McLaren MCL36

[DiogoBrand]

This is more of a general question, but with cars now relying even more on ground effect, are softer suspensions better for aero stability? I guess the floor is much more sensitive now and sudden jumps may cause temporary downforce losses. I was thinking maybe a chassis that moves less is better for this purpose, but I guess you can't go too soft because you lose a lot of mechanical grip as well.

Compared to last year I'd guess the suspensions most likely will be softer simply because the tyre sidewalls are lower this time.
If we leave this aspect aside and consider what suspension travel is better simply because of the aero, it's hard for me to guess, but if we consider the low front wings, the high rakes some teams used and all the appendages necessary to generate downforce from a flat floor, if I had to guess I'd think last year's regulations would ask for less suspension travel, but I may very well have this completely backwards.

Everything I have read in the last 48 hours indicates the opposite. These cars are going to handle like go-karts and be incredibly stiff with no ability to ride the kerbs. Daniel has been talking about the cars giving drivers headaches.

I wonder if that plays into Newey's hands given his history of making extremely stiff cars for Mclaren and Red Bull

Well. When you consider that Williams ran a car with no suspension during the ground effect era in the 80's it does make sense.

[MrGapes]

What is the advantage of this wheel design vs the old spoked style?

To control spending IMho.
To control tyre wake, you could give the teams a regulation on wheel covers, but of course it will turn into a spending spree to find the best performance. The same for the wheels. 18 inches is big and presents a vast amount of space for all manner of complex channels and structures for aero, brakes an temperature controls. Again another spending spree.

Cost shouldn't be an issue with the cost cap

cost would matter in the sense, that they are regulated thus they have a limited amount they could allocate for development.

[Blackout]

The Mclaren rear outlet isn't that big IMO, it is mainly placed much higher than before.
Now the bottom line of the inlet seem to be above the crash structure/red light
https://i.imgur.com/14C2W0e.png
Unlike MCL-35-m
https://f1only.fr/wp-content/uploads/20 ... scaled.jpg
.

Regarding rear suspension integration, it wont be that hard to put the suspension elements inside the 'bell housing' IMO. This old Bar Honda Gbox has done it, and only the heave damper stayed outside.
https://i.imgur.com/85K4JOR.jpg
@DawnTreaderEng

Yes the turbine will occupy a big part of that space. But take a look at this 2014 Lotus gearbox. It's bell housing had to host a full turbo, not just a turbine, but still, the suspension elements (missing here) sat behind the turbine and exhaust pipes.
https://i.imgur.com/85K4JOR.jpg
The split turbo obviously needs a smaller recess in the bell housing, so the inboard suspensions should have more space

Do you have the image of the lotus gearbox. Your post had the same image twice

https://i.imgur.com/Ug3NhEd.jpg

[proteus]

Compared to last year I'd guess the suspensions most likely will be softer simply because the tyre sidewalls are lower this time.
If we leave this aspect aside and consider what suspension travel is better simply because of the aero, it's hard for me to guess, but if we consider the low front wings, the high rakes some teams used and all the appendages necessary to generate downforce from a flat floor, if I had to guess I'd think last year's regulations would ask for less suspension travel, but I may very well have this completely backwards.

Everything I have read in the last 48 hours indicates the opposite. These cars are going to handle like go-karts and be incredibly stiff with no ability to ride the kerbs. Daniel has been talking about the cars giving drivers headaches.

I wonder if that plays into Newey's hands given his history of making extremely stiff cars for Mclaren and Red Bull

Well. When you consider that Williams ran a car with no suspension during the ground effect era in the 80's it does make sense.

As far as i know they tried it, but the driver said it was impossible without serious padding in the cockpit. And since the driver still needs some feeling between his buttocks and cars floor it was deemed to be not worth it, even though car was faster. There is documentary on YouTube about it.

[DiogoBrand]

Everything I have read in the last 48 hours indicates the opposite. These cars are going to handle like go-karts and be incredibly stiff with no ability to ride the kerbs. Daniel has been talking about the cars giving drivers headaches.

I wonder if that plays into Newey's hands given his history of making extremely stiff cars for Mclaren and Red Bull

Well. When you consider that Williams ran a car with no suspension during the ground effect era in the 80's it does make sense.

