2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[Farnborough]

I think PhilipM talked about this, that the lower the front wing is to the asphalt, the more downforce it generates at low speed.

Whether the potency of this is still there, this rule set specifically lifted the wing away from track, limited the "strake" potential underneath, removed the significant ability to drop the front when steering lock was used by limiting the architecture around the top external wishbone outer mount point (prior to 2022 there were many example of those moved up and inboard of inner wheel face) all to regulate this area of development.

More replaced by the floor itself as primary focus in load, hence the desire to hold that front entry of floor as stable as possible to consistently give expected load figures.
Front wing lower two plane look almost like flow conditioning to feed the floor with suspension arms also playing "vane" type duty in conditioning and direction of flow to floor.
MB flap adaption (reduced as much as possible in toward the nosebox ) a version of this.

Original "ground effect" F1 cars often running with no front wing such was the potency of floor aero.

[mwillems]

Finally:
https://x.com/McLarenF1_News/status/176 ... 17404?s=20

I feel like that largely confirms what I have been talking about. And whilst it is not specified that those changes will be at the front of the car... If they are very visible, it is hard not to think that the front of the car is getting a renovation first.

The floor will always need work, but it has been dealing with bumps and oscillations that would affect the yaw of the car, the fact that is is specific to low load is why is think it is the conditioning of the air ready for the underfloor that is the issue.

But you are right, we need to see what the team bring to understand what they have done, but I feel like my idiots guess has been pretty accurate so far!

[mwillems]

What's interesting is that Stella said after Bahrain that the low speed weakness is actually aero related and that the team's main priority at the moment is to make the aero platform work better at low speeds.

Its baffling to me how aero can have such a huge effect on performance when the car is going slower than 100 kmh

Edit :

Source for the info -> https://www.planetf1.com/news/mclaren-n ... de-package

Great post, I didn't see this link.

“But we see that there is more at stake with some specific work to get low speed grip. And even if a Formula 1 car is at 80kph still, there’s quite a lot of load generated aerodynamically and that still remains the key variable for low speed grip.”

With the floor being as powerful as it is now, there is more downforce on offer than in previous generations. Obviously the wings are there and they offer some help at the lower speeds, but the floor will be more efficient and be adding in a lot more DF still and even if it is just boosting by 5kph more, in a slow corner that is a big difference.


That was a great link, because I was having this discussion last year and was written off for talking about Aero being the issue in the low speed corners, and I was absolutely right.

[LionsHeart]

Finally:
https://x.com/McLarenF1_News/status/176 ... 17404?s=20

I feel like that largely confirms what I have been talking about. And whilst it is not specified that those changes will be at the front of the car... If they are very visible, it is hard not to think that the front of the car is getting a renovation first.

The floor will always need work, but it has been dealing with bumps and oscillations that would affect the yaw of the car, the fact that is is specific to low load is why is think it is the conditioning of the air ready for the underfloor that is the issue.

But you are right, we need to see what the team bring to understand what they have done, but I feel like my idiots guess has been pretty accurate so far!

Oh, come on. I too was sure they were going to have to upgrade the front wing, simply if only because it's last year's part. That's right, this part needs improvements. But I'm sure it won't be without replacing the floor. Farnborough above wrote that the underbody is extremely important. The bottom has a large working area, so the downforce generation should be proportionately large. On the other hand, the way the front wing distributes the flows above and below the floor is just as important, otherwise you can't get the stability the team needs.

On stability at low speeds, I had a lot of discussion with you just after the UK grand prix. We suggested then that the front wing was not efficient enough. I was more inclined towards the front suspension, you were more focused on the front wing. Basically, the suspension has been updated. It remains to be seen what form the revised front wing will take and whose idea among the rivals it will be more like, whether it will be a modernisation of their own ideas or some kind of innovation.

Most importantly for me personally, the team understands the nature of the problems and is already solving them. And since Stella has already said so, it means that the team has some progress at the base and that means that in the next races we will see new parts that should give the very controllability that Lando asks for.

