McLaren MCL39

[the EDGE]

I'm not disagreeing that that structure has been designed for the purposes of airflow very strongly in mind, this was fairly clear from the start. This has been the case for several years. But they'd always done it in a way that the suspension can still do it's job, they can't sacrifice this. I noted the conversations earlier in this thread that seemed to ridicule people who suggested this was also increasing anti dive, whilst stating confidently that actually it was reducing it to allow the driver to feel the road more. This condescension now extends to Red Bulls technical director who is probably a little more knowledgeable than they.

Regarding Wache's knowledge of anti dive, I couldn't speak for. But I'd wager he's a better idea than those not working in the paddock, and probably better than many that are in the paddock. So if he makes the point of saying he's noted that the anti dive of this solution is very high this year, I'm not inclined to think he'd be saying it for any other reason than he thinks it true and that he's more than qualified for such an assessment.

As for the behaviour of the anti dive, is it possible that there is more at play than just the obvious geometry but also the dampers and perhaps other trickery that might allow the anti dive to be strong at the right time and softer at others. Or perhaps the car just works well with strong anti dive. I don't know, other people are better qualified to have another stab at it than me.

It is a good point that Wache should be in a good place to make an educated assumption. Guess we shall have to have faith Marshal know more than him

I believe there is more than just geometry going on too, they must have a way to control anti-dive somehow.

[mwillems]

To be fair, he looks to be taking a watching brief,curious to see if it works.

His surprise makes me think there's something else we have under the hood.

Time will tell who is right.

[Farnborough]

This geometry appears equally contested on here, but without definitive evidence.

I looked towards thinking its "anti" and contributed that on RB thread some time ago.

There was, on this thread earlier, a diagram with technical lines of forces, but looked way out in respect of the height of centre /mass to make interpretation in close relationship with these current F1 cars. Most of the mass is much, much lower. It would need (as Hoffman notes) significantly more qualified information in where the mass etc is located to give us better view.

This related geometry site https://en.motospot-oldnews.com/single- ... le-project is something I've thought about in giving my view about anti dive front suspension. Ultimately from a car designer with his career details given, one of this "line" of development aims was to at least be neutral or anti dive under braking. This in comparison to telescopic forks, notable for virtually uncontained dive while braking.

The example of bike #4 with left hand side naked image, shows the most successful, I believe. This with characteristic lower arm dropping from spindle height to be directed below apparent centre of mass etc as it comes back to locateon the chassis, much like the rear legs we are discussingon this McL chassis.

Whether brake torque action should be taken into account on both this and those arms in F1 I'm not sure. If Wachè is of that opinion though, what's actually in that which is being missed via discussion on here ?

[Hoffman900]

For me, it’s not that it doesn’t have anti-dive, it does, as does just about every racing car for about 60 years (I have drawings from Lee Dykstra going back about that far where he showed how to add some to a production car going saloon racing).

For me, it’s more as in what constitues “a lot”? Are we talking 20% to 60%? Or in a world where we can measure the entire suspension travel in single digit millimeters, is it like going from 40% to 50%?

So saying “oh it has a lot of anti-dive” isn’t an accurate statement. It might be, or it might not be. For accuracy sake, and for the young people in university reading this, I recommend to not use adjectives like “a lot” if you can’t quantify it. It’s just good practice (which media people don’t abide to).

Additionally, people talking like it’s this magic bullet is silly. It only works in the context of the whole package, and it’s something that’s been considered in design going back as far as current uni grad’s great grandparents. It’s not a new idea, at all.

[mwillems]

The statements being questioned originally were just that there was more anti dive, to which a long discussion ensued.

The idea of "a lot" and "too much" were introduced later and were theoretical with no actual knowledge of how close the cars were to this bouncing phenomenon or wether the team had found a way to deal with it. It just led to the conclusion that there were substantial aero changes in the geometry, which everyone agreed with in the first place.

[Waz]

In a formula with such small lap time difference in cars, a suspension that's able to reduce dive more than others are capable of without compromising road feel would surely be a silver bullet?

Able to maintain the floor height stable for longer or keeping entry closer to ideal under braking must be a good advantage.

[venkyhere]

The anti-dive discussion by us 'outsiders' will simply go in circles because we have no idea of where exactly the CoG of the car is. We only have a rough estimate. And we know by experience, that with such a long wheelbase, any small error in 'fixing' the CoG in a an anti-dive-determining-diagram, is bound to translate into a large error in the final conclusion as to 'how much anti-dive' is present, whether it's 0% or 50% or 100% or some other number in between.

