2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[LionsHeart]

Yeah if you wade through the 48 pages of rear wing discussion you'll see me and LionsHeart discussing it.

And he reiterates the point that the car suffers a little from the low DF rear wing. And this because the package as a whole isn't sufficient for it. It is the sliding scale of DF and drag. If you could make the car itself less draggy and keep the DF, or keep the drag on the car but have it create more DF for it, then you can lessen the wings for an overall net gain.

Our car, outside of the rear and front wings, is draggy however, the wing only removes a portion of the drag in comparison the likes of Williams, Ferarri and Red Bull, and probably Merc too.

What surprised me a little is that he said that the car became draggy as a result of the Austria upgrade.

it doesn't say it in this article but as part of the designs of the 24 car they will put focus on lowering the drag of the package itself as Stella has previously said that the drag is the biggest problem of the car, more so than low speed issues, but perhaps that is because they hope to remedy that a bit this weekend.

I have a feeling the drag fix will be to do with front tyre wake and how we deal with outwash, including those first three vortices of the floor which seem focussed on dealing with outwash as well as the front wing endplates as well as a more refined Sidepod.

And another thing, don't forget we have the new Tech Directive on the structure and rigidity of the front wings this weekend! Even if there is a single tenth to be found compared to those around us, it all adds up. The team are confident it doesn't impact them. I trust Stella's word on this.

Very interesting observation about the resistance from the front tires. On the contrary, I guess that the resistance is mainly on the rear tires, which hinder us. At least, this is the impression one gets after reworking the front wing in the area of ​​the end plates.

And you correctly noted that resistance remains even in context, if you unload the front and rear wings, in general this is the case. But. There is one small nuance. In qualifying and the race at Monza, the team did not use the cut front wing. This surprised me. The impression is that the team found a way to load the rear tires, but the front tires are poorly balanced? It's like they don't have enough grip on the front tires.

I mean more about how the wake of the front tyre is dealt with rather than the resistance of the front tyre or outwash generated in front of the front tyre. The floor looks to create some vortices that are not designed to seal the floor directly but the crate outwash and move turbulent air away from the floor and rear tyres, which would impact the resistance of the rear tyre.

The point around the stalling diffuser based on the height of the floor sounds really plausible and it will be interesting to see what happens in that area. Who knows, there may be some trickery of the DRS that causes the floor to stall also.

Part of me wondered if it was also to do with flexi wings at the front, but I haven't looked at how much the RB wing flexes at the front compared to others, and at which point it flexes or turns, so it is just complete guesswork.

Ah, well, I understand you now. Indeed, the front tires leave a mark. Some of this must be compensated for by the winglets that are included in the front hub, but most of the removal of this wake must be done by the front corner of the floor.

[LionsHeart]

In Monza, in terms of pure speed, our gap in qualifying was half a second. And it was also the McLaren cars that were driving in the slipstream, as Lando said, which may have hindered him in the decisive attempt. Apparently there were a lot of losses in the turns. Nobody posted the telemetry, I just suggested this idea. at Silverstone we were only 2 tenths of a second behind. That is, everything is fine with the aero package for medium downforce. With a package under high pressure, everything is also good. Only with a low downforce package we become a lame duck.

I think the team made all the conclusions a long time ago and they have an understanding of how to reduce tire wear in race pace, perhaps some of the problems will be solved in Singapore. To what extent is this due to a lack of downforce in slow corners, and to what extent is it due to the awkward behavior of the chassis, i.e. handling and balance? I think a little bit of everything.

[trinidefender]

Lots of great little tidbits in there. Windtunnel working well, and improvements to aero leading to directions that the chassis needs to improve.



This echoes things I've heard (around here probably).

Yeah if you wade through the 48 pages of rear wing discussion you'll see me and LionsHeart discussing it.

And he reiterates the point that the car suffers a little from the low DF rear wing. And this because the package as a whole isn't sufficient for it. It is the sliding scale of DF and drag. If you could make the car itself less draggy and keep the DF, or keep the drag on the car but have it create more DF for it, then you can lessen the wings for an overall net gain.

