2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[LionsHeart]

So, now the opinions are divided 50/50 whether there will be a completely updated rear wing with low downforce, or whether it will be a trimmed specification that has already been used previously from Canada to Silverstone and Spa.

Well, we'll have to wait until Thursday and Friday to see how many McLaren rear wing options we see. In any case, you will have to at least analyze the pace in one fast lap and in a race simulation. And there in qualifying everything will be clear when everyone unscrews the engine at full power.

It's too early to despair or rejoice.

[mwillems]

So, now the opinions are divided 50/50 whether there will be a completely updated rear wing with low downforce, or whether it will be a trimmed specification that has already been used previously from Canada to Silverstone and Spa.

Well, we'll have to wait until Thursday and Friday to see how many McLaren rear wing options we see. In any case, you will have to at least analyze the pace in one fast lap and in a race simulation. And there in qualifying everything will be clear when everyone unscrews the engine at full power.

It's too early to despair or rejoice.

I think it was always a split, nothing has changed except the news is also 50/50 like in here!

It will be clear on Thursday if it is true low DF or an evolution of the cut out.

Whether it is effective feels like a separate question.

[LionsHeart]

mwillems, I read your post about the front wing. According to the very front wing, it’s already clear to me, well, I have had this information for many years, but it’s not entirely clear to me how, when bending down, the upper flap additionally feeds the bottom with air. The current regulation does not allow the front wing to be positioned as low as it was under the previous regulation. Oddly enough, but the last technical regulation was more understandable for me.

Previously, teams could use the so-called rotary rudders located under the chassis, under the driver’s feet, there were other elements that made it possible to power the confuser with charged streams that rushed to the front wing, the y250 vortex generator. I don't remember the exact name.

I read somewhere that in the new regulations, Newey found several areas where he can create several vortex generators on the surface of the chassis that feed the bottom, and one goes along the bottom of the side pontoons, flowing over the bottom. Another charged stream passes over the pontoons and also feeds the upper edge of the diffuser. It's hard for me to understand everything without a visual drawing of how it should be. Some of it I understand very well, some I don't understand at all.

It can also be illustrative that the Red Bull chassis is very stable at high speeds, the bottom does not hit the roadway so often, we don’t often hear it, unlike the McLaren chassis, which hits the bottom a lot. The Red Bull chassis squats very smoothly to the maximum value and is held there, as if an active suspension was implemented.

I don’t know how important a properly tuned suspension plays here, and it plays an important role here, but the aerodynamic base itself is well balanced, moreover, no matter what rear wings are used in Red Bull, no matter how short or long straight lines , their chassis is very stable and not very prone to vertical swing.

McLaren engineers will have to do a great job in the off-season to significantly close the gap with Red Bull. But the season is not over yet, I'm waiting for updates in the area of ​​the bottom and side pontoons, let's see how the team is able to close the gap with the current chassis.

[LionsHeart]

So, now the opinions are divided 50/50 whether there will be a completely updated rear wing with low downforce, or whether it will be a trimmed specification that has already been used previously from Canada to Silverstone and Spa.

Well, we'll have to wait until Thursday and Friday to see how many McLaren rear wing options we see. In any case, you will have to at least analyze the pace in one fast lap and in a race simulation. And there in qualifying everything will be clear when everyone unscrews the engine at full power.

It's too early to despair or rejoice.

I think it was always a split, nothing has changed except the news is also 50/50 like in here!

It will be clear on Thursday if it is true low DF or an evolution of the cut out.

Whether it is effective feels like a separate question.

Well, there will be some efficiency. Another thing is how effective it will be relative to other teams. Remember I posted a couple of photos here from Monza 2022 a couple of days ago? McLaren and Red Bull are there. It is clearly seen that Red Bull uses a rear wing with more downforce, which stabilizes the chassis well on braking and allows you to go through chicanes faster. Perhaps McLaren wants to implement a similar scenario? Unfortunately, it was a rainy weekend at Spa and we didn't get to see how fast the low-drag specification could be.