[mwillems]

Finally:
https://x.com/McLarenF1_News/status/176 ... 17404?s=20

I feel like that largely confirms what I have been talking about. And whilst it is not specified that those changes will be at the front of the car... If they are very visible, it is hard not to think that the front of the car is getting a renovation first.

The floor will always need work, but it has been dealing with bumps and oscillations that would affect the yaw of the car, the fact that is is specific to low load is why is think it is the conditioning of the air ready for the underfloor that is the issue.

But you are right, we need to see what the team bring to understand what they have done, but I feel like my idiots guess has been pretty accurate so far!

Oh, come on. I too was sure they were going to have to upgrade the front wing, simply if only because it's last year's part. That's right, this part needs improvements. But I'm sure it won't be without replacing the floor. Farnborough above wrote that the underbody is extremely important. The bottom has a large working area, so the downforce generation should be proportionately large. On the other hand, the way the front wing distributes the flows above and below the floor is just as important, otherwise you can't get the stability the team needs.

On stability at low speeds, I had a lot of discussion with you just after the UK grand prix. We suggested then that the front wing was not efficient enough. I was more inclined towards the front suspension, you were more focused on the front wing. Basically, the suspension has been updated. It remains to be seen what form the revised front wing will take and whose idea among the rivals it will be more like, whether it will be a modernisation of their own ideas or some kind of innovation.

Most importantly for me personally, the team understands the nature of the problems and is already solving them. And since Stella has already said so, it means that the team has some progress at the base and that means that in the next races we will see new parts that should give the very controllability that Lando asks for.

There are always improvements to be made and the floor may well also lose efficiency in yaw due to it's own design and not because of anything happening in front. It makes sense that they struggle to test the whole car for Yaw and not just the front. It's just that from what the team have said and from my observations as well as the two articles posted, it felt like a big part of it was front wing air conditioning and the tyre wake management that was improved a little at Singapore.

Yeah I remember that conversation, by the time Austin arrived I was called out and basically called an idiot pulling ideas from thin air(not by you) for suggesting Aero and the wings were a factor at these corners due to the apex speeds. Which is why I feel happy that 9 months later it turns out I get it right sometimes.

I wonder when these next upgrades will come, this article makes it sound like in may be imminent.

[LionsHeart]

I feel like that largely confirms what I have been talking about. And whilst it is not specified that those changes will be at the front of the car... If they are very visible, it is hard not to think that the front of the car is getting a renovation first.

The floor will always need work, but it has been dealing with bumps and oscillations that would affect the yaw of the car, the fact that is is specific to low load is why is think it is the conditioning of the air ready for the underfloor that is the issue.

But you are right, we need to see what the team bring to understand what they have done, but I feel like my idiots guess has been pretty accurate so far!

Oh, come on. I too was sure they were going to have to upgrade the front wing, simply if only because it's last year's part. That's right, this part needs improvements. But I'm sure it won't be without replacing the floor. Farnborough above wrote that the underbody is extremely important. The bottom has a large working area, so the downforce generation should be proportionately large. On the other hand, the way the front wing distributes the flows above and below the floor is just as important, otherwise you can't get the stability the team needs.

On stability at low speeds, I had a lot of discussion with you just after the UK grand prix. We suggested then that the front wing was not efficient enough. I was more inclined towards the front suspension, you were more focused on the front wing. Basically, the suspension has been updated. It remains to be seen what form the revised front wing will take and whose idea among the rivals it will be more like, whether it will be a modernisation of their own ideas or some kind of innovation.

Most importantly for me personally, the team understands the nature of the problems and is already solving them. And since Stella has already said so, it means that the team has some progress at the base and that means that in the next races we will see new parts that should give the very controllability that Lando asks for.

There are always improvements to be made and the floor may well also lose efficiency in yaw due to it's own design and not because of anything happening in front. It makes sense that they struggle to test the whole car for Yaw and not just the front. It's just that from what the team have said and from my observations as well as the two articles posted, it felt like a big part of it was front wing and the tyre wake management that was improved a little at Singapore.

Yeah I remember that conversation, by the time Austin arrived I was called out and basically called an idiot pulling ideas from thin air(not by you) for suggesting Aero and the wings were a factor at these corners due to the apex speeds. Which is why I feel happy that 9 months later it turns out I get it right sometimes.

