2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[mwillems]

I disagree. It is necessary to look not only at the total height, but also at the thickness of the wing profile, because it also affects the creation of lift or downforce. In addition, a thicker plane makes the overall height of the wing a little bit less visible to our eyes. I'm sure this is just a trick of the eye.

I was looking at many aspects including the overall shape of the main plane. The thickness at the thickest point looks similar between them. But Monaco is clearly a higher DF wing than what we have here, and put into the context of other high DF wings, not really that high DF. The wing at Austin doesn't even produce as much DF as the wing uktimately used at Zandvoort.

It's definately higher than mid level DF, just not high DF, though I think its peak levels can get there. its settings at this track will be in its lowest configuration, sitting comfortably in the medium range, to compare to the other wing they brought in its strongest config. Both will be levels of Med Df at this track, though the bigger wing will be higher in that range.

But we can agree to disagree, I've put my info forward as to why I don't think it's a high DF wing. I don't think we really need one either as the floor creates a lot more DF now.

Next year, if the team gets even more downforce from the floor and more grip from the suspension, we may not see a Monaco spec rear wing again. The main wing will be the Singapore spec as an optimized version, and the maximum downforce will be regulated by the beam wing.

It's a good point, the wings at Monaco this year were smaller than those at Monaco last year, though Monaco will always be an exception in that it won't harm to have a massive wing. It is curious to see the range of wings here though and we can't rule out that the team may not choose to run the Higher DF wing in it's Higher DF config. Merc seem to think High DF is the way to go as they have their High DF Monaco wing, or are they testing more than one wing?

[Ir3NiCuS]

[mwillems]

It's interesting , the times look like they may not have discriminated tow, which means it isn't necessarily the true fastest lap from performance of the car alone.

Edit: It still sucks to be Ferrari though.

[Farnborough]

In comparison to last year the floor regulations caused relative lift that affects floor loading. Couple that with probably the need to run at likely one of the highest static height (probably all teams have made this consideration) for how big the track bumps are in Cota, then more rear load from wing looks sensible in this case. They all obviously run sim assesment prior to the event in giving their baseline start. Correlation across different teams appears to suggest general agreement.

One of the "hidden" attributes of RB to me is that the floor doesn't have a huge accumulation curve to it's load as speed rises, for the rear section specifically (and one of the significant quality in not going into porpoising) BUT...... then needs more rear wing flap than a really powerful underfloor to fill in top end range rear chassis leading to balance. Wing of course not being anything like as sensitive to floor effects and much more linear in its accumulation of load against speed characteristics.
Moving toward RB in concept would most likely "ask" for a similar rear flap configuration as that chassis.

[mwillems]

In comparison to last year the floor regulations caused relative lift that affects floor loading. Couple that with probably the need to run at likely one of the highest static height (probably all teams have made this consideration) for how big the track bumps are in Cota, then more rear load from wing looks sensible in this case. They all obviously run sim assesment prior to the event in giving their baseline start. Correlation across different teams appears to suggest general agreement.

One of the "hidden" attributes of RB to me is that the floor doesn't have a huge accumulation curve to it's load as speed rises, for the rear section specifically (and one of the significant quality in not going into porpoising) BUT...... then needs more rear wing flap than a really powerful underfloor to fill in top end range rear chassis leading to balance. Wing of course not being anything like as sensitive to floor effects and much more linear in its accumulation of load against speed characteristics.
Moving toward RB in concept would most likely "ask" for a similar rear flap configuration as that chassis.

Yeah this definitely looks like one of the avenues for the RB speed, but at present we seem to caught them or got close without DRS open, so this may be the answer but now I'm not so sure it is a big differentiator. We know that at Singapore they struggled for DF because of their setup not liking the setup the bumps demanded, and this may be the driving reason behind their wing here also, to claw back a bigger DF drop from the setup, but perhaps the bumps are not the same profile as at Singapore.

They may also run a bigger wing simply because they are fast enough to do so, so they protect their tyres in the race with this wing.

The data from today will help us understand a little more, I'm very unsure as to what the top 8 will look like, other than I think Ferrari will be fast and Mercedes won't be slow. Fine details make all the difference.

[Farnborough]

The RB looked fast in Singapore....for race pace....tyre warming in short run qualli seeming to nobble it to the detriment of race position. More an anomaly and outlier to be able to judge definitely.

Agree, it's hard to predict pace here from front runners, and definitely going to be interesting as quite a few more aero changes arriving for many teans.

The MB front floor edge could make a significant difference to their approach over there, and relevant to McL directly if it's competent.

[mwillems]

The RB looked fast in Singapore....for race pace....tyre warming in short run qualli seeming to nobble it to the detriment of race position. More an anomaly and outlier to be able to judge definitely.

Agree, it's hard to predict pace here from front runners, and definitely going to be interesting as quite a few more aero changes arriving for many teans.

The MB front floor edge could make a significant difference to their approach over there, and relevant to McL directly if it's competent.

Fast, but not fastest , certainly not normal RB levels so I think some of the deficit also carried into the race, it is just that a large part of it was the margin they normally have clear at the front, but I'd need to go back to the data to confirm that my understanding is correct.

