McLaren MCL60

[mwillems]

https://ibb.co/qJdM2gH - Singapore spec
https://ibb.co/3hyQTh6 - Silverstone spec
https://ibb.co/gjpmd5R - Silverstone spec
https://ibb.co/sWrPJH8 - Singapore and Monaco.

The last photo here is the most revealing. It can be seen that the overall height is comparable. These wings are both barn door wings, but the first creates less drag and a higher top speed. The second gives peak maximum downforce at the cost of high drag. Now the team can do this because it has a reserve of downforce from the bottom.

I think the team brought a large wing in order to use the unloaded beam wing in order to increase the efficiency of the drs.

Yeah I can see a difference on the bottom plane between the wings on some pics, but not massive. Those Monaco wings are though... you do not need to look hard to see the difference so I think the point stands, it isn't a high DF wing at Singapore and Suzuka. You wouldn't use a high DF wing at Suzuka.

If the lower element is bigger at Singapore it will be offset by the winglets which will lower the DF again anyway.

But I think we will fail to reach agreement here so let's bring it to a close

[LionsHeart]

https://ibb.co/qJdM2gH - Singapore spec
https://ibb.co/3hyQTh6 - Silverstone spec
https://ibb.co/gjpmd5R - Silverstone spec
https://ibb.co/sWrPJH8 - Singapore and Monaco.

The last photo here is the most revealing. It can be seen that the overall height is comparable. These wings are both barn door wings, but the first creates less drag and a higher top speed. The second gives peak maximum downforce at the cost of high drag. Now the team can do this because it has a reserve of downforce from the bottom.

I think the team brought a large wing in order to use the unloaded beam wing in order to increase the efficiency of the drs.

Yeah I can see a difference on the bottom plane between the wings on some pics, but not massive. Those Monaco wings are though... you do not need to look hard to see the difference so I think the point stands, it isn't a high DF wing at Singapore and Suzuka. You wouldn't use a high DF wing at Suzuka.

If the lower element is bigger at Singapore it will be offset by the winglets which will lower the DF again anyway.

But I think we will fail to reach agreement here so let's bring it to a close

I agree and disagree at the same time. It's worth remembering that at Barcelona McLaren used a Monaco-spec rear wing. Barcelona has more in common with Suzuka than Monaco, doesn't it?

The Silverstone and Singapore specs are very similar, similar in concept. The angle of attack is also similar. But these wings are different sizes and produce different downforce when compared to each other. I'm not surprised why McLaren brought such a rear wing to Singapore(because it creates a lot of downforce), I'm surprised why they use the same wing in Suzuka.

[hollus]

A few posts have been removed.

Just the usual gentle reminder: keep the car thread strictly about the car.
Looks, wild illegal wishes for next year... please in the team thread.

[organic]

[f1rules]

a few pics from motorsport.com

[organic]

Not sticking the camera right into the diffuser.. they are no Xavier Gàzquez

[f1rules]

interesting bits from mclaren in their engineer article

"We’ll start practice running the cars with different rear wings, one with the high downforce wing that ran in Zandvoort and Singapore, the other with the one used before that. We’ll also try out various beam wings and gurney flaps. There’s a very complex set of options, but in the broadest terms, we’ll be testing the cars at the bottom end of the highest downforce wing and the top end of the next step down. "

[f1rules]

Yeah His pictures are nice

Not sticking the camera right into the diffuser.. they are no Xavier Gàzquez

[f1rules]

impressive the compression and how close the floor edge to the ground, but i quess the hidden iceskate "skirts" make sure of correct distance
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6meyQuWQAA ... =4096x4096


Another high res from mclaren
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6nFHP9W8AA ... =4096x4096

[mwillems]

interesting bits from mclaren in their engineer article

"We’ll start practice running the cars with different rear wings, one with the high downforce wing that ran in Zandvoort and Singapore, the other with the one used before that. We’ll also try out various beam wings and gurney flaps. There’s a very complex set of options, but in the broadest terms, we’ll be testing the cars at the bottom end of the highest downforce wing and the top end of the next step down. "

Not sure if this is added as part of the discussion around our high DF wing, but the assertion isn't that this isn't our highest DF wing, but that we aren't using a high DF wing like the ones used at Monaco (Except by Mclaren who didn't produce a High DF wing for that and other tracks) and is more moderate compared to last year, because the track didn't require it. Our highest Downforce wing is quite moderate in comparison to high downforce wings used at Monaco, for example, which were huge. Partly that will be because we have more grip from the floor, and partly because the track layout has 3 less low speed turns, from 8 to 5. Indeed, the two are being tested here because of their overlap.

The requirements of DF from the rear wing are understandably shrinking, apart from perhaps at Monaco.

[f1rules]

yeah i saw the discussion and wanted add this, so they are running the higher df wing(not highest from monaco) at its lowest setting or thereabout and their lower df wing at its higher df setting, meaning aoa and how much gurney they decide to use i think

[trinidefender]

yeah i saw the discussion and wanted add this, so they are running the higher df wing(not highest from monaco) at its lowest setting or thereabout and their lower df wing at its higher df setting, meaning aoa and how much gurney they decide to use i think

And also what beam wing combination, as well as gurney on the beam wing, they run with it

[mwillems]

yeah i saw the discussion and wanted add this, so they are running the higher df wing(not highest from monaco) at its lowest setting or thereabout and their lower df wing at its higher df setting, meaning aoa and how much gurney they decide to use i think

And also what beam wing combination, as well as gurney on the beam wing, they run with it

Yes they've bought a few. The question came up in the team thread about the packaging of them together (Sensible because the BW and RW do require an element of alignment to ensure right levels of expansaion at the rear) and I answered that the tendency in these situations is not to waste time with CFD or Tunnels etc but to bring the combinations to the track and see what works best.

I think it was PhilipM also that noted that the car would be more modular this year and the rear wing is a good example of how they can chop and change parts between the wings so that they don't need to rebuild large portions of wings. Naturally this will also aid with the budget cap. Same with the packaging around the SIPS.

On that note I wanted to ask a question. In the new floor, it appears that where they made changes to the side of the floor, they simple cut away part of the old floor and attached a new part, instead of creating a new floor.

Is this part of the modular approach to save money and for rapid development and only adapt the parts that need it or was this for some other Aero reason I can't comprehend? It feels like perhaps the rest of the floor itself didn't need adapting apart from perhaps the tunnels underneath, but that is subjective and I don't know but you'd imagine they were adapted.

[billamend]

I think it was PhilipM also that noted that the car would be more modular this year

McLaren published an article in the beginning of the 2022 season about that.

[mwillems]

I think it was PhilipM also that noted that the car would be more modular this year

McLaren published an article in the beginning of the 2022 season about that.

Fair play, I'll remove that credit from PhilipM in my book