I wonder when these next upgrades will come, this article makes it sound like in may be imminent.

I agree. Sometimes it's nice to be right. I like it when there is constructive dialogue on the forum, when guys form a collective mind. One can ask a very interesting question, the other is able to answer it. I don't know the proportional relationship, which has more influence on understeer in slow corners. But I noticed this weakness of the car a long time ago. And it still hasn't been solved. Will a front wing alone solve the problem? Anything is possible. If one part solves the problem, that's impressive. In that case, it's worth saying that the front wing has a significant impact. But without having the inside data, I have no idea. One thing I can say for sure is that the front tyres lack grip.

The lack of handling is also affected by the underbody. Depending on where the main centre of downforce is located on the underbody. It is clear that it is distributed over an area, but I am referring to the point relative to the longitudinal axis. If the front and rear suspension interacts well with the chassis and the centre of mass is at the same set point as the aerodynamic balance in slow corners, then such a chassis will not have understeer.

The McLaren chassis is generally very stable in medium-speed and fast corners, which may indicate that there's generally much more grip on the rear axle, which brings out the lack of handling. At Silverstone at Becketts corner this is clearly evident. There, the McLaren chassis has a slight lack of handling, while the Mercedes chassis lacked proper stability, requiring the rear axle to be loaded more heavily with an oversized wing.

[mwillems]

I agree. Sometimes it's nice to be right. I like it when there is constructive dialogue on the forum, when guys form a collective mind. One can ask a very interesting question, the other is able to answer it. I don't know the proportional relationship, which has more influence on understeer in slow corners. But I noticed this weakness of the car a long time ago. And it still hasn't been solved. Will a front wing alone solve the problem? Anything is possible. If one part solves the problem, that's impressive. In that case, it's worth saying that the front wing has a significant impact. But without having the inside data, I have no idea. One thing I can say for sure is that the front tyres lack grip.

The lack of handling is also affected by the underbody. Depending on where the main centre of downforce is located on the underbody. It is clear that it is distributed over an area, but I am referring to the point relative to the longitudinal axis. If the front and rear suspension interacts well with the chassis and the centre of mass is at the same set point as the aerodynamic balance in slow corners, then such a chassis will not have understeer.

The McLaren chassis is generally very stable in medium-speed and fast corners, which may indicate that there's generally much more grip on the rear axle, which brings out the lack of handling. At Silverstone at Becketts corner this is clearly evident. There, the McLaren chassis has a slight lack of handling, while the Mercedes chassis lacked proper stability, requiring the rear axle to be loaded more heavily with an oversized wing.

I agree, I totally think it is about strong and consistent aero from the floor, my feeling is just that we aren't able to feed the underbody and/or manage tyre wake properly at lower speeds, which may be interacting with weaker vortices sealing the floor at those speeds.

You're spot on about the merc wing last year, always one step bigger than ours. This year, we are running the bigger rear wing, but so far it is only one race

[LionsHeart]

I agree. Sometimes it's nice to be right. I like it when there is constructive dialogue on the forum, when guys form a collective mind. One can ask a very interesting question, the other is able to answer it. I don't know the proportional relationship, which has more influence on understeer in slow corners. But I noticed this weakness of the car a long time ago. And it still hasn't been solved. Will a front wing alone solve the problem? Anything is possible. If one part solves the problem, that's impressive. In that case, it's worth saying that the front wing has a significant impact. But without having the inside data, I have no idea. One thing I can say for sure is that the front tyres lack grip.

The lack of handling is also affected by the underbody. Depending on where the main centre of downforce is located on the underbody. It is clear that it is distributed over an area, but I am referring to the point relative to the longitudinal axis. If the front and rear suspension interacts well with the chassis and the centre of mass is at the same set point as the aerodynamic balance in slow corners, then such a chassis will not have understeer.