[mwillems]

It's fine to discuss it i think, it's a technical site. Even if not wholly accurate, you can learn from the general principles and conceptualise. There just needs to be a recognition of limits of knowledge and lack of any data or facts that could support ones argument.

[Hoffman900]

In a formula with such small lap time difference in cars, a suspension that's able to reduce dive more than others are capable of without compromising road feel would surely be a silver bullet?

Able to maintain the floor height stable for longer or keeping entry closer to ideal under braking must be a good advantage.

It’s not because everyone knows about it and has for generations.

As I said the Lotus 72 in 1970 tried 100% anti-dive for this very reason, and they had to dial it back. Too much causes suspension jacking issues, make the suspension numb / not compliant, and changing the anti dive changes how energy is applied to the tires (the forces have to go somewhere and presumably the suspension arms are stiffer than the sidewall).

It’s such a fundemental suspension concept and has been a consideration for racing car designers, formula and saloon, for over half a century now.

There are no silver bullets in F1. You have teams of hundreds of engineers, and everything exists to compliment each other. Changing one thing causes a cascade of issues that also need changes, such is the level of refinement.

Every team out there can easily design a chassis with more anti-dive, the problem is what other problems does that cause? Are there aero related issues from where the arms are? Are there tire life issues? Is the car hard to drive? Maybe on certain tracks it doesn’t work as well depending on the braking zones, the type of corners, does it put too much energy into the tire and shows up on warm days? Etc. Even a compound / sidewall change might want something else. So are those problems worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

Fundementally, race car design is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul. How much to rob and how much to pay for a given design decision is “it just depends”.

I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but when talking about technical parts of a F1 car, let’s strive to be as accurate as we can. I’m also trying to help people out to understand that it’s a lot more complex than you think, but at the same time, the F1Twitter-sphere harping on this is just harping on a concept that is so fundemental, that they might as well be saying “Mclaren is fast because they have a shock absorber”.

[mwillems]

In a formula with such small lap time difference in cars, a suspension that's able to reduce dive more than others are capable of without compromising road feel would surely be a silver bullet?

Able to maintain the floor height stable for longer or keeping entry closer to ideal under braking must be a good advantage.

It’s not because everyone knows about it and has for generations.

As I said the Lotus 72 in 1970 tried 100% anti-dive for this very reason, and they had to dial it back. Too much causes suspension jacking issues, make the suspension numb / not compliant, and changing the anti dive changes how energy is applied to the tires (the forces have to go somewhere and presumably the suspension arms are stiffer than the sidewall).

It’s such a fundemental suspension concept and has been a consideration for racing car designers, formula and saloon, for over half a century now.

There are no silver bullets in F1. You have teams of hundreds of engineers, and everything exists to compliment each other. Changing one thing causes a cascade of issues that also need changes, such is the level of refinement.

Every team out there can easily design a chassis with more anti-dive, the problem is what other problems does that cause? Are there aero related issues from where the arms are? Are there tire life issues? Is the car hard to drive? Maybe on certain tracks it doesn’t work as well depending on the braking zones, the type of corners, does it put too much energy into the tire and shows up on warm days? Etc. Even a compound / sidewall change might want something else. So are those problems worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

Fundementally, race car design is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul. How much to rob and how much to pay for a given design decision is “it just depends”.

I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but when talking about technical parts of a F1 car, let’s strive to be as accurate as we can. I’m also trying to help people out to understand that it’s a lot more complex than you think, but at the same time, the F1Twitter-sphere harping on this is just harping on a concept that is so fundemental, that they might as well be saying “Mclaren is fast because they have a shock absorber”.

There definitely have been many silver bullets in F1. Double diffusers, blown exhaust etc

But I'm not sure what you are arguing about, he's suggesting that if you can get the car to remain a certain distance from the tarmac more consistently without getting towards the jacking and having a good feel then isn't that a win? Even a tenth in this formula will make a big difference.

What was it that he said that was inaccurate? I don't mean to be rude, at all, but this really feels like you are arguing against points that only yourself has put up.

Perhaps I'm being dim, but the conversation was that it looks to have more anti dive characteristics. Then 3 people came along and argued otherwise on the basis that the concept of there being too much anti dive seemingly meant the Mclaren couldn't have more anti dive, and now it turns it, it likely does. Are you suggesting it doesn't have more Anti Dive or you don't believe it because it is too much?

How much antidive does Mclaren have on a scale of 0 to 100% that they could produce?