[SmallSoldier]

So, now the opinions are divided 50/50 whether there will be a completely updated rear wing with low downforce, or whether it will be a trimmed specification that has already been used previously from Canada to Silverstone and Spa.

Well, we'll have to wait until Thursday and Friday to see how many McLaren rear wing options we see. In any case, you will have to at least analyze the pace in one fast lap and in a race simulation. And there in qualifying everything will be clear when everyone unscrews the engine at full power.

It's too early to despair or rejoice.

I think it was always a split, nothing has changed except the news is also 50/50 like in here!

It will be clear on Thursday if it is true low DF or an evolution of the cut out.

Whether it is effective feels like a separate question.

If the car is fast, it doesn’t matter if it’s a trimmed wing or brand new one… Same applies if it’s slow

[mwillems]

mwillems, I read your post about the front wing. According to the very front wing, it’s already clear to me, well, I have had this information for many years, but it’s not entirely clear to me how, when bending down, the upper flap additionally feeds the bottom with air. The current regulation does not allow the front wing to be positioned as low as it was under the previous regulation. Oddly enough, but the last technical regulation was more understandable for me.

Previously, teams could use the so-called rotary rudders located under the chassis, under the driver’s feet, there were other elements that made it possible to power the confuser with charged streams that rushed to the front wing, the y250 vortex generator. I don't remember the exact name.

I read somewhere that in the new regulations, Newey found several areas where he can create several vortex generators on the surface of the chassis that feed the bottom, and one goes along the bottom of the side pontoons, flowing over the bottom. Another charged stream passes over the pontoons and also feeds the upper edge of the diffuser. It's hard for me to understand everything without a visual drawing of how it should be. Some of it I understand very well, some I don't understand at all.

It can also be illustrative that the Red Bull chassis is very stable at high speeds, the bottom does not hit the roadway so often, we don’t often hear it, unlike the McLaren chassis, which hits the bottom a lot. The Red Bull chassis squats very smoothly to the maximum value and is held there, as if an active suspension was implemented.

I don’t know how important a properly tuned suspension plays here, and it plays an important role here, but the aerodynamic base itself is well balanced, moreover, no matter what rear wings are used in Red Bull, no matter how short or long straight lines , their chassis is very stable and not very prone to vertical swing.

McLaren engineers will have to do a great job in the off-season to significantly close the gap with Red Bull. But the season is not over yet, I'm waiting for updates in the area of ​​the bottom and side pontoons, let's see how the team is able to close the gap with the current chassis.

It doesn't additionally feed it, it simply is structured to not affect it. They have created areas of the front wing that are weaker or more flexible than others, positioned so that when the wing bends the central portion underneath the wing is still allowing airflow to the floor and that the Y250 (Is that still the dimension?) is positioned correctly. It also allows them to evade the tests. The regulations were redundant, the only thing that mattered were the tests which tested for rigidity and load at certain points. The change is now to do a technical analysis to see if they wings are uniformly rigid - because the method of testing to enforce the regulations was flawed.

[LionsHeart]

mwillems, I read your post about the front wing. According to the very front wing, it’s already clear to me, well, I have had this information for many years, but it’s not entirely clear to me how, when bending down, the upper flap additionally feeds the bottom with air. The current regulation does not allow the front wing to be positioned as low as it was under the previous regulation. Oddly enough, but the last technical regulation was more understandable for me.

Previously, teams could use the so-called rotary rudders located under the chassis, under the driver’s feet, there were other elements that made it possible to power the confuser with charged streams that rushed to the front wing, the y250 vortex generator. I don't remember the exact name.

I read somewhere that in the new regulations, Newey found several areas where he can create several vortex generators on the surface of the chassis that feed the bottom, and one goes along the bottom of the side pontoons, flowing over the bottom. Another charged stream passes over the pontoons and also feeds the upper edge of the diffuser. It's hard for me to understand everything without a visual drawing of how it should be. Some of it I understand very well, some I don't understand at all.