The McLaren chassis is generally very stable in medium-speed and fast corners, which may indicate that there's generally much more grip on the rear axle, which brings out the lack of handling. At Silverstone at Becketts corner this is clearly evident. There, the McLaren chassis has a slight lack of handling, while the Mercedes chassis lacked proper stability, requiring the rear axle to be loaded more heavily with an oversized wing.

I agree, I totally think it is about strong and consistent aero from the floor, my feeling is just that we aren't able to feed the underbody and/or manage tyre wake properly at lower speeds, which may be interacting with weaker vortices sealing the floor at those speeds.

You're spot on about the merc wing last year, always one step bigger than ours. This year, we are running the bigger rear wing, but so far it is only one race

Well McLaren chose last year's rear wing, but redesigned it to suit current trends. But in terms of overall size and aerodynamic loading, they're comparable. In that respect, you can tell why they had one of the lowest top speeds on the straights. On the other hand, in race mode without the DRS wing open, the top speed is comparable to its rivals, so even with a more loaded rear wing, the McLaren is not inferior in top speed. Another thing is that the efficiency of DRS is not yet up to the level of rivals. I hope that later and here we will see the potential for development.

There is speculation that the new front wing, which will allow more flow to be redirected under the floor, will improve DRS efficiency. Perhaps the beam wing should be of a certain geometry, so that in conjunction with the diffuser and rear wing work, to significantly reduce drag. I think there is some sort of range in pressure differential here that can be capitalised on. But to be honest, I couldn't even figure out this secret last year. The only thing I've known for years is to increase the top flap by area to increase the pressure differential.

Either the front wing should be of such geometry as to distribute the flows above the floor and below the floor in such a way as to combine in the diffuser end region to create some vortices that will reduce the efficiency of the beam wing. And these vortices should appear at the moment when the upper flap is lifted. So, at this moment the rear wing creates less pressure, then the balance of forces on the rear axis should go more to the diffuser and the beam wing and somewhere here there should come some peak pressure, which should be steadily torn off either from the beam wing or between the upper edge of the diffuser and the beam wing, thus reducing drag. Yeah, I may have written something stupid now.

[BMMR61]

I agree. Sometimes it's nice to be right. I like it when there is constructive dialogue on the forum, when guys form a collective mind. One can ask a very interesting question, the other is able to answer it. I don't know the proportional relationship, which has more influence on understeer in slow corners. But I noticed this weakness of the car a long time ago. And it still hasn't been solved. Will a front wing alone solve the problem? Anything is possible. If one part solves the problem, that's impressive. In that case, it's worth saying that the front wing has a significant impact. But without having the inside data, I have no idea. One thing I can say for sure is that the front tyres lack grip.

The lack of handling is also affected by the underbody. Depending on where the main centre of downforce is located on the underbody. It is clear that it is distributed over an area, but I am referring to the point relative to the longitudinal axis. If the front and rear suspension interacts well with the chassis and the centre of mass is at the same set point as the aerodynamic balance in slow corners, then such a chassis will not have understeer.

The McLaren chassis is generally very stable in medium-speed and fast corners, which may indicate that there's generally much more grip on the rear axle, which brings out the lack of handling. At Silverstone at Becketts corner this is clearly evident. There, the McLaren chassis has a slight lack of handling, while the Mercedes chassis lacked proper stability, requiring the rear axle to be loaded more heavily with an oversized wing.

I agree, I totally think it is about strong and consistent aero from the floor, my feeling is just that we aren't able to feed the underbody and/or manage tyre wake properly at lower speeds, which may be interacting with weaker vortices sealing the floor at those speeds.

You're spot on about the merc wing last year, always one step bigger than ours. This year, we are running the bigger rear wing, but so far it is only one race

In an earlier post I suggested that the now reported use of the old tunnel to assist the design of the MCL38 may be hampering the aero as appeared at Bahrain. The narrowness of the old tunnel is speculated to compromise the testing for yaw, which can heavily impact slow corner performance. I would have thought the new tunnel would be fully at play, maybe the package of updates planned will all benefit from this improved facility. In addition to the size of the wind tunnel structure it is reasonable to assume that as this is the most modern of all F1 tunnels, there will be other measurement tools now available to McLaren which are uniquely beneficial to McLaren.