Wache never suggested that the amount of anti dive was the issue. He said that this year it is very high. He then noted that not only is it higher, but they used geometries to achieve this that are also providing better airflow, with a potential consequence being that it could impact the weight of these parts or there might be technical issues down the line due to the forces at play in the suspension.

Seemingly Mclaren thought more was better.

[ing.]

From that schematic, it would look like there'd be need of a "bell crank" arrangement at the steering rack end where is exits the chassis. Without which it could move the control arm just outwards rather than linear "push" to move the wheel assembly. In effect, it's of this arrangement at the wheel end by the geometry offered in that drawing, this by the detail it looks to have..

If the steering arm passed outside the wheel upright centre (effectively rewards of that on chassis layout) it would in effect use the upright as the outer bellcrank, that's according to the schematic presented.

Perhaps this is what the area is that Zac was alluding to in more radical approach.

I also believe there may be some mechanism to convert the linear movement of the steering rack end points to something more aligned with the angled steering tie rod instead of a conventional arrangement which would create some rather high side loads on the steering rack assembly. The latter is maybe what Wache was alluding to with regard to his comment about “high loads”.

As regards a bell crank arrangement, this would not work (without an additional linkage) due to the arc described by the crank vs. the linear motion of the rack. Any more additional linkages in the system would only result in potential play in what should be a very system.

One mechanism possible could be a sector gear arrangement and each end. So, like the steering input pinion mating with gear teeth on the rack, here the rack ends would be geared to mate with sector gears mounted on a vertical axis, with a lever arrangement opposite the gears.

[ing.]

There definitely have been many silver bullets in F1. Double diffusers, blown exhaust etc

But I'm not sure what you are arguing about, he's suggesting that if you can get the car to remain a certain distance from the tarmac more consistently without getting towards the jacking and having a good feel then isn't that a win? Even a tenth in this formula will make a big difference.

What was it that he said that was inaccurate? I don't mean to be rude, at all, but this really feels like you are arguing against points that only yourself has put up.

Perhaps I'm being dim, but the conversation was that it looks to have more anti dive characteristics. Then 3 people came along and argued otherwise on the basis that the concept of there being too much anti dive seemingly meant the Mclaren couldn't have more anti dive, and now it turns it, it likely does. Are you suggesting it doesn't have more Anti Dive or you don't believe it because it is too much?

How much antidive does Mclaren have on a scale of 0 to 100% that they could produce?

Wache never suggested that the amount of anti dive was the issue. He said that this year it is very high. He then noted that not only is it higher, but they used geometries to achieve this that are also providing better airflow, with a potential consequence being that it could impact the weight of these parts or there might be technical issues down the line due to the forces at play in the suspension.

Seemingly Mclaren thought more was better.

As has been discussed and demonstrated quite conclusively in the various threads, the arrangement of deeply angled upper and LOWER front wishbones started by RBR in 2022 was for predominantly aero benefit reasons and while this does provide some anti-dive effect, this is relatively small and definitely not even close to what can be achieved by angling the lower wishbones upward at the rear, for example.

In other words, the wishbone pick-ups were sited to benefit aero while (possibly) maintaining a typical (based on team standard practices) anti-dive effect, whatever that may be, considering CG location, etc.

In the case of MCL39 and Wache’s comments, the fact that the upper wishbones’ aft leg pick-up points were dropped as much as they were—and with, presumably, the lower WB angle remaining the same for lack of possibility to drop these further, i.e. they’re at the lower edges of the chassis—this will have in effect increased the anti-dive effect due to the increase in height of instant center point. It could be that, in Wache’s opinion, this increased amount of anti-dive is too much or beyond what he thinks is acceptable.

Also, because Wache mentioned ‘kinematics’ as a concern, this could be an allusion to the fact that with such an extreme angle to the pivot axis of the upper WB, the arc prescribed by the WB outer point (top of the upright) is akin to that of a ‘leading arm’ suspension link, causing the top of the upright to lean aft on compression and so increasing caster angle and kingpin inclination, and possibly steer angle. How much this is an issue will only be borne out by the car’s results.

[Farnborough]

In a formula with such small lap time difference in cars, a suspension that's able to reduce dive more than others are capable of without compromising road feel would surely be a silver bullet?

Able to maintain the floor height stable for longer or keeping entry closer to ideal under braking must be a good advantage.

It’s not because everyone knows about it and has for generations.

As I said the Lotus 72 in 1970 tried 100% anti-dive for this very reason, and they had to dial it back. Too much causes suspension jacking issues, make the suspension numb / not compliant, and changing the anti dive changes how energy is applied to the tires (the forces have to go somewhere and presumably the suspension arms are stiffer than the sidewall).

