2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[M840TR]

Does anyone know how the FIA rule on matters of "gardening leave" where there is this usually 12 month stand-down period? Obviously there has to be a conversation between the two parties (team and future employee) on their role and where they fit in. The matter of design concepts in the instance of new design members would seem to necessitate discussions before the engagement is formalised. Would future direction discussions be something accepted as legitimate conversations carried out during "gardening leave"? If so, how could that be affecting the work of Prodromou, Stella and company, on the 2024 car?

I don't think FIA has any say over these matters because they relate to specific country's contract law, and the gardening leave is most likely inserted as a clause into the employee's contracts. The employer has prerogative to determine gardening period. For instance McLaren didn't stipulate any gardening period for Seidl or Key IIRC.

[Ground Effect]

Does anyone know how the FIA rule on matters of "gardening leave" where there is this usually 12 month stand-down period? Obviously there has to be a conversation between the two parties (team and future employee) on their role and where they fit in. The matter of design concepts in the instance of new design members would seem to necessitate discussions before the engagement is formalised. Would future direction discussions be something accepted as legitimate conversations carried out during "gardening leave"? If so, how could that be affecting the work of Prodromou, Stella and company, on the 2024 car?

I don't think FIA has any say over these matters because they relate to specific country's contract law, and the gardening leave is most likely inserted as a clause into the employee's contracts. The employer has prerogative to determine gardening period. For instance McLaren didn't stipulate any gardening period for Seidl or Key IIRC.

It was mentioned that Key served gardening leave. He was announced early June, with appointment effective 1st September.

[Tomsky]

Translation of the Amus article

[taperoo2k]

Where did Stella mention the bit about incompatibility with mechanical platform?

I tried looking for it now but I can't seem to find it. I am almost 90% certain that I heard it on a video. It was either a live interview in one of the post-race events or one of the videos that are often posted in the Formula 1 official website.

If I somehow come across it again, I will come back with a source.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/wher ... -red-bull/

He feels the RB19 is “superior” in how it limits the amount the tyres lose grip over a stint, and strongly hinted at some fundamental architecture on the current McLaren limiting his team’s capacity to react and close the gap.

“Where we think the difference is made we can’t do very much with this car,” he added.

Stella was extremely coy when asked in Brazil how much of Red Bull’s apparent tyre degradation advantage over McLaren relates to aerodynamics and how much relates to mechanical grip.

He was only prepared to say “it’s a combination of both”. He indicated McLaren has “set some targets” in terms of developing its way out of this situation - but added: “I can’t say in which area and how”.

But he did at least confirm McLaren’s area of focus is “not only aero”

This is all I could find.

They will be focused on the mechanical platform of the car as Prodromou and his team have the aero covered by the looks of it, hence why they likely signed Rob Marshall.

Does anyone know how the FIA rule on matters of "gardening leave" where there is this usually 12 month stand-down period? Obviously there has to be a conversation between the two parties (team and future employee) on their role and where they fit in. The matter of design concepts in the instance of new design members would seem to necessitate discussions before the engagement is formalised. Would future direction discussions be something accepted as legitimate conversations carried out during "gardening leave"? If so, how could that be affecting the work of Prodromou, Stella and company, on the 2024 car?

All of that will be agreed to under the terms of the non compete clause (which is what gardening leave is). It will be clearly defined what they can and can't do. The FIA would only get involved if Intellectual property were stolen by a former employee and taken to a new employer aka Spygate. McLaren will not be repeating that again.

Put simply the 2024 car will be designed by the current technical and engineering teams. I expect somebody like Rob Marshall won't take long to get to grips with the '24 design once he's legally allowed to start work at McLaren. Which is the 1st of January 2024.

[mwillems]

I tried looking for it now but I can't seem to find it. I am almost 90% certain that I heard it on a video. It was either a live interview in one of the post-race events or one of the videos that are often posted in the Formula 1 official website.

If I somehow come across it again, I will come back with a source.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/wher ... -red-bull/

He feels the RB19 is “superior” in how it limits the amount the tyres lose grip over a stint, and strongly hinted at some fundamental architecture on the current McLaren limiting his team’s capacity to react and close the gap.

“Where we think the difference is made we can’t do very much with this car,” he added.

Stella was extremely coy when asked in Brazil how much of Red Bull’s apparent tyre degradation advantage over McLaren relates to aerodynamics and how much relates to mechanical grip.

He was only prepared to say “it’s a combination of both”. He indicated McLaren has “set some targets” in terms of developing its way out of this situation - but added: “I can’t say in which area and how”.

But he did at least confirm McLaren’s area of focus is “not only aero”

This is all I could find.

They will be focused on the mechanical platform of the car as Prodromou and his team have the aero covered by the looks of it, hence why they likely signed Rob Marshall.

