’t need the higher chassis to get the correct airflow to the sidepods leading edge. McLaren also find the lower nose provides the classic vehicle dynamics benefits of a low CofG and a less extreme front suspension geometry. This trade off works for McLaren and goes to prove not everything in F1 has to be a compromise in search of aero advantage.

Unique drillings between the rim and spokes of the wheel aid brake cooling, the ring fairing is missing on the launch car.

Although details around the front end will change, the wheels are typically a design chosen to last for the whole season. This year the McLaren Enkei wheels sport a novel set of drillings to aid brake cooling. The usual spokes formed into the wheel between the hub and the rim, stop short and a radial set of holes are made near the rim. Although not present of the launch car, there will be a dish shaped fairing added to small pegs formed into the wheel to aid the airflow out of the wheel.

The high rectangular inlet and large undercut set the car apart from the "U" pods of the 2011

In 2011 McLaren were not afraid to try a radical sidepod set up, This was the “U” shaped sidepod, with the angled inlet shape creating channel in the upper section of sidepod (About the MP4-26 “U” shaped sidepods).  This year the team have adopted more typical sidepod format, with highwide sidepod inlets and steep undercut beneath. I got to ask Tim Goss about this:

ScarbsF1: Can you tell us about why the concept’s changed, why you don’t feel that was a benefit this year?
Tim Goss: Last year’s U-shaped side-pod worked very well with what we were trying to achieve last year with the exhaust layout, it was all intended at creating more down wash to the rear end, and it performed particularly well last year. This year at a fairly early stage we set about a different approach to both the external and the internal aerodynamics of the car, and then once the exhaust regulations started to become a little bit clearer then it was quite obvious to us that the U-shaped side-pod no longer fitted in with both the internal aerodynamics and some of the external aerodynamics that we pursued early on. So it works, it worked very well last year, but it’s actually just not suited to what we’re trying to achieve this year.”

.

Not extreme like the "U" pod, but the sidepod tops do incline slightly

In frontal profile the high and wide cooling inlet is obvious.  The team have been able to incline the sidepod tops slightly, this isnt quite a “U”pod shape, but is quite distinctive.  At the rear the team have kept the sidepods narrow and slimmed the coke bottle shape in tightly to make the sidepod join the gearbox fairing creating a continuous line of bodywork to the very tail of the car.

the heated air from the radiators passes up over the engine and out of the central tail funnel

As well as the external airflow considerations, McLaren looked the sidepods internal airflow, they wanted a cooling exit on the cars centreline. This would have been compromised with the “U” sidepod, so the more conventional shape was selected. The cooling arrangement is similar to Red Bulls philosophy, the radiators direct their heated airflow upwards and around the engine, this then exits in a tail funnel. The launch car had quite a modest central outlet, but we can expect to see far larger versions used at hot races.

the front upper section of sidepod is switchable for version with cooling outlets

Aiding the tail funnel there are also cooling panels on the upper leading edge of the sidepod, either side of the cockpit padding and various panels arund the rear of the coke bottle shape. Different panels will be used depending the cooling andor drag demands of the of the track.

Last years more complex roll hoop cooling inlets have been simplified into one below the engine inlet

Other cooling functions are covered by the inlet below the roll hoop. Last years double inlet set up has gone and now a single duct is used. This probably cools both the gearbox and KERS.

Viewed through the rear wing the exhaust bulge is obvious

The other notable aspect of the sidepods are the exhaust bulges. These stick out prominently on the flank of each sidepod. They don’t serve an aerodynamic function themselves, but simply fair-in the final 10cm of exhaust pipe. This final section of exhaust is now strictly controlled by the regulations. Its position must sit within specific area, it must point upwards between 10 – 30 degrees and can point sideways plus or minus ten degrees. McLaren have fixed the exhaust in the lowest most rearwards position possible, the tail pipe then pointing steeply upwards and inwards. From the limited view it would appear to direct the exhaust plume towards the outer span of the rear wing.

This would make a blown rear wing (BRW), the added flow from the exhaust aiding the wing in creating downforce at lower speeds. The exhaust position and fairing also suggests an alternative exhaust tailpipe could be used. Paddy Lowe confirmed that different solutions would be tried in testing. From overhead its clear to see the exhaust could be angled differently to blow over the rear brake ducts fairings to create downforce directly at the wheel.


The gearbox case design is not the shrunken design we saw with Williams in 2011 , the differential is low but not unduly so. The top of the case sitting neatly under the tail funnel. Pull rod suspension remains at the rear of the car, while conventional pushrod is on the front end. Lowe commented that the Lotus brake antidive system was not specifically looked at, but was part ”of a family of solutions” that has been looked at in the past. The engineers feeling that the Lotus system was illegal and hence had not been explored further. They declined to comment of the possibility of an interlinked suspension system.
Behind the gearcase, the rear impact structure is mounted midway between the beam wing and floor, fully exposing both the beam wing and allowing airflow into the central boat tail shape of the diffuser. As the diffuser was covered up, its not clear if there are features to drive airflow into the starter motor hole. A new feature on the beam wing is an upswept centre section, the extra angle of attack in the middle 15cm of the wing having a slot to help keep the airflow attached. The upper rear wing is a new design albeit similar the short chord DRS flap wing, we saw introduced at Suzuka last year. The DRS pod is still mounted atop the rear main plane and its hydraulics fed to it through the rear wing endplates. The flaps junction with the endplates follows recent McLaren practice with a complex set of vents aimed at reducing drag inducing wing tip vortices.
Not much else in terms of structures or mechanical parts were evident at the launch. Lowe did confirm to me that the Mercedes AMG KERS remained packaged under the fuel tank in one assembly. Also adding that there would not be an significant weight loss to the system.  As a significant reduction in weight was made between the 2009 and 2011 season, via the consolidation of the Batteries and Power Electronics into one unit.

Mp3 of the MP4-27 Engine fire up via McLaren