It’s such a fundemental suspension concept and has been a consideration for racing car designers, formula and saloon, for over half a century now.

There are no silver bullets in F1. You have teams of hundreds of engineers, and everything exists to compliment each other. Changing one thing causes a cascade of issues that also need changes, such is the level of refinement.

Every team out there can easily design a chassis with more anti-dive, the problem is what other problems does that cause? Are there aero related issues from where the arms are? Are there tire life issues? Is the car hard to drive? Maybe on certain tracks it doesn’t work as well depending on the braking zones, the type of corners, does it put too much energy into the tire and shows up on warm days? Etc. Even a compound / sidewall change might want something else. So are those problems worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

Fundementally, race car design is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul. How much to rob and how much to pay for a given design decision is “it just depends”.

I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but when talking about technical parts of a F1 car, let’s strive to be as accurate as we can. I’m also trying to help people out to understand that it’s a lot more complex than you think, but at the same time, the F1Twitter-sphere harping on this is just harping on a concept that is so fundemental, that they might as well be saying “Mclaren is fast because they have a shock absorber”.

There definitely have been many silver bullets in F1. Double diffusers, blown exhaust etc

But I'm not sure what you are arguing about, he's suggesting that if you can get the car to remain a certain distance from the tarmac more consistently without getting towards the jacking and having a good feel then isn't that a win? Even a tenth in this formula will make a big difference.

What was it that he said that was inaccurate? I don't mean to be rude, at all, but this really feels like you are arguing against points that only yourself has put up.

Perhaps I'm being dim, but the conversation was that it looks to have more anti dive characteristics. Then 3 people came along and argued otherwise on the basis that the concept of there being too much anti dive seemingly meant the Mclaren couldn't have more anti dive, and now it turns it, it likely does. Are you suggesting it doesn't have more Anti Dive or you don't believe it because it is too much?

How much antidive does Mclaren have on a scale of 0 to 100% that they could produce?

Wache never suggested that the amount of anti dive was the issue. He said that this year it is very high. He then noted that not only is it higher, but they used geometries to achieve this that are also providing better airflow, with a potential consequence being that it could impact the weight of these parts or there might be technical issues down the line due to the forces at play in the suspension.

Seemingly Mclaren thought more was better.

I felt that Hoffman contribution was valid, with background / foundation knowledge offered in support of this topic.

It is, after all, specifically the car thread and not team. As such, critical examination would seem to be very relevant, with those not able to contribute in depth certainly welcome to follow the views being projected.

This subject, along with steering geometry would appear particularly pertinent to this evolving McL39 iteration of car.

It also as others can contribute, offer informed views on the arrangement they've made in this design, which is starting to look far more radical in concept when compared to Ferrari change going from push to pull front arrangement.

Although very interesting that the view offered by an esteemed designer and competitor team in Wachè, certainly warrants what ever expertise that can be attracted to discuss it further within this thread.

[mwillems]

It’s not because everyone knows about it and has for generations.

As I said the Lotus 72 in 1970 tried 100% anti-dive for this very reason, and they had to dial it back. Too much causes suspension jacking issues, make the suspension numb / not compliant, and changing the anti dive changes how energy is applied to the tires (the forces have to go somewhere and presumably the suspension arms are stiffer than the sidewall).

It’s such a fundemental suspension concept and has been a consideration for racing car designers, formula and saloon, for over half a century now.

There are no silver bullets in F1. You have teams of hundreds of engineers, and everything exists to compliment each other. Changing one thing causes a cascade of issues that also need changes, such is the level of refinement.

Every team out there can easily design a chassis with more anti-dive, the problem is what other problems does that cause? Are there aero related issues from where the arms are? Are there tire life issues? Is the car hard to drive? Maybe on certain tracks it doesn’t work as well depending on the braking zones, the type of corners, does it put too much energy into the tire and shows up on warm days? Etc. Even a compound / sidewall change might want something else. So are those problems worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

Fundementally, race car design is a game of robbing Peter to pay Paul. How much to rob and how much to pay for a given design decision is “it just depends”.

I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but when talking about technical parts of a F1 car, let’s strive to be as accurate as we can. I’m also trying to help people out to understand that it’s a lot more complex than you think, but at the same time, the F1Twitter-sphere harping on this is just harping on a concept that is so fundemental, that they might as well be saying “Mclaren is fast because they have a shock absorber”.