Does anyone know how the FIA rule on matters of "gardening leave" where there is this usually 12 month stand-down period? Obviously there has to be a conversation between the two parties (team and future employee) on their role and where they fit in. The matter of design concepts in the instance of new design members would seem to necessitate discussions before the engagement is formalised. Would future direction discussions be something accepted as legitimate conversations carried out during "gardening leave"? If so, how could that be affecting the work of Prodromou, Stella and company, on the 2024 car?

All of that will be agreed to under the terms of the non compete clause (which is what gardening leave is). It will be clearly defined what they can and can't do. The FIA would only get involved if Intellectual property were stolen by a former employee and taken to a new employer aka Spygate. McLaren will not be repeating that again.

Put simply the 2024 car will be designed by the current technical and engineering teams. I expect somebody like Rob Marshall won't take long to get to grips with the '24 design once he's legally allowed to start work at McLaren. Which is the 1st of January 2024.

Stella has actually praised this chassis saying that as a platform it is what has enabled the development the team have brought this year, it being an excellent foundation for all of the work that has been done to improve the car the amount they have.

Everything on the car can be improved and one specific area would seem to be the front of the car (As well as how we package the SIPS and the cooling). In part they were held back by not being able to test the car in pitch and yaw within the wind tunnel, and then probably they lacked a bit of knowledge which they have managed to pick up at the start of this year and throughout, with Rob Marshall being the icing on the cake (we hope).

[SmallSoldier]

Yeah that was a great read.

I am a bit annoyed I can't find the original source, but I promise I did not make up the part about this year's car being mechanically limited. I think it must have been on an interview in one of those post race events. And vod/transcripts of those are usually hard/impossible to find.

I don’t think it is a problem of the platform been “mechanically limited”… What is true is that the new aero concept may be compromised by the current chassis, from placement of cooling, ancillaries, SIPS positioning, wheelbase… There could be several factors from the chassis that won’t allow them to extract the most of the new concept due to the physical limitations… The fact that layout of the current chassis may not allow them to maximize the new concept doesn’t mean that it isn’t good or limited, simply they can’t change the chassis mid season to extract the last ounce of performance this year.

That’s probably the biggest reason for excitement from McLaren, for example, if they know that by extending the wheelbase they can further improve the floor performance, as well as manage the tire wake better with the current concept and therefore more performance… Weight distribution may also be better now that the concept has increase the dimensions of the sidepods… This is without considering what they may have learn in terms of other factors, like the suspension, I believe we may end up seeing something similar to what RedBull is doing with the front suspension, for the aero to work, you need and stable platform, today McLaren may need to ride the suspension stiffer to achieve this and that’s why a car like the RBR can manage kerbs / bumps better, because it relies on suspension angle in addition to suspension stiffness to stabilize the platform

[haza]

2024 car has been in full development since July

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ampf-2024/

[Mostlyeels]

Interesting that they're quoted saying that the underfloor and rear wing (and a little bit the front wing) are the big areas that improved the car, but no mention of the sidepods (less important, but still a little misdirection?) Also, is my auto translator correct that Verstappen's saying McLaren are better not riding the curbs? Very interesting as well that they had plenty of leeway on the ride height in Brazil, implication being they're really on top of the floor design and effects.

[mwillems]

Interesting that they're quoted saying that the underfloor and rear wing (and a little bit the front wing) are the big areas that improved the car, but no mention of the sidepods (less important, but still a little misdirection?) Also, is my auto translator correct that Verstappen's saying McLaren are better not riding the curbs? Very interesting as well that they had plenty of leeway on the ride height in Brazil, implication being they're really on top of the floor design and effects.

I know that Stella said that you can dial out some of the cars issues with ride height, or at least move the issues elsewhere. I guess that if your car is quite low then you'd have to be careful with kerbs. He also said that it moves the unpredictability into the high speed corners.

It's interesting because it frames both as an Aero issue that is triggered by mechanical behaviour of the car (Floor pitch and yaw relative to the track). It does sound like the floor doesn't maintain consistent performance through all corners in a given setup i.e it loses downforce and in lower speed corners may be stalling entirely. If you think about inconsistent Aero through the corners you will struggle to have the car pointing where you need it to point even when accelerating away which we saw in greater extremes in Austin. The car needs to be settled and not jumpy.

Speaking anecdotally, the RB is a car that also needs to be run low and if I recall correctly also a little firmer, hence it struggled at Singapore and lost some of it's advantage at Austin due to having been forced into a different setup due to bumps. It was also notable that these issues were more prevalent on lower fuel runs (Qualy) than race although some of that is because the car is better in race than Qualy anyway, I'm not sure how much that parallel works but it's interesting to consider it when looking at the MCL60s own issues and behaviours which seem in some part similar. Also anecdotally, the RB runs with more wing than us now on several occasions this season. I do wonder if this is part of the solution to managing the stability of the car. Can you run with a little softer suspension setup to benefit the kerbs and small bumps but more wing to keep the car pinned down once you get above the very lowest of speeds?