Three days till Saudi qualifying - we can be optimistic of a stronger showing at this track which suits the general McLaren characteristics.

[LionsHeart]

I agree. Sometimes it's nice to be right. I like it when there is constructive dialogue on the forum, when guys form a collective mind. One can ask a very interesting question, the other is able to answer it. I don't know the proportional relationship, which has more influence on understeer in slow corners. But I noticed this weakness of the car a long time ago. And it still hasn't been solved. Will a front wing alone solve the problem? Anything is possible. If one part solves the problem, that's impressive. In that case, it's worth saying that the front wing has a significant impact. But without having the inside data, I have no idea. One thing I can say for sure is that the front tyres lack grip.

The lack of handling is also affected by the underbody. Depending on where the main centre of downforce is located on the underbody. It is clear that it is distributed over an area, but I am referring to the point relative to the longitudinal axis. If the front and rear suspension interacts well with the chassis and the centre of mass is at the same set point as the aerodynamic balance in slow corners, then such a chassis will not have understeer.

The McLaren chassis is generally very stable in medium-speed and fast corners, which may indicate that there's generally much more grip on the rear axle, which brings out the lack of handling. At Silverstone at Becketts corner this is clearly evident. There, the McLaren chassis has a slight lack of handling, while the Mercedes chassis lacked proper stability, requiring the rear axle to be loaded more heavily with an oversized wing.

I agree, I totally think it is about strong and consistent aero from the floor, my feeling is just that we aren't able to feed the underbody and/or manage tyre wake properly at lower speeds, which may be interacting with weaker vortices sealing the floor at those speeds.

You're spot on about the merc wing last year, always one step bigger than ours. This year, we are running the bigger rear wing, but so far it is only one race

In an earlier post I suggested that the now reported use of the old tunnel to assist the design of the MCL38 may be hampering the aero as appeared at Bahrain. The narrowness of the old tunnel is speculated to compromise the testing for yaw, which can heavily impact slow corner performance. I would have thought the new tunnel would be fully at play, maybe the package of updates planned will all benefit from this improved facility. In addition to the size of the wind tunnel structure it is reasonable to assume that as this is the most modern of all F1 tunnels, there will be other measurement tools now available to McLaren which are uniquely beneficial to McLaren.

Three days till Saudi qualifying - we can be optimistic of a stronger showing at this track which suits the general McLaren characteristics.

Yeah, well, that's the way it is. Waiting for the first major update for the Japan grand prix. But maybe there will be small updates already in the next two races. Who knows.

[Seanspeed]

What's interesting is that Stella said after Bahrain that the low speed weakness is actually aero related and that the team's main priority at the moment is to make the aero platform work better at low speeds.

Its baffling to me how aero can have such a huge effect on performance when the car is going slower than 100 kmh

Edit :

Source for the info -> https://www.planetf1.com/news/mclaren-n ... de-package

I wont pretend to know the full reasoning, but this is nothing new.

One of the biggest advantages of Red Bull back in 2009-2013(at least post-double diffuser) was its downforce in slower sections.

I know seeing an F1 car driving at just 100kph feels like a crawl, but that's still highway cruising speed, and that should make it pretty obvious that it's still a pretty significant speed for a car to be going and thus aerodynamics will still matter. And as much as we rave about high speed cornering, lower speed corners still often provide the biggest opportunity to lose time, so being good here is a nice cushion for a driver to have extra drivability in the more tricky parts of a track. It can also impact rear tire wear as well since better drivability at lower speeds grants smoother and more controllable throttle response.

[mwillems]

I agree. Sometimes it's nice to be right. I like it when there is constructive dialogue on the forum, when guys form a collective mind. One can ask a very interesting question, the other is able to answer it. I don't know the proportional relationship, which has more influence on understeer in slow corners. But I noticed this weakness of the car a long time ago. And it still hasn't been solved. Will a front wing alone solve the problem? Anything is possible. If one part solves the problem, that's impressive. In that case, it's worth saying that the front wing has a significant impact. But without having the inside data, I have no idea. One thing I can say for sure is that the front tyres lack grip.

