McLaren MCL38

[mwillems]

This is a really interesting picture.

From what I learnt last year there is a really close connection between the rear wing and the beam wing, in that the amount of air being pushed underneath the rear wing has to correlate nicely to the amount of air going over the rear wing to maintain an optimal pressure difference that allows output of the diffuser to be energised and sucked from the car.

Yet here we have two cars using similar (ish) rear wings and totally different levels of Beam Wing. What does this indicate about the airflow to the rear of both of these cars? Does anyone have any insight?

[Vanja #66]

From what I learnt last year there is a really close connection between the rear wing and the beam wing, in that the amount of air being pushed underneath the rear wing has to correlate nicely to the amount of air going over the rear wing to maintain an optimal pressure difference that allows output of the diffuser to be energised and sucked from the car.

Yet here we have two cars using similar (ish) rear wings and totally different levels of Beam Wing. What does this indicate about the airflow to the rear of both of these cars? Does anyone have any insight?

Those two + the floor are working very closely and very hard. Those 3 elements are the main drivers of the downforce performance, while the front wing is there almost solely to balance the car out with these rules. It's very important they work together and not against each other, but their bodywork rule boxes are far enough not to make that a potentially serious issue. In my experience, with hard-working elements, you shouldn't put them together closer than 100-150% chord of the main element (rear wing in this case), depending on camber and AoA. This condition is met even with Monaco-spec packages You'll find some great CFD results for visual comparisons in these 2 threads

viewtopic.php?t=28657

viewtopic.php?t=30734

In case of Macca vs Merc, it's different beam wing philosophies probably looking at different effects when combined together etc. Merc seems like Monaco-spec beam wing which is absolutely too much for Bahrain type of track

[mwillems]

From what I learnt last year there is a really close connection between the rear wing and the beam wing, in that the amount of air being pushed underneath the rear wing has to correlate nicely to the amount of air going over the rear wing to maintain an optimal pressure difference that allows output of the diffuser to be energised and sucked from the car.

Yet here we have two cars using similar (ish) rear wings and totally different levels of Beam Wing. What does this indicate about the airflow to the rear of both of these cars? Does anyone have any insight?

Those two + the floor are working very closely and very hard. Those 3 elements are the main drivers of the downforce performance, while the front wing is there almost solely to balance the car out with these rules. It's very important they work together and not against each other, but their bodywork rule boxes are far enough not to make that a potentially serious issue. In my experience, with hard-working elements, you shouldn't put them together closer than 100-150% chord of the main element (rear wing in this case), depending on camber and AoA. This condition is met even with Monaco-spec packages You'll find some great CFD results for visual comparisons in these 2 threads

viewtopic.php?t=28657

viewtopic.php?t=30734

In case of Macca vs Merc, it's different beam wing philosophies probably looking at different effects when combined together etc. Merc seems like Monaco-spec beam wing which is absolutely too much for Bahrain type of track

I just about get your first paragraph from my learning last year but saw this picture which seemed to contradict my understanding as it looks very big for this configuration.

I wasn't sure if it suggested they were getting more airflow over the top of the wing than the Mclaren. Although the lower element of the Mclarens beam wing is bigger whereas the second element of the Mercedes is covered somewhat, limiting the load. So perhaps the difference in loading is not that dissimilar?

Still, it is an interesting detail that the top beam wing of the Mclaren appears designed to push the air slightly more rearward before it rises below the rear wing and leaving more work for the bottom BW element to do.

[Vanja #66]

I just about get your first paragraph from my learning last year but saw this picture which seemed to contradict my understanding as it looks very big for this configuration.

I wasn't sure if it suggested they were getting more airflow over the top of the wing than the Mclaren. Although the lower element of the Mclarens beam wing is bigger whereas the second element of the Mercedes is covered somewhat, limiting the load. So perhaps the difference in loading is not that dissimilar?

Still, it is an interesting detail that the top beam wing of the Mclaren appears designed to push the air slightly more rearward before it rises below the rear wing and leaving more work for the bottom BW element to do.

Typically, two BW elements stacked (Merc) will lead to bigger pressure difference in the rear, pumping more air out from the floor and maximising floor performance. They are also worse on aero efficiency, generating proportionally more drag than extracting more downforce. Two parallel (front top and rear above floor) elements, like Macca photo and originally RB18 work differently and maybe carry smaller drag penalty for same downforce benefit, although this is purely my speculation and depends on the size if these elements of course.

