McLaren MCL35М Speculation Thread

[FittingMechanics]

Also, aren't tighter sidepods technically allowed too if you justify it as an aero upgrade?

Hence my question. Does the token system restrict such a change? Would be a shame to waste free space like that.

I'm guessing it would not be allowed (for free). Reducing the side of your sidepods does not make sense as a "cooling requirement". Other way around would probably be allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if McLaren had larger sidepods than needed due to limitations of a token system.

One thing that is not clear is whether they can use the tokens to make that sidepod change. It would make sense. But because of that they cannot make a huge change on the nose or wings of the car.

[RedNEO]

Also, aren't tighter sidepods technically allowed too if you justify it as an aero upgrade?

Hence my question. Does the token system restrict such a change? Would be a shame to waste free space like that.

I'm guessing it would not be allowed (for free). Reducing the side of your sidepods does not make sense as a "cooling requirement". Other way around would probably be allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if McLaren had larger sidepods than needed due to limitations of a token system.

One thing that is not clear is whether they can use the tokens to make that sidepod change. It would make sense. But because of that they cannot make a huge change on the nose or wings of the car.

Seems sidepod shape is token free because it counts as Aero.

[mwillems]

Also, aren't tighter sidepods technically allowed too if you justify it as an aero upgrade?

Hence my question. Does the token system restrict such a change? Would be a shame to waste free space like that.

I'm guessing it would not be allowed (for free). Reducing the side of your sidepods does not make sense as a "cooling requirement". Other way around would probably be allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if McLaren had larger sidepods than needed due to limitations of a token system.

One thing that is not clear is whether they can use the tokens to make that sidepod change. It would make sense. But because of that they cannot make a huge change on the nose or wings of the car.

Yes I have a feeling that part of their agreement is to behave as a little as if they had the bulk of the old cooling system in there, but I wonder if they were able to demonstrate that they could have made the packaging a little tighter without tokens with the Renault engine, and so got themselves some leeway to tighten the packaging a little.

I'd imagine they had several of those conversations with various bits.

I say this simply because Mclaren have outright said that they cannot take advantage of the tighter Merc packaging to a large degree, that they are restricted in how much they can take advantage this year.

[the EDGE]

According to the regulations on cooling systems only the coolers themselves are homologated, and even then Minor sizing differences due to PU heat rejection compatibility are allowed

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6-19_1.pdf (Page 101)

So I guess there is scope to reduce the size, and move position/relocate coolers within the rules, especially since McLaren don’t have to use the token system to make changes, they just have to convince the FIA it is necessary

[godlameroso]

According to the regulations on cooling systems only the coolers themselves are homologated, and even then Minor sizing differences due to PU heat rejection compatibility are allowed

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6-19_1.pdf (Page 101)

So I guess there is scope to reduce the size, and move position/relocate coolers within the rules, especially since McLaren don’t have to use the token system to make changes, they just have to convince the FIA it is necessary

Then the layout is in their favor because if the compressor is in the front, it automatically means you have to reposition the charge cooler, turbo oil cooler, and lines, and MGU-H cooler.

If they are overcooled they can also make the cooler inlets smaller as well. Shrink wrap the body work for tighter duct work.

[DarkAlman]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

[SmallSoldier]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

That would be huge if true... Those swings in performance due to environmental factors were one of the biggest weaknesses / challenges of the previous iterations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

According to the regulations on cooling systems only the coolers themselves are homologated, and even then Minor sizing differences due to PU heat rejection compatibility are allowed

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6-19_1.pdf (Page 101)

So I guess there is scope to reduce the size, and move position/relocate coolers within the rules, especially since McLaren don’t have to use the token system to make changes, they just have to convince the FIA it is necessary

According to the interview with Piers Thynne there are definitely changes to the cooling systems in the MCL35M, it seems that those changes were part of the integration of the new PU and therefore allowed in within the tokens Mclaren used for that purpose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Big Tea]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

That would be huge if true... Those swings in performance due to environmental factors were one of the biggest weaknesses / challenges of the previous iterations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Would it not be more than just environmental factors? Airflow from being behind or passing a car could be just as disruptive I assume?

Being passed by a lapping car that takes its own line makes it a sitting duck, as does running into the breaking zone on a fast bend looking for an overtake

[SmallSoldier]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

That would be huge if true... Those swings in performance due to environmental factors were one of the biggest weaknesses / challenges of the previous iterations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Would it not be more than just environmental factors? Airflow from being behind or passing a car could be just as disruptive I assume?

Being passed by a lapping car that takes its own line makes it a sitting duck, as does running into the breaking zone on a fast bend looking for an overtake

There were constant comments from the team in regards to changes in performance due to wind direction changes... Even though airflow from being behind or passing a car would be disruptive, it would be somewhat constant through the season and something that all cars experience.

All F1 cars should suffer due to changes in wind direction, the problem was that the previous MCL’s suffered more than most.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[_cerber1]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

I guess this is based on that. But the article completely copies an interview with James Key, which he gave a few days ago. There is no word in it that they solved this problem.

[f1rules]

just the title "...the wind problem" lol i quess all teams have a problem with the wind

[trinidefender]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

Reports from who?

The only thing I saw were that wind sensitivity is an area that they were focusing on as well as low speed performance. Not that they had necessarily solved or made a breakthrough with wind sensitivity.

[the EDGE]

Reports this morning that they've corrected a problem were the car was sensitive to changes in wind direction, but no answers as to what they did.

Will have to make a point to look at the front wing + barge boards for changes upon the reveal.

Reports from who?

The only thing I saw were that wind sensitivity is an area that they were focusing on as well as low speed performance. Not that they had necessarily solved or made a breakthrough with wind sensitivity.

To me the interview implied they had identified the issue & solved it, but how can they save we HAVE solved it when the car hasn’t ever been run

[FittingMechanics]

Wind sensitivity to me sounds that McLaren was more on the edge of their performance envelope. Certain airflows were borderline and separated whenever the wind wasn't ideal. Hopefully they figured it out and they have more "room to grow" performance wise.