It can also be illustrative that the Red Bull chassis is very stable at high speeds, the bottom does not hit the roadway so often, we don’t often hear it, unlike the McLaren chassis, which hits the bottom a lot. The Red Bull chassis squats very smoothly to the maximum value and is held there, as if an active suspension was implemented.

I don’t know how important a properly tuned suspension plays here, and it plays an important role here, but the aerodynamic base itself is well balanced, moreover, no matter what rear wings are used in Red Bull, no matter how short or long straight lines , their chassis is very stable and not very prone to vertical swing.

McLaren engineers will have to do a great job in the off-season to significantly close the gap with Red Bull. But the season is not over yet, I'm waiting for updates in the area of ​​the bottom and side pontoons, let's see how the team is able to close the gap with the current chassis.

It doesn't additionally feed it, it simply is structured to not affect it. They have created areas of the front wing that are weaker or more flexible than others, positioned so that when the wing bends the central portion underneath the wing is still allowing airflow to the floor and that the Y250 (Is that still the dimension?) is positioned correctly. It also allows them to evade the tests. The regulations were redundant, the only thing that mattered were the tests which tested for rigidity and load at certain points. The change is now to do a technical analysis to see if they wings are uniformly rigid - because the method of testing to enforce the regulations was flawed.

Well, everything is clear here. Gray zones of the regulation. It is clear that static loads cannot simulate the real loads that air currents create. In any case, teams will not be able to create an absolutely rigid wing, otherwise, under the influence of loads, it will not bend, but break at stress points.

[mwillems]

mwillems, I read your post about the front wing. According to the very front wing, it’s already clear to me, well, I have had this information for many years, but it’s not entirely clear to me how, when bending down, the upper flap additionally feeds the bottom with air. The current regulation does not allow the front wing to be positioned as low as it was under the previous regulation. Oddly enough, but the last technical regulation was more understandable for me.

Previously, teams could use the so-called rotary rudders located under the chassis, under the driver’s feet, there were other elements that made it possible to power the confuser with charged streams that rushed to the front wing, the y250 vortex generator. I don't remember the exact name.

I read somewhere that in the new regulations, Newey found several areas where he can create several vortex generators on the surface of the chassis that feed the bottom, and one goes along the bottom of the side pontoons, flowing over the bottom. Another charged stream passes over the pontoons and also feeds the upper edge of the diffuser. It's hard for me to understand everything without a visual drawing of how it should be. Some of it I understand very well, some I don't understand at all.

It can also be illustrative that the Red Bull chassis is very stable at high speeds, the bottom does not hit the roadway so often, we don’t often hear it, unlike the McLaren chassis, which hits the bottom a lot. The Red Bull chassis squats very smoothly to the maximum value and is held there, as if an active suspension was implemented.

I don’t know how important a properly tuned suspension plays here, and it plays an important role here, but the aerodynamic base itself is well balanced, moreover, no matter what rear wings are used in Red Bull, no matter how short or long straight lines , their chassis is very stable and not very prone to vertical swing.

McLaren engineers will have to do a great job in the off-season to significantly close the gap with Red Bull. But the season is not over yet, I'm waiting for updates in the area of ​​the bottom and side pontoons, let's see how the team is able to close the gap with the current chassis.

It doesn't additionally feed it, it simply is structured to not affect it. They have created areas of the front wing that are weaker or more flexible than others, positioned so that when the wing bends the central portion underneath the wing is still allowing airflow to the floor and that the Y250 (Is that still the dimension?) is positioned correctly. It also allows them to evade the tests. The regulations were redundant, the only thing that mattered were the tests which tested for rigidity and load at certain points. The change is now to do a technical analysis to see if they wings are uniformly rigid - because the method of testing to enforce the regulations was flawed.

Well, everything is clear here. Gray zones of the regulation. It is clear that static loads cannot simulate the real loads that air currents create. In any case, teams will not be able to create an absolutely rigid wing, otherwise, under the influence of loads, it will not bend, but break at stress points.

Totally, I think the language was "uniformly" rigid, or the same rigidity across the wing, which in effect means that a load test at various parts of the wing should come back with similar results. Obviously it will still bend a little more the more outward it goes even with the same rigidity in the wing structure.

