McLaren MCL60

[FerdiFuchs]

It's funny how Mercedes is practically running McLaren's last year's initial spec in terms of design philosophy, albeit with more of a shrink wrapped and tighter packaging.

Yet I can guarantee you the "media" will undoubtedly consider Mercedes' choice bold and ambitious.

Meanwhile McLaren gets demolished for going down a path in which apparently more than half the grid is following.

It's comical in a way, but I saw these articles coming when Stella made the not so confidence inspiring comments after the launch.

On another note, seeing Mercedes following a similar path to what McLaren abandon makes the disadvantage in tools more apparent in my opinion. McLaren obviously weren't able to see what Mercedes has seemingly found in a similar concept.

I dont think the design philosophy of this years Mercedes is similar to what Mclaren had last year.

[f1rules]

im sorry, but which philosophy is that, the high air outlet?
Mclarens mistake last year was the idea of moving the electronics packaging into the sidepods leaving no space for undercut, together with their idea of guiding/channeling the air from around the tray area and using it for outwash aided by those bold sidepods, the concept viewed as whole made sense, it just wasnt the right one

[Cs98]

so the engine is from where.....?

What's the engine got to do with the shape of the sidepod? It's clearly a RB homage with some subtle Alpine/Ferrari hints with the scalloped upper ridge.

quite a lot actually since the cooling system is a very integral and important component as does the layout of auxiliary equipment

That equipment can look different on cars with the same engine, as long as you fulfill the cooling requirements. And you don't need to fill the sidepod to the brim with equipment. Some teams clearly want a bulky sidepod because of the aerodynamic benefits, not because they are having problems slimming down the cooling. There is almost zero similiarity between the sidepods on the Merc and the other Merc engined cars.

[Emag]

im sorry, but which philosophy is that, the high air outlet?
Mclarens mistake last year was the idea of moving the electronics packaging into the sidepods leaving no space for undercut, together with their idea of guiding/channeling the air from around the tray area and using it for outwash aided by those bold sidepods, the concept viewed as whole made sense, it just wasnt the right one

If you look at the Mercedes from this point of view:



Then you can see there's no undercut in the conventional sense. The "sidepods" are more of a wall directly behind the suspension arms, and they are streamlined down to the diffuser.

Now if you look at McLaren's initial concept:



You can see that they are trying to do similar things. The major difference being (as I already mentioned), Mercedes' design features a much more tighter packaging. Which obviously changes the behavior of the airflow drastically.

But the core of the concept in my opinion is very similar, and when McLaren was first unveiled last year, what Mercedes is running now seemed one of the more logical development paths for that sort of philosophy.

[organic]

im sorry, but which philosophy is that, the high air outlet?
Mclarens mistake last year was the idea of moving the electronics packaging into the sidepods leaving no space for undercut, together with their idea of guiding/channeling the air from around the tray area and using it for outwash aided by those bold sidepods, the concept viewed as whole made sense, it just wasnt the right one

If you look at the Mercedes from this point of view:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo_2pDTWYAA ... =4096x4096

Then you can see there's no undercut in the conventional sense. The "sidepods" are more of a wall directly behind the suspension arms, and they are streamlined down to the diffuser.

Now if you look at McLaren's initial concept:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLVqo0UWQAA ... name=large

You can see that they are trying to do similar things. The major difference being (as I already mentioned), Mercedes' design features a much more tighter packaging. Which obviously changes the behavior of the airflow drastically.

But the core of the concept in my opinion is very similar, and when McLaren was first unveiled last year, what Mercedes is running now seemed one of the more logical development paths for that sort of philosophy.

Yeah agreed with most of that. I think Merc finding the mid-wing loophole whereas McLaren maybe not is the key difference

[f1rules]

agree to some degree, but the whole point is exactly the merc is much much narrower, so they basicly have an undercut with "nothing above", mclaren, made it fat, both for packaging and for to use them to help create outwash/floorseeling, that was partly taken from flow around the tray, which no one did, everyone used all the air in that area and guided under the floor which mclaren ind the end, ended up with doing also, so the exactly the bottom width og the sidepods makes the whole difference

im sorry, but which philosophy is that, the high air outlet?
Mclarens mistake last year was the idea of moving the electronics packaging into the sidepods leaving no space for undercut, together with their idea of guiding/channeling the air from around the tray area and using it for outwash aided by those bold sidepods, the concept viewed as whole made sense, it just wasnt the right one

If you look at the Mercedes from this point of view:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo_2pDTWYAA ... =4096x4096

Then you can see there's no undercut in the conventional sense. The "sidepods" are more of a wall directly behind the suspension arms, and they are streamlined down to the diffuser.