Anyway, you'd think that there is a nice gain to be had from creating a car that is able to be perpendicular to the floor more than it is now, and one would assume that in doing that it would also help in high energy braking zones too. So all in all it feels like there is plenty of gains for the start of the season.

[billamend]

Also, is my auto translator correct that Verstappen's saying McLaren are better not riding the curbs?

I've heard someone that works in the paddock close to drivers, saying that some drivers would choose the MCL60 over the RB19. They see that only two things are missing on the MCL60: tyre wear and top speed (needs to be a bit more slippery).

[Emag]

Also, is my auto translator correct that Verstappen's saying McLaren are better not riding the curbs?

I've heard someone that works in the paddock close to drivers, saying that some drivers would choose the MCL60 over the RB19. They see that only two things are missing on the MCL60: tyre wear and top speed (needs to be a bit more slippery).

At the hands of Max, the RB19 is nearly unbeatable on race trim.

Its impossible to beat something that holds the same level of high performance for the entire tire stint.

McLaren may start the stint a bit faster, but it cant maintain it. And its not that much faster than the RedBull to the point where the drop off doesn't make a big differencen.

On the net, RedBull is much faster.

And heck, in Brazil even Perez had incredible tire wear performance. He was battling with Alonso for the good part of 20-30 laps and there was no significant wear on that thing.

[the EDGE]

Also, is my auto translator correct that Verstappen's saying McLaren are better not riding the curbs?

I've heard someone that works in the paddock close to drivers, saying that some drivers would choose the MCL60 over the RB19. They see that only two things are missing on the MCL60: tyre wear and top speed (needs to be a bit more slippery).

At the hands of Max, the RB19 is nearly unbeatable on race trim.

Its impossible to beat something that holds the same level of high performance for the entire tire stint.

McLaren may start the stint a bit faster, but it cant maintain it. And its not that much faster than the RedBull to the point where the drop off doesn't make a big differencen.

On the net, RedBull is much faster.

And heck, in Brazil even Perez had incredible tire wear performance. He was battling with Alonso for the good part of 20-30 laps and there was no significant wear on that thing.

The RB19 is much faster than the MCL60 over a single lap too, it’s just Lando that makes it look the other way round

[BMMR61]

Also, is my auto translator correct that Verstappen's saying McLaren are better not riding the curbs?

I've heard someone that works in the paddock close to drivers, saying that some drivers would choose the MCL60 over the RB19. They see that only two things are missing on the MCL60: tyre wear and top speed (needs to be a bit more slippery).

At the hands of Max, the RB19 is nearly unbeatable on race trim.

Its impossible to beat something that holds the same level of high performance for the entire tire stint.

McLaren may start the stint a bit faster, but it cant maintain it. And its not that much faster than the RedBull to the point where the drop off doesn't make a big differencen.

On the net, RedBull is much faster.

And heck, in Brazil even Perez had incredible tire wear performance. He was battling with Alonso for the good part of 20-30 laps and there was no significant wear on that thing.

The higher deg of McLaren v Max in particular, was quite low at Brazil though it was the main factor in the loss by far. That Lando managed a 12.4 fastest lap just after his final stop, that Max couldn’t get within 0.6 of that, that the pair of them were consistently nearly a second a lap faster than the rest in the second and third stints. Yes there was an offset to most of the field, made possible by both Max and Lando being able to go deep on the first set of softs. The tyre saving by Lando is drawing the race pace ever closer to Max - Brazil isn’t the ideal track with sector two punishing the McLaren’s deficiencies in slower corners so I think we can see the 8 second loss (25 seconds ahead of third place!) is somewhat representative of a perfect race from a decent start at an average track.

The discussions above about the mechanical part of the platform (especially suspension/ride height correlation) are IMO on the money from the weekend which didn’t throw any great anomalies at McLaren - well Norris at least. The unfortunate Q3 result (P6) was nullified by Charles’ retirement and a great start so we got to better analyse the relative performances of the dominant two at this point in time. Whatever rear wing designation we call it (medium- low df?) McLaren were second fastest to Alpine on trap speeds so it’s surely fair to say the aero is becoming pretty slippery and efficient with this setup. As pleased as I felt after the Silverstone and Hungary races, I didn’t really expect to see the ongoing gains made to make the car work at some of these “more difficult” McLarrn tracks. I personally reject the lazy notion that “oh Max was just doing enough and had plenty in hand”. 8 seconds it was, after about 25 laps Lando was still within 3 seconds, not a comfortable gap. When the tyre deg delta was greatest the McLaren was still within about 0.3 - 0.4. The average delta was 0.1. The rest looked ordinary. This looks extremely good heading into the off-season.