[michl420]

Something that bothers me since years is this engine layout. This airbox and much more that exhaust pipe blocks the internal air routing quit a bit. Is the exhaust part of the engine freeze?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wxU3XAAA ... =4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wzJpXoAE ... =4096x4096

[organic]

Something that bothers me since years is this engine layout. This airbox and much more that exhaust pipe blocks the internal air routing quit a bit. Is the exhaust part of the engine freeze?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wxU3XAAA ... =4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wzJpXoAE ... =4096x4096

The issue is packaging exhaust manifolds comes into direct conflict with the aero guys wanting more volume for the waterslide.

[mwillems]

I just about get your first paragraph from my learning last year but saw this picture which seemed to contradict my understanding as it looks very big for this configuration.

I wasn't sure if it suggested they were getting more airflow over the top of the wing than the Mclaren. Although the lower element of the Mclarens beam wing is bigger whereas the second element of the Mercedes is covered somewhat, limiting the load. So perhaps the difference in loading is not that dissimilar?

Still, it is an interesting detail that the top beam wing of the Mclaren appears designed to push the air slightly more rearward before it rises below the rear wing and leaving more work for the bottom BW element to do.

Typically, two BW elements stacked (Merc) will lead to bigger pressure difference in the rear, pumping more air out from the floor and maximising floor performance. They are also worse on aero efficiency, generating proportionally more drag than extracting more downforce. Two parallel (front top and rear above floor) elements, like Macca photo and originally RB18 work differently and maybe carry smaller drag penalty for same downforce benefit, although this is purely my speculation and depends on the size if these elements of course.

Thanks Vanja. I recognised that there was going to be an efficiency point here and the beam wings seem ever more critical, in particular with how the geometries work with the DRS closed and Open which was deemed to be the reason for the RB DRS gains, at least by Mclaren. This area feels particularly crucial now to extracting the most from the floors performance so I'm keen to understand more about the small details that are making a differences. Appreciate the insight.

[f1rules]

[Blackout]

Something that bothers me since years is this engine layout. This airbox and much more that exhaust pipe blocks the internal air routing quit a bit. Is the exhaust part of the engine freeze?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wxU3XAAA ... =4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wzJpXoAE ... =4096x4096

No those shrink-wrapped and compact exhausts do not block anything, moreover MCL insulates them in their own room with the internal bodywork, they are barely in the internal airflow.
The exhaust are not frozen but these seem to be tailored to the peculiar Merc turbine and cannot be played with a lot.

And it seems MCL finally dropped the air air intercoolers

[Stu]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2xTTiWEAA ... name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2ysglXUAA ... name=small

Very interesting how the air separates in two directions around the rear-most suspension arm.

…and the split seems to direct half of the flow into the cooling intake and the other half to the undercut.

[michl420]

Something that bothers me since years is this engine layout. This airbox and much more that exhaust pipe blocks the internal air routing quit a bit. Is the exhaust part of the engine freeze?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wxU3XAAA ... =4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG2wzJpXoAE ... =4096x4096

No those shrink-wrapped and compact exhausts do not block anything, moreover MCL insulates them in their own room with the internal bodywork, they are barely in the internal airflow.
The exhaust are not frozen but these seem to be tailored to the peculiar Merc turbine and cannot be played with a lot.

And it seems MCL finally dropped the air air intercoolers

I know there not in the internal airflow. What i mean is that it occopied a room that could be used for internal airflow or prevents the outer bodywork from being closer to the engine in this region. I refer special to this singe exhaust pipe, because the other engine manufactuar have all the pipes under the gearbox mounting point. To a certain extent this also applies to the suspension elements in this area.

[De Wet]

https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mcl38.webp

https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mcl38.webp

Different floor edges ?

[SilviuAgo]

Andrea Stella believes McLaren has improved its rear grip weakness with its latest car. Here's what he has to say:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/stell ... /10578942/

Main idea below:

• I think some of the weaknesses have been improved,” he said. “For instance, we are I would say happier with the grip at the rear axle, which was one of the aspects that we wanted to work on. Overall there is more grip in the car

• I think the car is a good foundation for development, and is a step forward compared to last year's car.

• we see in the background in development that there's actually quite a lot of potential, which we didn't exploit in time to make it for the launch car.

• There's one car that seemed to have found a big step. Unfortunately, the car that was already the quickest last year.

[f1rules]

thats all nice, but what about the weak frontend, would be nice to hear him mention that, since many mentioned during testing, it understeers like crazy

But i quess they dont need to worry about that as they are in the garage with ANOTHER issue

[organic]

https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mcl38.webp

https://cdn-3.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... mcl38.webp

Different floor edges ?

Same