McLaren MCL39

[Hoffman900]

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.

Well put.

[ringo]

One thing i was also looking at, and this is no anti-dive, is the use of the combination of the upper control arms as a low ride height controller if you will.
Let's ignore antidive for a moment and just look at squat, purely up and down motion of the platform.
The wider the angle between upper and lower arm, the more that lower arm will behave like a drag link but just in a vertical plane. The lower arm will limit greater portion of vertical motion of the wheel, with its very sloped orientation.
As the car comes close to the ground, the wheel moves upward, the upper arm will eventually act as a bump stop as the lower arm reaches it's full range of motion. It will now act in tension and share that resistive load with the springs. The team can play around with the stiffness/compliance of that rear arm to give fine ground control at very low ride heights.
In contrast, for clarity, the flatter the control arm it does not contribute as the bump stop to the wheel motion, leaving that fully up to springs and rubbers etc in the chassis.

[Farnborough]

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.

Yes I can see that scenario too. In elaboration of my (bell crank) comment, I'd visualised more having a rack with centre point takeoff (much as used in many road car arrangement, well principle of at least) with "dogbone" short links out to bell crank mounted at either end of the whole assembly. In effect a "blind" ended rack with centre point output.

Certainly could produce raised load in those components, but obviously they've approached it with something in that way of solution.

Currently I'm working on a failed bell crank component from within a rising rate rear suspension link in restoring a French downhill cycle race frame. Originally of aluminium alloy and likely a forging, containing three bronze bushes to operate, but with clear and obvious creeping into ovality around each bush, very close to failure. So far modelled in software, 3D printed output to check increased radii to help with load mitigation, proposal to machine in steel for ultimate long-term lifing as everything says its marginal in original which is no longer available. Probably same area of load range and component sizing to this steering topic.

[Hoffman900]

One thing i was also looking at, and this is no anti-dive, is the use of the combination of the upper control arms as a low ride height controller if you will.
Let's ignore antidive for a moment and just look at squat, purely up and down motion of the platform.
The wider the angle between upper and lower arm, the more that lower arm will behave like a drag link but just in a vertical plane. The lower arm will limit greater portion of vertical motion of the wheel, with its very sloped orientation.
As the car comes close to the ground, the wheel moves upward, the upper arm will eventually act as a bump stop as the lower arm reaches it's full range of motion. It will now act in tension and share that resistive load with the springs. The team can play around with the stiffness/compliance of that rear arm to give fine ground control at very low ride heights.
In contrast, for clarity, the flatter the control arm it does not contribute as the bump stop to the wheel motion, leaving that fully up to springs and rubbers etc in the chassis.

One must also imagine the airflow changes from the arms deflecting as well.

[_cerber1]

[f1rules]

The interesting bit, and i know theyll maybe trial two version of rw's, but that they continue with this low df rearwing

[_cerber1]

[Farnborough]

Just as interesting the lower wishbone appears stacked .. one above the other ... at wheel /upright end location. That with the steering control arm passing between the two, in altitude, AND appears to cross over the wheel centre line (leaving chassis behind the wheel spindle location, passing the wheel's centre, to arrive at upright forward of spindle location) also seems to be completely "planar" with it's lower rear wishbone orientation.

[Vanja #66]

Just like Red Bull and Mercedes, McLaren also introduced all-new medium-low spec Rear Wing for this weekend. This spec slots perfectly between Spa/Baku 2024 and Brasil 2024 wings

It is in every way a combo of those two wings also, with the main V shape and a very flat and thin section towards the endplate. These features ensure a very efficient design in regular state, but the DRS flap seems slightly undersized and suggests a lower delta vs Red Bull may happen

[michl420]

I think mercedes got rid of this exhaust that goes over the engine/gearbox mounting point which has been bothering me since 2022 and this is the reason why mclaren can make the rear different this year.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gl5lIj7WEAA ... ame=medium

[Vanja #66]

By Auto Racer IT

[CjC]

Does the sidepod inlet actually go into the side of the monocoque then?

[f1rules]

yeah, judging the green shape, there actually is, as some mentioned during testing a small spoon shape i that area, and it was not reflections as claimed by some

Does the sidepod inlet actually go into the side of the monocoque then?

[lio007]

But that's not completely assembled yet, is it?
The outer cover is missing IMO, as you can see in this from last year

[Vanja #66]