The lack of handling is also affected by the underbody. Depending on where the main centre of downforce is located on the underbody. It is clear that it is distributed over an area, but I am referring to the point relative to the longitudinal axis. If the front and rear suspension interacts well with the chassis and the centre of mass is at the same set point as the aerodynamic balance in slow corners, then such a chassis will not have understeer.

The McLaren chassis is generally very stable in medium-speed and fast corners, which may indicate that there's generally much more grip on the rear axle, which brings out the lack of handling. At Silverstone at Becketts corner this is clearly evident. There, the McLaren chassis has a slight lack of handling, while the Mercedes chassis lacked proper stability, requiring the rear axle to be loaded more heavily with an oversized wing.

I agree, I totally think it is about strong and consistent aero from the floor, my feeling is just that we aren't able to feed the underbody and/or manage tyre wake properly at lower speeds, which may be interacting with weaker vortices sealing the floor at those speeds.

You're spot on about the merc wing last year, always one step bigger than ours. This year, we are running the bigger rear wing, but so far it is only one race

In an earlier post I suggested that the now reported use of the old tunnel to assist the design of the MCL38 may be hampering the aero as appeared at Bahrain. The narrowness of the old tunnel is speculated to compromise the testing for yaw, which can heavily impact slow corner performance. I would have thought the new tunnel would be fully at play, maybe the package of updates planned will all benefit from this improved facility. In addition to the size of the wind tunnel structure it is reasonable to assume that as this is the most modern of all F1 tunnels, there will be other measurement tools now available to McLaren which are uniquely beneficial to McLaren.

Three days till Saudi qualifying - we can be optimistic of a stronger showing at this track which suits the general McLaren characteristics.

You did suggest that and I think you are right. This is clearly a new chassis with some modified Aero, but not MCL38 Aero.

Though I don't think they are hampered. I think there was a choice made to separate work from the old and new tunnel and to release a car with last year's Aero on it. Hopefully giving them the chance to bring a lot of development and learning from the test and initial races, from ours and others cars, to the Mclaren.

[BMMR61]

I agree, I totally think it is about strong and consistent aero from the floor, my feeling is just that we aren't able to feed the underbody and/or manage tyre wake properly at lower speeds, which may be interacting with weaker vortices sealing the floor at those speeds.

You're spot on about the merc wing last year, always one step bigger than ours. This year, we are running the bigger rear wing, but so far it is only one race

In an earlier post I suggested that the now reported use of the old tunnel to assist the design of the MCL38 may be hampering the aero as appeared at Bahrain. The narrowness of the old tunnel is speculated to compromise the testing for yaw, which can heavily impact slow corner performance. I would have thought the new tunnel would be fully at play, maybe the package of updates planned will all benefit from this improved facility. In addition to the size of the wind tunnel structure it is reasonable to assume that as this is the most modern of all F1 tunnels, there will be other measurement tools now available to McLaren which are uniquely beneficial to McLaren.

Three days till Saudi qualifying - we can be optimistic of a stronger showing at this track which suits the general McLaren characteristics.

You did suggest that and I think you are right. This is clearly a new chassis with some modified Aero, but not MCL38 Aero.

Though I don't think they are hampered. I think there was a choice made to separate work from the old and new tunnel and to release a car with last year's Aero on it. Hopefully giving them the chance to bring a lot of development and learning from the test and initial races, from ours and others cars, to the Mclaren.

Not hampered, developments put onto future agenda. Yep, I can go with that!
It runs in sync with the methodical approach of Stella, introduce something when you're confident you already have the building blocks to make a fair validation of what you're bringing to the car. I like it, there haven't been a lot of missteps since the Bahrain 2023 debacle. We saw the team caught short on low downforce rear wings at Spa, thanks to the intense work put into the Austria - Silverstone updates consuming team resources. Actually we may be seeing something a little similar at Bahrain over two weekends. Stella intimated they ran out of time (resources) to introduce some of the projects, especially aero as you have pointed out, into the MCL38 in time for the start of the season.

[Dafnalina]

seems like we have the more loaded wing

[SilviuAgo]