Now if you look at McLaren's initial concept:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLVqo0UWQAA ... name=large

You can see that they are trying to do similar things. The major difference being (as I already mentioned), Mercedes' design features a much more tighter packaging. Which obviously changes the behavior of the airflow drastically.

But the core of the concept in my opinion is very similar, and when McLaren was first unveiled last year, what Mercedes is running now seemed one of the more logical development paths for that sort of philosophy.

[Lefty8]

What's the engine got to do with the shape of the sidepod? It's clearly a RB homage with some subtle Alpine/Ferrari hints with the scalloped upper ridge.

quite a lot actually since the cooling system is a very integral and important component as does the layout of auxiliary equipment

That equipment can look different on cars with the same engine, as long as you fulfill the cooling requirements. And you don't need to fill the sidepod to the brim with equipment. Some teams clearly want a bulky sidepod because of the aerodynamic benefits, not because they are having problems slimming down the cooling. There is almost zero similiarity between the sidepods on the Merc and the other Merc engined cars.

actuall nt,ho they package the equipment may be different but essentally the power train is stock item. Some changes to the angles the radiators are mounted, where the electronics is mounted etc but the hardware for a Merc engine is pretty much the same across the cars.Merc said it themselves last year that the radiators were the same units used at Barcelona and then the "zeropod", the difference was how the parts were packaged. At the end of teh day , the amount of heat rejected by the radiator has to be radiated into a given mass of air / second for the cooling to work so that is pretty much fixed by the design of the engine. I think they call it thermodynamics or something like that

[Cs98]

quite a lot actually since the cooling system is a very integral and important component as does the layout of auxiliary equipment

That equipment can look different on cars with the same engine, as long as you fulfill the cooling requirements. And you don't need to fill the sidepod to the brim with equipment. Some teams clearly want a bulky sidepod because of the aerodynamic benefits, not because they are having problems slimming down the cooling. There is almost zero similiarity between the sidepods on the Merc and the other Merc engined cars.

actuall nt,ho they package the equipment may be different but essentally the power train is stock item. Some changes to the angles the radiators are mounted, where the electronics is mounted etc but the hardware for a Merc engine is pretty much the same across the cars.Merc said it themselves last year that the radiators were the same units used at Barcelona and then the "zeropod", the difference was how the parts were packaged. At the end of teh day , the amount of heat rejected by the radiator has to be radiated into a given mass of air / second for the cooling to work so that is pretty much fixed by the design of the engine. I think they call it thermodynamics or something like that

A. Nothing you've said here makes the McLaren and AM sidepods bear any resemblance to the Merc ones in terms of outwards appearance. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. They are completely different aerodynamic philosophies.

B. The Barcelona sidepod was a vanity panel. The zeropod cooling solution was always hiding underneath. That says nothing about which radiators McLaren, Williams and AM are using. Those are not part of the power train and can be modified to suit each car. They are not homologated. They just need to match the cooling requirements of the engine. Their shape and size makes no difference as long as they fulfill the cooling requirments.

[PhillipM]

The Mcl sidepod philosophy last year was nothing like the Mercs this year

Mcl were driving as much outwash at the front of the pods as they could to use the lower surface above the floor like a bargeboard to the extent of even feeding it more air from the teatray/front floor to increase the mass flow there.

Mercs aren't doing anything like that they're just take the flow straight down the side of the pods and half that flow is going straight inside for cooling, massively reducing the mass flow rate there compared to almost anyone. They're almost polar opposites.