Our car, outside of the rear and front wings, is draggy however, the wing only removes a portion of the drag in comparison the likes of Williams, Ferarri and Red Bull, and probably Merc too.

What surprised me a little is that he said that the car became draggy as a result of the Austria upgrade.

it doesn't say it in this article but as part of the designs of the 24 car they will put focus on lowering the drag of the package itself as Stella has previously said that the drag is the biggest problem of the car, more so than low speed issues, but perhaps that is because they hope to remedy that a bit this weekend.

I have a feeling the drag fix will be to do with front tyre wake and how we deal with outwash, including those first three vortices of the floor which seem focussed on dealing with outwash as well as the front wing endplates as well as a more refined Sidepod.

And another thing, don't forget we have the new Tech Directive on the structure and rigidity of the front wings this weekend! Even if there is a single tenth to be found compared to those around us, it all adds up. The team are confident it doesn't impact them. I trust Stella's word on this.

Very interesting observation about the resistance from the front tires. On the contrary, I guess that the resistance is mainly on the rear tires, which hinder us. At least, this is the impression one gets after reworking the front wing in the area of ​​the end plates.

And you correctly noted that resistance remains even in context, if you unload the front and rear wings, in general this is the case. But. There is one small nuance. In qualifying and the race at Monza, the team did not use the cut front wing. This surprised me. The impression is that the team found a way to load the rear tires, but the front tires are poorly balanced? It's like they don't have enough grip on the front tires.

The front wings have quite a large range of adjustments. It's fairly plausible that either the uncut front wing at its lowest downforce setting performed better than the cut wing at a more neutral setting or that the cut wing didn't perform as expected.

McLaren themselves said that because of the large package of upgrades brought recently they didn't have the time and resources to properly come up with a full Monza specification. The parts being modifications of currently available parts.

[LionsHeart]

Yeah if you wade through the 48 pages of rear wing discussion you'll see me and LionsHeart discussing it.

And he reiterates the point that the car suffers a little from the low DF rear wing. And this because the package as a whole isn't sufficient for it. It is the sliding scale of DF and drag. If you could make the car itself less draggy and keep the DF, or keep the drag on the car but have it create more DF for it, then you can lessen the wings for an overall net gain.

Our car, outside of the rear and front wings, is draggy however, the wing only removes a portion of the drag in comparison the likes of Williams, Ferarri and Red Bull, and probably Merc too.

What surprised me a little is that he said that the car became draggy as a result of the Austria upgrade.

it doesn't say it in this article but as part of the designs of the 24 car they will put focus on lowering the drag of the package itself as Stella has previously said that the drag is the biggest problem of the car, more so than low speed issues, but perhaps that is because they hope to remedy that a bit this weekend.

I have a feeling the drag fix will be to do with front tyre wake and how we deal with outwash, including those first three vortices of the floor which seem focussed on dealing with outwash as well as the front wing endplates as well as a more refined Sidepod.

And another thing, don't forget we have the new Tech Directive on the structure and rigidity of the front wings this weekend! Even if there is a single tenth to be found compared to those around us, it all adds up. The team are confident it doesn't impact them. I trust Stella's word on this.

Very interesting observation about the resistance from the front tires. On the contrary, I guess that the resistance is mainly on the rear tires, which hinder us. At least, this is the impression one gets after reworking the front wing in the area of ​​the end plates.

And you correctly noted that resistance remains even in context, if you unload the front and rear wings, in general this is the case. But. There is one small nuance. In qualifying and the race at Monza, the team did not use the cut front wing. This surprised me. The impression is that the team found a way to load the rear tires, but the front tires are poorly balanced? It's like they don't have enough grip on the front tires.

The front wings have quite a large range of adjustments. It's fairly plausible that either the uncut front wing at its lowest downforce setting performed better than the cut wing at a more neutral setting or that the cut wing didn't perform as expected.

McLaren themselves said that because of the large package of upgrades brought recently they didn't have the time and resources to properly come up with a full Monza specification. The parts being modifications of currently available parts.