As for who will be the winners here, I'm not totally sure, but it will make a good difference to some teams I'm sure. And I suspect it won't be Red Bull.

[mwillems]

It's worth noting that this flexible wing might additionally aid in pushing air around the front tyre, I'd assume, as it would be scooping up more of the airflow from the region and doing with it what it can. If so it is potentially an important part of that solution so... who knows what this will throw up. I've never noticed folks talking about the correlation between the wing shapes near the endplate in relation to the movement of the wing, so maybe I'm just making it up.

[CjC]

I’m not too interested in the discussion but as I just saw you mention about them flexing to improve tyre wake I recalled reading this earlier today.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/fia-plan ... -f1-wings/

[mwillems]

I’m not too interested in the discussion but as I just saw you mention about them flexing to improve tyre wake I recalled reading this earlier today.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/fia-plan ... -f1-wings/

Thanks, confirms I'm not totally stupid.

[mwillems]

So, now the opinions are divided 50/50 whether there will be a completely updated rear wing with low downforce, or whether it will be a trimmed specification that has already been used previously from Canada to Silverstone and Spa.

Well, we'll have to wait until Thursday and Friday to see how many McLaren rear wing options we see. In any case, you will have to at least analyze the pace in one fast lap and in a race simulation. And there in qualifying everything will be clear when everyone unscrews the engine at full power.

It's too early to despair or rejoice.

I think it was always a split, nothing has changed except the news is also 50/50 like in here!

It will be clear on Thursday if it is true low DF or an evolution of the cut out.

Whether it is effective feels like a separate question.

If the car is fast, it doesn’t matter if it’s a trimmed wing or brand new one… Same applies if it’s slow

Absolutely, but a true thinned out low DF wing you'd think would be better than another halfway house, but if it is trimmed enough to remove any disadvantage then its all we need.

I was always optimistic that the data around the new wing looked pretty good, but in FP conditions it is hard to really analyse so it may have been overstated. I won't be upset for the new wing, I'd be happier with something a bit slippier, and delighted with an effective wing tailored for this type of track without compromise.

But as we both agree, whatever wing they bring needs to be effective whatever shape it takes.

[LionsHeart]

It doesn't additionally feed it, it simply is structured to not affect it. They have created areas of the front wing that are weaker or more flexible than others, positioned so that when the wing bends the central portion underneath the wing is still allowing airflow to the floor and that the Y250 (Is that still the dimension?) is positioned correctly. It also allows them to evade the tests. The regulations were redundant, the only thing that mattered were the tests which tested for rigidity and load at certain points. The change is now to do a technical analysis to see if they wings are uniformly rigid - because the method of testing to enforce the regulations was flawed.

Well, everything is clear here. Gray zones of the regulation. It is clear that static loads cannot simulate the real loads that air currents create. In any case, teams will not be able to create an absolutely rigid wing, otherwise, under the influence of loads, it will not bend, but break at stress points.

Totally, I think the language was "uniformly" rigid, or the same rigidity across the wing, which in effect means that a load test at various parts of the wing should come back with similar results. Obviously it will still bend a little more the more outward it goes even with the same rigidity in the wing structure.

As for who will be the winners here, I'm not totally sure, but it will make a good difference to some teams I'm sure. And I suspect it won't be Red Bull.

Correctly noted.

[mwillems]

Stella saying again it will be an adaption of existing wings and not a bespoke low DF wing. the race suggesting it won't be enough. I feel optimistic though, maybe without reason.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mclaren- ... y%20needed.

[LionsHeart]

Stella saying again it will be an adaption of existing wings and not a bespoke low DF wing. the race suggesting it won't be enough. I feel optimistic though, maybe without reason.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mclaren- ... y%20needed.

Ah, ok. It's much simpler, cheaper, and probably doesn't require lengthy tests and simulations. If it is possible to make a deep cut of the rear wing, once again optimize and reduce the beam of the wing, that is, cut the option that is already considered to be with reduced drag, then the team can compensate for the drag, even if this is not enough. Anyway.