McLaren and Ferrari’s 2010 cars side-by-side (Pictures)

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

The McLaren MP4-25 has been launched today.

So now we can see how it compares to arch-rival Ferrari’s 2010 car, the F10, which was launched yesterday.

Have a look at the two cars side-by-side in these pictures to see how two of F1’s powerhouse teams have tackled the 2010 regulations.

The different zooms used on the photographs makes it difficult to compare dimensions accurately, and makes the MP4-25 look much longer than the F10.

Right

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

Image scaled so rear wheel sizes match

Front

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

2010 Ferrari F10 and McLaren MP4-25 (click to enlarge)

Images scaled so front wing sizes match

Images (C) www.mclaren.com / Ferrari spa

Advert | Go Ad-free

138 comments on McLaren and Ferrari’s 2010 cars side-by-side (Pictures)

  1. Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 13:37

    Airflow diameter into the sidepods is the same it just misses the brake ducts thus less smaller area.

  2. Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 13:42

    Notice that the Ferrrari uses a barge ( with Santander written on it ) board to channel air into the brake duct.

    • I saw it too, I guess they found a workaround. I can’t remember have Williams andor Force India used them too last season?

    • the-muffin-man said on 29th January 2010, 14:14

      I think thats just the camera angle from the front. If you look at the overhead shots their are no barge boards anywhere near the brake ducts.

      • Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 14:23

        The board lies between the ferrari sign on the cockpit an the rear of the wheel, creating a pressure wave that elicites air flow throw the wheels, its all gonna add up to drag.

  3. CounterStrike said on 29th January 2010, 13:43

    I actually thought I’d never see a shark-fin on McLaren. They only time they used the shark fin was during a practice session at the 2008 German Gp at Hockenheimring.

    While everyone, including Ferrari tried it out in a race, McLaren didn’t. In fact Martin Whitmarsh went to the extent of completely ridiculing the concept shark fins.

    I remember him saying that it only disturbs the aero equilibrium of the car when a sidewards wind blows & didn’t see any point in pursuing the concept further.

    What has made him change his mind?

    • Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 13:48

      Do you notice the mushrooming of the fin as it realises into the tail, chaos Z=Z2+c

    • Its Hammer time said on 29th January 2010, 14:06

      I was thinking the me thing. It could be a distraction technique. Remember, Ferrari and Mclaren will not want RBR/ Merc/ williams et al drawing any conclusions other than confusion from any aero pieces on these two designs. Only the tub and chassis are deifnetly new pieces here, the wings, fin and front axle/ nose cone design can all be changed.

    • Scribe said on 29th January 2010, 15:15

      The design of the shark fin does seem to be based around mitigating possible cross wind.

      It narrows around critical sections and is placed so that lateral air flow is possible from an external source. Un like last years red bull.

      So you get the influence of the team princ and the influence of another teams sucsess. Seems reasonable to me.

      • Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 16:42

        I always thought it was to keep the vortices airflow from mixing till it hits the rear wing then the car behind. ie the air channels over the body in two halves then combines behind the car in a chaotic state. It also allows pressure differences between the lateral bodywork to exist.

        • maciek said on 29th January 2010, 18:30

          “It also allows pressure differences between the lateral bodywork to exist”

          – between the lateral bodywork and what?
          – what is lateral bodywork?
          – how is air pressure important?

          • Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 19:08

            1. Lateral as in either left or right. The fin will allow pressure differences to happen along these axis?. 2, See Above. 3, Air pressure….. did i mention said effects only occur in corners, 4, Have you checked the fin to wing coulpling.

          • Maciek said on 30th January 2010, 10:18

            I gotta say, you might be familiar with specialised lingo, but you’re sure not too great at explaining it. Not to be mean, but your answers clarify nothing of what you’ve said.

            “It also allows pressure differences between the lateral bodywork to exist” … perhaps this sentence could be structured more clearly? It feels like three’s big chunks of info missing there to make it intelligible. I don’t mean to be a pain in the ***, but you sound like you have interesting analysis to offer, yet it’s impossible to understand what you’re trying to get across.

        • Gusto said on 2nd February 2010, 19:54

          It only needs a pressure difference of 1/100 lb per square inch to take effect, multiply those square inches an you get a worthwhile effect, sorry for the technobabble lol.

  4. Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 13:46

    If the Mclaren engineers can channel that airflow from the front wing an brakes through the rear wing then there onto a winner.

  5. iceshiel said on 29th January 2010, 13:46

    The Ferrari looks more complete to me. But damn the Mclaren is a silver beauty.

    • Scribe said on 29th January 2010, 14:18

      Ferrari looks significantly less developed too me, the rear is a mess, they seem to have missed the point of that nose they’ve nicked from redbull.

      Also we can’t really tell about the wings till we see them and these rumours of B spec Ferrari in the offing and numbers not adding up at Manarello point more to a disorganised ferrari than an organised one.