That's exactly how it is. The range of adjustments was enough to avoid using a cropped front wing, although I don’t remember whether it was used in practice or not. I didn't see any photos. One photo of Fabrega, but this was taken on Thursday.

But it still seemed to me that the front of the chassis lacked balance, either the flow from the front wing was not going as intended, or it was impossible to balance the front end. Still, the team chose an option with a slightly more loaded beam wing and an unloaded rear wing; perhaps this option created enough downforce from the floor, including the rear, which required more load at the front.

Be that as it may, I am absolutely sure that in 2024 the front wing will be different in its geometry and perhaps be more unloaded like Red Bull throughout the season. This will require a redistribution of the point where the center of greatest vacuum is located under the bottom.

[Farnborough]

"Be that as it may, I am absolutely sure that in 2024 the front wing will be different in its geometry and perhaps be more unloaded like Red Bull throughout the season. This will require a redistribution of the point where the center of greatest vacuum is located under the bottom."

I see this as fundamental to catching the front team in the field. The pure volume of those front tunnel on RB appear to come on stream at very low speed to load the chassis, ultimately not needing a large front wing flap to accumulate slow corner loading.
The McL60, by almost being forced to use greater front flap in facilitating this area of load, then runs into what they all effectively do, just far too much front end bite at extreme speed to sensibly hold within useful range. Most team are obviously trying to blend this off with some level of flex (as we've seen the interest recently) but difficult within the regulations as now freshly "clarified" by FIA.

When the front flap gets them too aggressive at high speed, it comes out in driver comments as "rear is really loose" type observations. Notice that few will complain of front having too much load, such is driver psychology
A notable exception to this....Perez last year in Belgium.....said that he " couldn't take more front flap" effectively saying it made the rear too flighty for him. I only put this here (McL thread) to give a relevant view of what the driver's experience is

[LionsHeart]

"Be that as it may, I am absolutely sure that in 2024 the front wing will be different in its geometry and perhaps be more unloaded like Red Bull throughout the season. This will require a redistribution of the point where the center of greatest vacuum is located under the bottom."

I see this as fundamental to catching the front team in the field. The pure volume of those front tunnel on RB appear to come on stream at very low speed to load the chassis, ultimately not needing a large front wing flap to accumulate slow corner loading.
The McL60, by almost being forced to use greater front flap in facilitating this area of load, then runs into what they all effectively do, just far too much front end bite at extreme speed to sensibly hold within useful range. Most team are obviously trying to blend this off with some level of flex (as we've seen the interest recently) but difficult within the regulations as now freshly "clarified" by FIA.

When the front flap gets them too aggressive at high speed, it comes out in driver comments as "rear is really loose" type observations. Notice that few will complain of front having too much load, such is driver psychology
A notable exception to this....Perez last year in Belgium.....said that he " couldn't take more front flap" effectively saying it made the rear too flighty for him. I only put this here (McL thread) to give a relevant view of what the driver's experience is

It’s difficult for me to evaluate everything, I haven’t seen real data from the wind tunnel and the digital pump to see the distribution of pressure under the floor on Red Bull and McLaren, but from my point of view I’m ready to admit that the pressure gradient for Red Bull is completely different. The lightly loaded front wing, as well as the fact that Red Bull is ready to bring a rear wing with a higher load more often, hints that they are trying to stabilize the rear axle at the expense of the rear wing, they are ready to accept greater drag, understanding that the body itself creates less drag.

This also partly explains why Red Bull's drs system is so effective. With a larger wing, the effect of opening the upper flap is greater. This allows the use of a smaller beam wing, thereby combining the effect between the rear wing and the diffuser.

I will note one point for myself: in the previous two years, I do not remember Dan losing control of the rear of the car until the turn (reversal). But at Silverstone at Red Bull he had this, although before that he had driven a Red Bull simulator for six months and in theory should have gotten used to the balance of the car. This means that Red Bull has extremely high grip on the front wheels and medium grip on the rear.