Edit: Hamilton and Verstappen changed to the same tyre at the same time and Ham was massively faster than RB, not sure how much traffic RB had but I think he had enough clear air to get some decent times in and couldn't get close, but perhaps he had someone in front the whole time, of that I'm not sure.

Edit2: Max had traffic for 6 laps of his final stint, so I don't think they really were that fast to be honest as on other laps he couldn't get anywhere near Hamilton, his fastest lap being 7 tenths down and Hamilton did several laps around this time and probably could have gone faster at the end, had he not met some Orange and Red Traffic

None of which informs us what will happen today

[Wouter]

[Motörhead]

I believe the 60% model size in the Cologne wind tunnel was physically possible but in practice the size encroached too closely on the walls of the tunnel, which would give aberrations.

There was a jauntiness in a recent interview that Stella gave where he was being unusually optimistic about what they were seeing in the new tunnel and in the simulations. Not known for his excesses of optimism I felt Andrea was barely holding back his excitement about the 2024 car. (MCL61?) Of course there's every reason to believe that RedBull have had every chance to make major strides with their new car given how much good data they have collected from the RB19. Just how much and what kind of gains will be necessary to go wheel to wheel with Max next season is an interesting idea for discussion.

Of course one of the first things the McLaren team - especially the drivers - are looking for is greater drivability, specifically the transition of the car from braking to mid corner that ever driver going back to Sainz has complained about. Good correlation between Woking and the track gives good prospects for continuing and consistent performance gains - just what we have seen, really since Austria. Mercedes and others on the other hand have struggled to produce correlation between the factory's simulations and the actual performance at the track, leading to ups and downs in their relative performances. McLaren has by comparison, been relatively constant in their progress - excepting their lower downforce requirement deficiencies at Spa and Monza which they largely expected. If any lesson can be learned (in a general sense) from 2023 it's that having a car that's highly adaptable to all circuit types and tyre performance windows are the determining factors in championship standing. Some quite good tech overviews of the relative team performances, overlays etc can be found by a former RedBull data analyst here https://www.youtube.com/c/BrrrakeF1

“I believe the 60% model size in the Cologne wind tunnel was physically possible but in practice the size encroached too closely on the walls of the tunnel, which would give aberrations.”

May I suggest another theory, if I may….
The Toyota wind tunnel is big enough to run a full scale car, if it were allowed in the rules. McLaren did run a 60% model. (See pictures in link below)
The theory is, that the tunnel was too big and/or it was too outdated to refine results.
They didn’t have a turntable which affected yaw/cornering numbers.
There were a few other problems with it also, due to its age where the tunnels walls were not ‘adaptive’ and were static.
All these things add up and considering, they didn’t do a half bad job.
The slow cornering had always been their Achilles heel. And that relates to the data of not having a turntable.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/toyot ... /10506134/

[LionsHeart]

I was looking at many aspects including the overall shape of the main plane. The thickness at the thickest point looks similar between them. But Monaco is clearly a higher DF wing than what we have here, and put into the context of other high DF wings, not really that high DF. The wing at Austin doesn't even produce as much DF as the wing uktimately used at Zandvoort.

It's definately higher than mid level DF, just not high DF, though I think its peak levels can get there. its settings at this track will be in its lowest configuration, sitting comfortably in the medium range, to compare to the other wing they brought in its strongest config. Both will be levels of Med Df at this track, though the bigger wing will be higher in that range.

But we can agree to disagree, I've put my info forward as to why I don't think it's a high DF wing. I don't think we really need one either as the floor creates a lot more DF now.

Next year, if the team gets even more downforce from the floor and more grip from the suspension, we may not see a Monaco spec rear wing again. The main wing will be the Singapore spec as an optimized version, and the maximum downforce will be regulated by the beam wing.

It's a good point, the wings at Monaco this year were smaller than those at Monaco last year, though Monaco will always be an exception in that it won't harm to have a massive wing. It is curious to see the range of wings here though and we can't rule out that the team may not choose to run the Higher DF wing in it's Higher DF config. Merc seem to think High DF is the way to go as they have their High DF Monaco wing, or are they testing more than one wing?

I don't work in the McLaren simulator, so I won't be able to answer that question. The simulator checks a lot of parameters, but we only see the tip of the iceberg. But who knows? Next year the base of the chassis will undergo changes, let's see how the team will adjust the level of downforce in the rear.

And why do you say McLaren in Monaco in 2023 used a less loaded rear wing compared to 2022? It's the same rear wing specification there. There's no change at all. I didn't see a change. If anything, bring pictures here, maybe I didn't notice something, it could very well happen.

[mwillems]

Next year, if the team gets even more downforce from the floor and more grip from the suspension, we may not see a Monaco spec rear wing again. The main wing will be the Singapore spec as an optimized version, and the maximum downforce will be regulated by the beam wing.

It's a good point, the wings at Monaco this year were smaller than those at Monaco last year, though Monaco will always be an exception in that it won't harm to have a massive wing. It is curious to see the range of wings here though and we can't rule out that the team may not choose to run the Higher DF wing in it's Higher DF config. Merc seem to think High DF is the way to go as they have their High DF Monaco wing, or are they testing more than one wing?