  6. Salty said on 29th January 2010, 13:46

    I still don’t like those Ferrari mirrors. Seem to be too peripheral for drivers to easily use them. Look to be more about aero than safety. Just my tuppence worth.

  7. Bartholomew said on 29th January 2010, 13:50

    Seems like the teams have sensed that 2010 will be a memorable year and they want the cars to look extra good. The Kaiser is back in a great looking ´Benz, so that Fast Fred can beat him again, and now Ron has come up with this beauty and has two great drivers.

    2009 will be remebered in the future in the same sentence as 1929 and 1313 ( the year of the Black Plague in Europe).
    However 2010, at least in F1, is going to be a great year !!!
    Cheers

  8. Ronman said on 29th January 2010, 14:00

    i don’t like how the air intakes are up there, the ferrari’s looks nicer. the sidepods seem like they are sawn off not sculpted like Ferrari’s. the red’s nose seem less complex than McLaren’s, but the McMerc does look aerodynamically mature…

    we’ll have to wait till Bahrain to make up our minds on what counts… winning races

  9. CounterStrike said on 29th January 2010, 14:02

    Actually the RB5’s front nose section is not novel at all. Its been incorporated before by Adrian Newey in late 90’s when he was at McLaren.

    Closely observe & you’ll notice the slight bludges around the edges. Of course its not as pronounced as the Red Bull.

    http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1999/images/99MP41401.jpg

    Such a shame that most of the teams are just copy/pasting Newey’s designs. Its a decade old people!

      • Scribe said on 29th January 2010, 14:15

        http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/813/671.html

        Brawn tested that at Silverstone last year so it’s clear that they’re keen on the idea.

        Brawn has already said the nose won’t swoop, tbh I expect the Mercedes to have that F10 look of our last car with your best bits tacked on look about it.

        • CounterStrike said on 29th January 2010, 14:31

          I fail to understand why people are incorporating RB5’s design concept.

          Fact is that RB5 has spent way too less time compared to the Brawn in the wind tunnel & simulation.

          Brawn’s design was started well in advance & at one point in time Honda hired extra wind tunnels to simultaneously test the aero design.

          If people wanna copy, they better be copying the Brawn, its aerodynamically flawless.

          RB5 meanwhile is Newey’s abstract child. Most importantly itis based on a pullrod suspension concept & primarily designed to suite a Renault v8.

          Ferrari have really ridiculed by copy/pasting Newey’s designed, when they were far better off producing something of their own.

          • Scribe said on 29th January 2010, 14:45

            Well, your clearly missing the fact that Brawn is said to be incorparating the RB5 nose.

            Clearly in their windtunnels the design has come up superior, if the team that invented this aerodynamically “flawless” design are using something else somehow this points to that design being better. hmm?

            Also the BGP01 is definately not flawless. While part of this had to do with fitting in the new engine and the flawed mid season upgrade, the fact is that car had problems heating it’s front tyres, and problems with its rear tyres as well. The rasied sharp nose is obviously more efficiant to the swooping one hence the teams seem to be going for it.

          • maciek said on 29th January 2010, 18:34

            Because they were fast with a crap engine.

          • maciek said on 29th January 2010, 18:36

            I meant to reply to :”I fail to understand why people are incorporating RB5’s design concept.”

          • Hallard said on 29th January 2010, 22:01

            Because all the rival team prinicipals had acknowledged that by the end of the year red bull had the most efective aero package of the field, despite Brawn’s head start. Thats a pretty good reason.

          • Paige said on 30th January 2010, 5:38

            The BGP001 was an amazing car before they stopped developing it and took a gamble on coasting home. Who knows what it would have been if they had properly updated it like the other teams did?

            Still, the RB5 was a great design. And it never really reached the potential it could have if it had started with a DDD.

  10. JUGNU said on 29th January 2010, 14:29

    IMO Mclaren is looking much better than Ferrari. And if pace-wise it is as good as it looks, than Lewis is going to tear up the competition.

  11. Gusto said on 29th January 2010, 14:45

    Well I for one want to break away from this Iam a Professor of Formula One and thank Keith for this unique opportuinty to partake in a piece of F1 history. Good on you Keith long live F1 fanatic.

  12. neosi said on 29th January 2010, 14:46

    does anyone have a pic of the mp4-24 to compare to the mp4-25?

  13. Icthyes said on 29th January 2010, 14:49

    I think the Ferrari looks a lot “tidier”, but by extension of that more conservative. The McLaren looks far more “edgy”.

  14. Zio Pepe said on 29th January 2010, 14:50

    Ferrari’s sidepods are larger than McLaren but Maclaren’s sidepods are higher. I think that Ferrari’s rear wing will work better.

    • Scribe said on 29th January 2010, 15:19

      I think that may be the reason for the shark fin, to make up for McLaren focusing development on another area. The Shark fin will mitigate performace cuts from focusing on the diffuser,

      The middle of the MP4 25 definately shows BGP01 influence.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.