[LionsHeart]

As for Singapore, there is speculation that McLaren will use the updated rear wing that Oscar tested at Zandvoort. It still creates high downforce, but is more effective on the straights. Starting this year, the number of slow turns will be fewer in the third sector, the track will be faster and shorter in length. I think this will make the chassis more competitive. And taking into account the latest updates, I think the team is ready to take another step forward.

In Suzuka it is also possible to use this updated rear wing. Otherwise, why was it worth designing and manufacturing it?

[Farnborough]

"I will note one point for myself: in the previous two years, I do not remember Dan losing control of the rear of the car until the turn (reversal). But at Silverstone at Red Bull he had this, although before that he had driven a Red Bull simulator for six months and in theory should have gotten used to the balance of the car. This means that Red Bull has extremely high grip on the front wheels and medium grip on the rear."

A valid observation, but I'd take a slightly different view of this in the context of McL rear inconsistent grip characteristic.

Firstly DR at RB, it was a tyre test without usual setup and optimisation of chassis as I understand it, and likely to have some orientation period for him in working from sym to real time track work. No excuse, but clear gaps in this time from regular race time for him.

More interesting for me was DR time in McL (emphatically this is NOT a driver level comparison, so no comments from that direction to derail thread please ) with his description of chassis around never really knowing what characteristic it'll bring on corner entry, to the ultimate negative effect on his pace and trusting it completely.
Compare that to LN and his undoubted ability to cope more naturally with that rear instability DR observed. DR in this instance has far more judgement, in time basis, from driving previous chassis than LN, and to me that view exposed the stall in development path from McL chassis engineering.

The question over which driving characteristic brings the most productive path, coping or accurate comparative criticism, is something for each team of engineers to answer.
In other words, would a chassis fully able to satisfy that experienced look from DR be the right path to follow ? as it could honestly provide the right impetus to engineering in their consideration of geometry to close the gap on lead teams.

My view is that LN can drive around some inherent chassis imbalance with his undoubted skill. Whether that combination of "coping" can truly match the firepower of a very on-song competitor (you know who ) is a different question, one that's answered each week with NO.

To beat, or be fully competitive with the championship leading teams will need these nuance to be ironed out. A chassis that comes with less compromise needed, even for a highly skilled driving combination, will ultimately be the backstop against getting caught on track without a consistent race pace to match the others.

How they get there of course we are observing through developments this season.

[basti313]

Do not overthink the DR issues into general characteristics. He was mainly and mostly complaining about brakes and the behavior under braking. I do not think you can generalize his issues into aero balance. At least not as a core.

[LionsHeart]

Do not overthink the DR issues into general characteristics. He was mainly and mostly complaining about brakes and the behavior under braking. I do not think you can generalize his issues into aero balance. At least not as a core.

Even if only in the area of ​​braking...

During braking, many things happen: redistribution of mass to the front tires, loading of the front wing, unloading of the rear wing and rear tires, the braking balance itself and the effectiveness of the braking system, feedback on the brake pedal, the work of the rear suspension to maintain directional stability, as well as possible changes in camber or toe, that is, wheel geometry.

I wrote only what immediately came to mind, without delving too deeply into this topic. Looking back over the previous two years, Dan lost in almost every corner where he didn't even need to press the brake pedal. I think he himself was already confused and simply realized that the car simply did not suit him, the chassis was inconvenient for his driving style.

I don't deny that Dan himself is fast. He knows how to drive a car. But only the car he was used to driving. He doesn’t know how to extract speed from a car that doesn’t suit him, which means he doesn’t know how to adapt, he doesn’t have adaptation, which is inherent in those drivers who can be called masters.

And in general, in the context of Dan, I only wrote that on the McLaren chassis I don’t remember it spinning when entering or exiting corners, but on the Red Bull it got a spin on the same day. This is just my observation that the Red Bull and McLaren chassis are fundamentally different in their handling.

I can repeat my words again: in Austria and Silverstone, McLaren understeer as the tires wear out. The more laps completed, the greater this understeer at the entrance to slow turns. Red Bull's front tires stick to the road at all times, while the rear tires rotate easily around the front axle.