[Blackout]

quite a lot actually since the cooling system is a very integral and important component as does the layout of auxiliary equipment

That equipment can look different on cars with the same engine, as long as you fulfill the cooling requirements. And you don't need to fill the sidepod to the brim with equipment. Some teams clearly want a bulky sidepod because of the aerodynamic benefits, not because they are having problems slimming down the cooling. There is almost zero similiarity between the sidepods on the Merc and the other Merc engined cars.

actuall nt,ho they package the equipment may be different but essentally the power train is stock item. Some changes to the angles the radiators are mounted, where the electronics is mounted etc but the hardware for a Merc engine is pretty much the same across the cars.Merc said it themselves last year that the radiators were the same units used at Barcelona and then the "zeropod", the difference was how the parts were packaged. At the end of teh day , the amount of heat rejected by the radiator has to be radiated into a given mass of air / second for the cooling to work so that is pretty much fixed by the design of the engine. I think they call it thermodynamics or something like that

No. Teams must build their own cooling (except for engine mounted air to water intercoolers) so they can have completely different cooling systems, like last year.
*Mclaren didnt just put the electronics in the sidepods, they also put the lower SIS and put their 2022 big cooling system very far forward in the sidepod.

This year, they changed those 3 points, as predicted (they pushed the sidepod cooling back, put the lower SIS inside floor body, and probably put some of the electronics inside the bib). And they might have opted for an air-to-water intercooler like the 3 other Merc teams. (do we have official infos about this?)

viewtopic.php?p=1106981#p1106981

[f1rules]

exactly

The Mcl sidepod philosophy last year was nothing like the Mercs this year

Mcl were driving as much outwash at the front of the pods as they could to use the lower surface above the floor like a bargeboard to the extent of even feeding it more air from the teatray/front floor to increase the mass flow there.

Mercs aren't doing anything like that they're just take the flow straight down the side of the pods and half that flow is going straight inside for cooling, massively reducing the mass flow rate there compared to almost anyone. They're almost polar opposites.

[FittingMechanics]

A basic question here
Understand that the MCL60 has continued with pullrod front suspension/pushrod rear suspension
Would this suspension setup have a significant impact on mechanical grip, versus a pushrod front/rear suspension?

From my understanding of various experts - no. Both setups can have same amount of grip. Teams choose one or the other for aerodynamic reasons. Setup McLaren uses now should be better for aero. But it is possible that McLaren did not "nail" the suspension design in the first year.

[FW17]

A basic question here
Understand that the MCL60 has continued with pullrod front suspension/pushrod rear suspension
Would this suspension setup have a significant impact on mechanical grip, versus a pushrod front/rear suspension?

From my understanding of various experts - no. Both setups can have same amount of grip. Teams choose one or the other for aerodynamic reasons. Setup McLaren uses now should be better for aero. But it is possible that McLaren did not "nail" the suspension design in the first year.

I never understood this aero benefit of having a rod that is inclined from top of or from the bottom of chassis

[Holm86]

A basic question here
Understand that the MCL60 has continued with pullrod front suspension/pushrod rear suspension
Would this suspension setup have a significant impact on mechanical grip, versus a pushrod front/rear suspension?

From my understanding of various experts - no. Both setups can have same amount of grip. Teams choose one or the other for aerodynamic reasons. Setup McLaren uses now should be better for aero. But it is possible that McLaren did not "nail" the suspension design in the first year.

I never understood this aero benefit of having a rod that is inclined from top of or from the bottom of chassis

I think the aero is minimal, the advantages IMO has more to do with in a pullrod system, the damper unit is mounted lower in the chassis, lowering the CoG. And a pullrod is under tension, where as a pushrod is under compression, so a pullrod doesn't need to be as strong, so it can be lighter and thinner.

[FW17]

From my understanding of various experts - no. Both setups can have same amount of grip. Teams choose one or the other for aerodynamic reasons. Setup McLaren uses now should be better for aero. But it is possible that McLaren did not "nail" the suspension design in the first year.

I never understood this aero benefit of having a rod that is inclined from top of or from the bottom of chassis

I think the aero is minimal, the advantages IMO has more to do with in a pullrod system, the damper unit is mounted lower in the chassis, lowering the CoG. And a pullrod is under tension, where as a pushrod is under compression, so a pullrod doesn't need to be as strong, so it can be lighter and thinner.

There were lot of discussions on the questionable COB benefit too (though logically you are right).