[mwillems]

I've heard someone that works in the paddock close to drivers, saying that some drivers would choose the MCL60 over the RB19. They see that only two things are missing on the MCL60: tyre wear and top speed (needs to be a bit more slippery).

At the hands of Max, the RB19 is nearly unbeatable on race trim.

Its impossible to beat something that holds the same level of high performance for the entire tire stint.

McLaren may start the stint a bit faster, but it cant maintain it. And its not that much faster than the RedBull to the point where the drop off doesn't make a big differencen.

On the net, RedBull is much faster.

And heck, in Brazil even Perez had incredible tire wear performance. He was battling with Alonso for the good part of 20-30 laps and there was no significant wear on that thing.

The higher deg of McLaren v Max in particular, was quite low at Brazil though it was the main factor in the loss by far. That Lando managed a 12.4 fastest lap just after his final stop, that Max couldn’t get within 0.6 of that, that the pair of them were consistently nearly a second a lap faster than the rest in the second and third stints. Yes there was an offset to most of the field, made possible by both Max and Lando being able to go deep on the first set of softs. The tyre saving by Lando is drawing the race pace ever closer to Max - Brazil isn’t the ideal track with sector two punishing the McLaren’s deficiencies in slower corners so I think we can see the 8 second loss (25 seconds ahead of third place!) is somewhat representative of a perfect race from a decent start at an average track.

The discussions above about the mechanical part of the platform (especially suspension/ride height correlation) are IMO on the money from the weekend which didn’t throw any great anomalies at McLaren - well Norris at least. The unfortunate Q3 result (P6) was nullified by Charles’ retirement and a great start so we got to better analyse the relative performances of the dominant two at this point in time. Whatever rear wing designation we call it (medium- low df?) McLaren were second fastest to Alpine on trap speeds so it’s surely fair to say the aero is becoming pretty slippery and efficient with this setup. As pleased as I felt after the Silverstone and Hungary races, I didn’t really expect to see the ongoing gains made to make the car work at some of these “more difficult” McLarrn tracks. I personally reject the lazy notion that “oh Max was just doing enough and had plenty in hand”. 8 seconds it was, after about 25 laps Lando was still within 3 seconds, not a comfortable gap. When the tyre deg delta was greatest the McLaren was still within about 0.3 - 0.4. The average delta was 0.1. The rest looked ordinary. This looks extremely good heading into the off-season.

Complimenting and backhanding me in the same paragraph

Re: Mechanics, yeah I've thought for a while there is more to this than purely what the suspension is doing to keep the tyre with the right contact patch but actually about how the suspension is working in synergy with the floor, because in pure mechanical grip the car is fine, or appears so. We did lack traction out of some corners for reasons other than purely the mechanical. But time will tell, it very much looks to me like how the platform and the aero work together and not about tyre contact. Even in low speed corners a stalling diffuser will be very bad and impede performance. Think the 2018 Mclaren whose wheels were too close to the bargeboard and ruined a season, which gave us awful issues in slow corners (Canada Hairpin) where the diffuser was stalling. DF very much plays a part in these corners.

Re: Verstappen, well I'm one of the guys suggesting that he may have been managing the gap still, I don't think it is "Lazy" I think there is evidence to suggest it could be the case, it's just that we don't know how close we are yet and how cautious they were being. They may have not wanted to push, for instance, whereas we were pushing for a while. And that could just be a lot of caution, caution that if put to the side could have found another 3 or 4 tenths a lap for quite a while and the gap be much bigger. But I do think we had to make them think about their approach to the end of the race, that is for sure, and the fact they have to adjust to us suggests that if we aren't within a few tenths yet, we may not be that for off yet.

[Emag]

I've heard someone that works in the paddock close to drivers, saying that some drivers would choose the MCL60 over the RB19. They see that only two things are missing on the MCL60: tyre wear and top speed (needs to be a bit more slippery).

At the hands of Max, the RB19 is nearly unbeatable on race trim.

Its impossible to beat something that holds the same level of high performance for the entire tire stint.

McLaren may start the stint a bit faster, but it cant maintain it. And its not that much faster than the RedBull to the point where the drop off doesn't make a big differencen.

On the net, RedBull is much faster.

And heck, in Brazil even Perez had incredible tire wear performance. He was battling with Alonso for the good part of 20-30 laps and there was no significant wear on that thing.

The RB19 is much faster than the MCL60 over a single lap too, it’s just Lando that makes it look the other way round

I have a lot of respect for Lando as a driver, but I still dont think he is quicker than Max on a single lap.

Maybe on a good day. But thats not taking anything away from Lando to be honest. In my opinion, I dont think anyone, not even Lewis would outqualify Max over a full season on the same car.

And if you remember during the quarantine, especially on GT3 races in iracing, Lando did not have that final tenth in him to beat Max.