[LionsHeart]

"I will note one point for myself: in the previous two years, I do not remember Dan losing control of the rear of the car until the turn (reversal). But at Silverstone at Red Bull he had this, although before that he had driven a Red Bull simulator for six months and in theory should have gotten used to the balance of the car. This means that Red Bull has extremely high grip on the front wheels and medium grip on the rear."

A valid observation, but I'd take a slightly different view of this in the context of McL rear inconsistent grip characteristic.

Firstly DR at RB, it was a tyre test without usual setup and optimisation of chassis as I understand it, and likely to have some orientation period for him in working from sym to real time track work. No excuse, but clear gaps in this time from regular race time for him.

More interesting for me was DR time in McL (emphatically this is NOT a driver level comparison, so no comments from that direction to derail thread please ) with his description of chassis around never really knowing what characteristic it'll bring on corner entry, to the ultimate negative effect on his pace and trusting it completely.
Compare that to LN and his undoubted ability to cope more naturally with that rear instability DR observed. DR in this instance has far more judgement, in time basis, from driving previous chassis than LN, and to me that view exposed the stall in development path from McL chassis engineering.

The question over which driving characteristic brings the most productive path, coping or accurate comparative criticism, is something for each team of engineers to answer.
In other words, would a chassis fully able to satisfy that experienced look from DR be the right path to follow ? as it could honestly provide the right impetus to engineering in their consideration of geometry to close the gap on lead teams.

My view is that LN can drive around some inherent chassis imbalance with his undoubted skill. Whether that combination of "coping" can truly match the firepower of a very on-song competitor (you know who ) is a different question, one that's answered each week with NO.

To beat, or be fully competitive with the championship leading teams will need these nuance to be ironed out. A chassis that comes with less compromise needed, even for a highly skilled driving combination, will ultimately be the backstop against getting caught on track without a consistent race pace to match the others.

How they get there of course we are observing through developments this season.

I think if in 2024 the McLaren chassis will be inconvenient for Lando, then after 2025 he will definitely leave the team.

This year he said a lot about the car, he said a lot in interviews about what weak points the car has and even after updates, that handling and balance remain a weak point. So most likely the chassis will undergo major changes, the suspension will also be redesigned, and the aero package will be improved. I think the car will to some extent be even more similar to the RB19.

So the team will have to make a lot of effort to get a car next year that is easier to drive, has less tire wear, has a higher maximum speed on the straights and other little things.

[Dafnalina]

Lando basically wants them to de-alonsify the car lol. Let’s see if they manage to make such a big change for next year. I think it's good that him and Oscar have apparently provided very similar comments to the engineers.
Also regarding contracts, I don't think Oscar is staying post 2024, but McLaren should work to change that.

[organic]

As for Singapore, there is speculation that McLaren will use the updated rear wing that Oscar tested at Zandvoort. It still creates high downforce, but is more effective on the straights. Starting this year, the number of slow turns will be fewer in the third sector, the track will be faster and shorter in length. I think this will make the chassis more competitive. And taking into account the latest updates, I think the team is ready to take another step forward.

In Suzuka it is also possible to use this updated rear wing. Otherwise, why was it worth designing and manufacturing it?

It will also be used at COTA, Brazil and Mexico I expect

[LionsHeart]

As for Singapore, there is speculation that McLaren will use the updated rear wing that Oscar tested at Zandvoort. It still creates high downforce, but is more effective on the straights. Starting this year, the number of slow turns will be fewer in the third sector, the track will be faster and shorter in length. I think this will make the chassis more competitive. And taking into account the latest updates, I think the team is ready to take another step forward.

In Suzuka it is also possible to use this updated rear wing. Otherwise, why was it worth designing and manufacturing it?

It will also be used at COTA, Brazil and Mexico I expect

Yes, that would be good and obviously good. The fact that this is essentially a completely new rear wing tells me that the team is committed to reducing drag and being more efficient on the straights.

[Tomsky]