There definitely have been many silver bullets in F1. Double diffusers, blown exhaust etc

But I'm not sure what you are arguing about, he's suggesting that if you can get the car to remain a certain distance from the tarmac more consistently without getting towards the jacking and having a good feel then isn't that a win? Even a tenth in this formula will make a big difference.

What was it that he said that was inaccurate? I don't mean to be rude, at all, but this really feels like you are arguing against points that only yourself has put up.

Perhaps I'm being dim, but the conversation was that it looks to have more anti dive characteristics. Then 3 people came along and argued otherwise on the basis that the concept of there being too much anti dive seemingly meant the Mclaren couldn't have more anti dive, and now it turns it, it likely does. Are you suggesting it doesn't have more Anti Dive or you don't believe it because it is too much?

How much antidive does Mclaren have on a scale of 0 to 100% that they could produce?

Wache never suggested that the amount of anti dive was the issue. He said that this year it is very high. He then noted that not only is it higher, but they used geometries to achieve this that are also providing better airflow, with a potential consequence being that it could impact the weight of these parts or there might be technical issues down the line due to the forces at play in the suspension.

Seemingly Mclaren thought more was better.

I felt that Hoffman contribution was valid, with background / foundation knowledge offered in support of this topic.

It is, after all, specifically the car thread and not team. As such, critical examination would seem to be very relevant, with those not able to contribute in depth certainly welcome to follow the views being projected.

This subject, along with steering geometry would appear particularly pertinent to this evolving McL39 iteration of car.

It also as others can contribute, offer informed views on the arrangement they've made in this design, which is starting to look far more radical in concept when compared to Ferrari change going from push to pull front arrangement.

Although very interesting that the view offered by an esteemed designer and competitor team in Wachè, certainly warrants what ever expertise that can be attracted to discuss it further within this thread.

I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying he appears to be arguing against a point no one pushed.

No one is arguing anti dive has been around or that there can be too much, or the effect it can have as already discussed. I'm not sure how restating this helps us understand anything about the Mclaren, it's just becoming a circular conversation.

[mwillems]

There definitely have been many silver bullets in F1. Double diffusers, blown exhaust etc

But I'm not sure what you are arguing about, he's suggesting that if you can get the car to remain a certain distance from the tarmac more consistently without getting towards the jacking and having a good feel then isn't that a win? Even a tenth in this formula will make a big difference.

What was it that he said that was inaccurate? I don't mean to be rude, at all, but this really feels like you are arguing against points that only yourself has put up.

Perhaps I'm being dim, but the conversation was that it looks to have more anti dive characteristics. Then 3 people came along and argued otherwise on the basis that the concept of there being too much anti dive seemingly meant the Mclaren couldn't have more anti dive, and now it turns it, it likely does. Are you suggesting it doesn't have more Anti Dive or you don't believe it because it is too much?

How much antidive does Mclaren have on a scale of 0 to 100% that they could produce?

Wache never suggested that the amount of anti dive was the issue. He said that this year it is very high. He then noted that not only is it higher, but they used geometries to achieve this that are also providing better airflow, with a potential consequence being that it could impact the weight of these parts or there might be technical issues down the line due to the forces at play in the suspension.

Seemingly Mclaren thought more was better.

As has been discussed and demonstrated quite conclusively in the various threads, the arrangement of deeply angled upper and LOWER front wishbones started by RBR in 2022 was for predominantly aero benefit reasons and while this does provide some anti-dive effect, this is relatively small and definitely not even close to what can be achieved by angling the lower wishbones upward at the rear, for example.

In other words, the wishbone pick-ups were sited to benefit aero while (possibly) maintaining a typical (based on team standard practices) anti-dive effect, whatever that may be, considering CG location, etc.

In the case of MCL39 and Wache’s comments, the fact that the upper wishbones’ aft leg pick-up points were dropped as much as they were—and with, presumably, the lower WB angle remaining the same for lack of possibility to drop these further, i.e. they’re at the lower edges of the chassis—this will have in effect increased the anti-dive effect due to the increase in height of instant center point. It could be that, in Wache’s opinion, this increased amount of anti-dive is too much or beyond what he thinks is acceptable.

Also, because Wache mentioned ‘kinematics’ as a concern, this could be an allusion to the fact that with such an extreme angle to the pivot axis of the upper WB, the arc prescribed by the WB outer point (top of the upright) is akin to that of a ‘leading arm’ suspension link, causing the top of the upright to lean aft on compression and so increasing caster angle and kingpin inclination, and possibly steer angle. How much this is an issue will only be borne out by the car’s results.

Agreed.