organic wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024, 04:11
mwillems wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024, 00:13
It was Hollus and I did point out at the time it was the Monza wing, my brain skipped this.
mwillems wrote: ↑16 Sep 2024, 21:23
The wing at Baku was the Spa and Monza wing, so your observations seem to align correctly with and confine any real flex to this wing.
But it's worth noting that that wing is used on tracks with very high speed and long straights, which will also be part of the reason for flex.
The rigidity/thickness of the different wings may not be that different but the forces they expect to receive are. Seems like quite a cute design.
Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise, I can see the only real change being the Baku wing, which isn't the answer to Mclarens relative drop in pace recently, which has only been at Brazil and Vegas. One was soaking wet where we otherwise dominated and the other extreme cold in comparison to the rest of the season
The team demonstrates they could fix the issue through setup, yet still the willingness dive onto flexi wings as the source of the issue. And this was inevitable if we had any kind of poor performance here.
The DRS flap edge lift wasn't the only thing against the rules about the Baku wing. It seems Hollus only checked for that, but McLaren's entire RW structure was rotating backwards more than any of the other top teams and they had to dial that back too. I don't have access to the footage to go back through and find rearwards angles, but if someone wishes to that would be brilliant.
So I would also conclude the DRS flap trick was confined to the Baku/spa wing, but we can't say using the same evidence that it is definitively only flexing with that wing. McLaren themselves said they made changes to every rear wing, so there was some characteristic beyond the visible drs slot gap widening such that FIA asked them to change. Otherwise, why would they be making changes to every rear wing in their range - it doesn't follow .
McLaren's rear at Baku flexed backwards as much as red bull's 2021 Barcelona flexi-wing which was estimated to be worth at least 2 tenths (I believe Merc themselves claimed 4 tenths but come on). And the straights at Baku are considerably longer than Barcelona. So I don't think this aspect of the rear wings should be dismissed
https://i.imgur.com/WaDvqpi.jpeg
mwillems wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024, 01:38
organic wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024, 01:18
The issues McLaren and Ferrari suffered with were related to not having enough load, and the team said themselves at Vegas they were between two wings already - the low and very low load. With the flexible spa/Monza/Baku wing they would've been efficient enough with sufficient load to energise the tyres, enabling a whole different setup window. But without the flexible aspect it pushed them towards lower loads and they suffered with graining horribly
Quite a few weekends in a row where McLaren don't nail their setup lining up well with the loss of their Flexi wings..
They dominated Brazil until they messed up the race, looked great in the US and had pole, screwed it on the first lap, again, qualified 3rd and finished second in Mexico.
I can't see a pace issue, i see two races where driver and team screwed themselves yet again and one good finish.
Vegas has, as far as I can see, been the only race since the melodrama where we've not been on it. But even then, it was demonstrated we can match the pace with the wings we had.
Between Miami and Singapore (inclusive) I can't see a race where the car didn't have the capacity to win the race. In: COTA they were nowhere compared to ferrari; Mexico, Charles had issues and without those his usual performance over Sainz is likely to have resulted in a Ferrari 1-2; Vegas they were 4th fastest for the first time since before Miami
Big part of that could be Ferrari resurgence but it's timing-wise suspect that McLaren start having setup issues resulting in them not fighting for the win shortly after a big setup tool (flexible rear wings) is taken away
I suppose there are a few issues with this argument about flexi wings that I'd need to see some evidence of, because by and large it is based on a loose assumption
Did every wing flex the same and what has been the relative difference in flex since?
From what I can see from everyone's posts and the analysis that has been posted here and elsewhere, the other wings didn't flex excessively and were in line with flex on other competitors car. Mclaren looked quite canny and saved it for when it counted and only the medium wing Spa/Monza/Baku wing flexed. I have not yet seen any posting that has shown a demonstrable difference in flex on any of the wings since the changes, and this in itself is telling for me. but to be able to agree that yes, flex really is a bigger issue to Mclaren than I believe, I think those proposing that idea need to back this up. The rearward onboards are all available, so this shouldn't be an issue. I won't do it, because it's for those proposing flex was a wider benefit across wings to demonstrate that. It's what this place is all about. That's an open challenge, and I'm extremely confident the answer will not back up the theory that Flexi Wing is a big loss across all wings.
When the team say all wings were changed, what were the changes?
Mclaren adapted all wings, but that doesn't mean all had the same adaptations, and it doesn't mean that each wing gained the same % of lap time even if they did have more than minor changes. Apparently, all top teams had to change their wings due to rules around the slot gaps. Did Mclaren do this also or did they strengthen wings? Can anyone demonstrate the changes or this this pure supposition? If there was additional flex in these other wings, it was much less visible, there wasn't a slot gap opening and the wings didn't appear to flex more than competitors, so how is it demonstrated that these other wings gained lap time which has allegedly been subsequently lost? What were the changes that other teams made to their wings and what affect did this have? Happily see some evidence of the differences
Mclaren were capable of winning every race since Miami till Singapore and have dropped since
I can't agree with this statement. We had no chance at Monaco, but even after Singapore we had every chance of winning at COTA and Brazil. At Austin, we screwed ourselves with the first lap, amongst other things. But the first lap was the killer, if we'd have taken the lead and pushed on then yes, I think we would have been there or thereabouts at the end. If we hadn't, it would be because Ferrari have taken a leap over
all of the other top 4 as we were still faster than Mercedes and Red Bull. At Brazil, of course, we dominated the weekend up until the race, when we screwed our own strategy and had braking issues and a gulf in class between our drivers and Max.
Mexico is an interesting one, because of the altitude. The wing we took to Mexico showed no previous signs of flex and in that altitude with the thin air, would it have even flexed much? Would love to see some shots of that wing from earlier in the season to compare, if you can prove me wrong, I'm all for it.
Vegas is another outlier where the team demonstrated they could be on the pace without the flexi wing, and spoke about the settings and driving style that allowed them to top the graining on the tyre which was likely to do with how much the tyre was sliding and struggling when trail braking. The team said the changes induced some oversteer that helped the car turn in. You can't ignore the fact that the pace was found in the cars non Baku configuration. Would Baku wing have help? yeah, it might well have done, but in Qualifying it would have done little to help us start further ahead because DRS would remove a fair portion of the benefit of the wing and because most of the corners are such low speed that the benefits of a bigger rear or front wing are reduced. You'll also notice in the telemetry from Q that we were faster on the straights than Verstappen and Co, so we could have afforded to run a bigger front and rear wing and yet the team didn't. That may well be a mistake, none the less, if it is, it is a setup mistake.
Mclaren would have run the Baku wing at Vegas
Mclaren didn't build the ultra low wing for fun, they thought it would be used and the more likely place of use was Vegas, this was before the modifications. It was spoken about in team stream as being for Vegas at around the same time.
All in all, there's just way too much guesswork for this. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but whomever cares enough needs to take the time to do the analysis to demonstrate the scale of flexi wing changes. The fact that no one on this site or as far as I can see on the wider internet has been able to demonstrate how much change in flex of the wings used since the modifications is for me a strong sign that it is because evidence can't be found that there was much. Even then this needs to e compared to changes on other teams wings. But I will happily take a different point of view if anyone can be bothered to do some proper analysis and not just put it all down to guess work/coincidence/playing favourites depending on who is making the statement.