I don't work in the McLaren simulator, so I won't be able to answer that question. The simulator checks a lot of parameters, but we only see the tip of the iceberg. But who knows? Next year the base of the chassis will undergo changes, let's see how the team will adjust the level of downforce in the rear.

And why do you say McLaren in Monaco in 2023 used a less loaded rear wing compared to 2022? It's the same rear wing specification there. There's no change at all. I didn't see a change. If anything, bring pictures here, maybe I didn't notice something, it could very well happen.

Teams in General, not Mclaren, Mclaren didn't bother to create Monaco spec wings either year and next year I'm not sure they will need to, nor will many.

[LionsHeart]

It's a good point, the wings at Monaco this year were smaller than those at Monaco last year, though Monaco will always be an exception in that it won't harm to have a massive wing. It is curious to see the range of wings here though and we can't rule out that the team may not choose to run the Higher DF wing in it's Higher DF config. Merc seem to think High DF is the way to go as they have their High DF Monaco wing, or are they testing more than one wing?

I don't work in the McLaren simulator, so I won't be able to answer that question. The simulator checks a lot of parameters, but we only see the tip of the iceberg. But who knows? Next year the base of the chassis will undergo changes, let's see how the team will adjust the level of downforce in the rear.

And why do you say McLaren in Monaco in 2023 used a less loaded rear wing compared to 2022? It's the same rear wing specification there. There's no change at all. I didn't see a change. If anything, bring pictures here, maybe I didn't notice something, it could very well happen.

Teams in General, not Mclaren, Mclaren didn't bother to create Monaco spec wings either year and next year I'm not sure they will need to, nor will many.

Ah, so be it. Lando said it would be tougher at Austin because of the presence of more slow corners. It's hard to disagree, on the other hand we have only one Friday practice and it can play to our advantage, because for Mercedes will be less time to find the optimal settings.

[mwillems]

I don't work in the McLaren simulator, so I won't be able to answer that question. The simulator checks a lot of parameters, but we only see the tip of the iceberg. But who knows? Next year the base of the chassis will undergo changes, let's see how the team will adjust the level of downforce in the rear.

And why do you say McLaren in Monaco in 2023 used a less loaded rear wing compared to 2022? It's the same rear wing specification there. There's no change at all. I didn't see a change. If anything, bring pictures here, maybe I didn't notice something, it could very well happen.

Teams in General, not Mclaren, Mclaren didn't bother to create Monaco spec wings either year and next year I'm not sure they will need to, nor will many.

Ah, so be it. Lando said it would be tougher at Austin because of the presence of more slow corners. It's hard to disagree, on the other hand we have only one Friday practice and it can play to our advantage, because for Mercedes will be less time to find the optimal settings.

I don't know if you recall, but we were discussing the Mclaren Monza performance after that weekend and we were looking at the data. The car was OK in the slow corners, average at that point in the season, but struggled very much in the high energy braking and lost a lot of time (It was also the same at Belgium). My feeling is that this will be worse here, but that the rest of the track will suit us.

I really don't know where we will end up here, we don't know enough yet, but my gut feeling, or better yet, my worry, is that that we will be the 4th fastest car here. But we may well be challenging for the front row, who knows!

[mwillems]

Stella: Piastri has made McLaren gradient ‘quite steep’

Big words for Piastri's ability to adapt his driving (Amongst other things), not only over the season, but even in race, apparently finding time and managing the tyres better throughout Suzuka and seeing the difference in his final stint.
Stella avoided trying to say what he could achieve, but suggested that if you look at this year, being a rookie and then to go to winning his first race, then that is the gradient they are looking at in terms of where he might be just by next year.

Go Mclaren.

This must be the best driver line up and team to develop the car that we have seen in decades, so excited to see what they do in the future.


https://www.speedcafe.com/2023/10/20/os ... ite-steep/

[LionsHeart]

Teams in General, not Mclaren, Mclaren didn't bother to create Monaco spec wings either year and next year I'm not sure they will need to, nor will many.

Ah, so be it. Lando said it would be tougher at Austin because of the presence of more slow corners. It's hard to disagree, on the other hand we have only one Friday practice and it can play to our advantage, because for Mercedes will be less time to find the optimal settings.

I don't know if you recall, but we were discussing the Mclaren Monza performance after that weekend and we were looking at the data. The car was OK in the slow corners, average at that point in the season, but struggled very much in the high energy braking and lost a lot of time (It was also the same at Belgium). My feeling is that this will be worse here, but that the rest of the track will suit us.

I really don't know where we will end up here, we don't know enough yet, but my gut feeling, or better yet, my worry, is that that we will be the 4th fastest car here. But we may well be challenging for the front row, who knows!

Yes, I remember that discussion. It's true that the car is better in slow corners now than it was then at Monza, plus the aero package under higher downforce. So there could be differences and nuances in relation to the competition. From my point of view, I still tend to believe that McLaren is capable of being 2-3 in strength, but this is just my opinion, and how it will be, will be clear today.