As far as i know they tried it, but the driver said it was impossible without serious padding in the cockpit. And since the driver still needs some feeling between his buttocks and cars floor it was deemed to be not worth it, even though car was faster. There is documentary on YouTube about it.

But the simple fact that they tried it means that ground effect works well with really stiff suspension, that was my point.

[Hoffman900]

Well. When you consider that Williams ran a car with no suspension during the ground effect era in the 80's it does make sense.

As far as i know they tried it, but the driver said it was impossible without serious padding in the cockpit. And since the driver still needs some feeling between his buttocks and cars floor it was deemed to be not worth it, even though car was faster. There is documentary on YouTube about it.

But the simple fact that they tried it means that ground effect works well with really stiff suspension, that was my point.

Those cars were pretty unsophisticated back then as was the engineering, relative to today. In theory, yes, but I think they can control it better now.

[Blackout]

Bring back active suspensions.

[the EDGE]

Bring back active suspensions.

? So the cars are even easier for the drivers

No thanks, they are heading the the right direction now

[ScrewCaptain27]

No, the last thing we need is more weight. There’s a reason no race car out there uses active suspension, and it’s not just regulations.

[Tim.Wright]

No, the last thing we need is more weight. There’s a reason no race car out there uses active suspension, and it’s not just regulations.

It's definately just the regulations. The performance gains on the mechanical and aerodynamic side from having complete control over the ride are massive.

[proteus]

Well. When you consider that Williams ran a car with no suspension during the ground effect era in the 80's it does make sense.

As far as i know they tried it, but the driver said it was impossible without serious padding in the cockpit. And since the driver still needs some feeling between his buttocks and cars floor it was deemed to be not worth it, even though car was faster. There is documentary on YouTube about it.

But the simple fact that they tried it means that ground effect works well with really stiff suspension, that was my point.

Indeed. I just wanted to point out while it works for the car, it is not working for the driver.

[Big Tea]

It has probably been asked somewhere and I missed the answer, but would stiff suspension be an advantage or disadvantage with ground effect?

I get that the car needs to be closest to the ground, but does it not also need a consistent gar, especially consistent side to side? The old cars had skirts to stop leakage (or slippage, what ever the term is), but that is not allowed now, so every time a wheel goes on a kerb, or one corner is lifted, the downforce becomes unbalanced?
Especially in a crosswind ow when the angle is changing as it would on a corner?

[siskue2005]

It has probably been asked somewhere and I missed the answer, but would stiff suspension be an advantage or disadvantage with ground effect?

I get that the car needs to be closest to the ground, but does it not also need a consistent gar, especially consistent side to side? The old cars had skirts to stop leakage (or slippage, what ever the term is), but that is not allowed now, so every time a wheel goes on a kerb, or one corner is lifted, the downforce becomes unbalanced?
Especially in a crosswind ow when the angle is changing as it would on a corner?

Yes, i beleive u need stiff suspension, escpecially without the skirts.
I am predicting with the stiff side wall of tyre, underbody downforce and stiff suspension setup there will be very less kerb riding. Similar to early 90s cars

[F1NAC]

It has probably been asked somewhere and I missed the answer, but would stiff suspension be an advantage or disadvantage with ground effect?

I get that the car needs to be closest to the ground, but does it not also need a consistent gar, especially consistent side to side? The old cars had skirts to stop leakage (or slippage, what ever the term is), but that is not allowed now, so every time a wheel goes on a kerb, or one corner is lifted, the downforce becomes unbalanced?
Especially in a crosswind ow when the angle is changing as it would on a corner?

Aren't low rake cars usually stiffed? I supposed most of them will be at lower rake than till now?

[Big Tea]

It has probably been asked somewhere and I missed the answer, but would stiff suspension be an advantage or disadvantage with ground effect?

I get that the car needs to be closest to the ground, but does it not also need a consistent gar, especially consistent side to side? The old cars had skirts to stop leakage (or slippage, what ever the term is), but that is not allowed now, so every time a wheel goes on a kerb, or one corner is lifted, the downforce becomes unbalanced?
Especially in a crosswind ow when the angle is changing as it would on a corner?

Aren't low rake cars usually stiffed? I supposed most of them will be at lower rake than till now?

(and F1NAC)

Does that then mean they have to stay off the Kerbs, and by definition lose time? I would imagine they could easily lose .3 by not straighten out a sequence.