McLaren MCL35 Speculation Thread

[ME4ME]

@JRindt You are of course right. Godlameroso will surely know that very well too, and although his analogy is maybe a bit oversimplified I do think conceptually it is probably correct.

Personally I imagine putting the Merc in a windtunnel, at a given jaw-angle and with a set steering angle. Now turn the fan on and adjust flow to 83 m/s (300km/h), then continually reduce fan speed. As a non-aerodynamicist I'd imagine that at a certain low speed, flow would start to separate from certain surfaces. Vortices would start to collapse.
Now put the Mclaren in that same windtunnel and repeat the process, starting with a high air speed and continually reducing it. The Mclaren would likely run into separation and collapsing vortices issues earlier, i.e. at a higher speed.
So while both cars might perform well at high speed, it should certainly be possible that one car is significantly better at reduced speed aerodynamically.

Adding to this train of thought: Red Bull used to be supreme in slow speed corners. Certainly before the new front wing regulations of 2019. They had their concept figured out pretty well. Yet in 2019 they struggled with rear stability. They admitted to having issues with cross-winds specifically. Especially so in the early races, Australia and Bahrain. Putting the RB15 in that imaginary wind tunnel, it might've performed very similarly to the Mercedes. Yet when another factor (cross winds) was introduced the car suffered, and might've performed even worse than the Mclaren at low speeds.

In my mind this is where a lot of the top teams brilliance lies: creating aerodynamic structures & surfaces what aren't prone to collapse when affected by prime (flow) or outer parameters.

That said, JRindt certainly has a point too that at low speeds it's going to be a lot more about suspension as well. Certainly if you extent that term to include the tires, which James Allison recently said to have been Mercedes' main strength in 2019.

[godlameroso]

McLaren were very kind on their tires, Sainz regularly made one stoppers work due to the fact they could preserve the tires so well. Honestly if you want to know who has the best suspension, you look at point and squirt tracks, or sections of track, because that's all suspension. Riding kerbs, and getting traction on the end of chicanes, braking in bumpy parts of the track, and tire management are what I would define as good suspension, along with being able to control the aero platform to generate the desired loads at speed.

The rate at which rake is decreased, or if it decreases at all at speed also plays a big part. In the RB15's case, the car probably had really good low speed downforce due to the rake, but probably lost some as the rear end would squat under load. This transition was where the driver felt instability, and tuning that out probably took more than just the front wing.

Now McLaren will definitely take a step forward, and yes to an extent suspension will certainly help, but mostly from an aero perspective. As the chassis itself is probably already signed off.

The biggest change in my opinion will be the rear bodywork, and the cooling exits. That combined with what they learned this year, and a better Renault power unit, they can certainly take another step forward. Hopefully it's enough to better this year's single podium.

[ME4ME]

The rate at which rake is decreased, or if it decreases at all at speed also plays a big part. In the RB15's case, the car probably had really good low speed downforce due to the rake, but probably lost some as the rear end would squat under load. This transition was where the driver felt instability, and tuning that out probably took more than just the front wing.

Nah I don't think that is the case. Such transition wouldn't be abrupt enough to unsettle a top tier (F1) driver. We're talking a rear compression of possibly a centimeter, over a span of 300 km/h. Even at max compression and thus max reduced angle of attack there will still be major loading going on otherwise the rear would decompresse. Actually it doesn't make sense because a driver will "get his downforce back" as soon as he reduces speed through either lifting, braking or by rubbing off speed mid corner through steering angle. It would compensate the inherent loss of downforce through the loss of speed somewhat. But at no point should there be a weird drop of downforce and thus grip which would unsettle the driver.

EDIT: By the way Abu Dhabi showed some great rear compression/decompression in turn 4 or 5. The Mercedes especially lifted its rear a lot while reducing speed. Worth to watch if anyone hasn't seen that and is interested.

[mclaren111]

The rate at which rake is decreased, or if it decreases at all at speed also plays a big part. In the RB15's case, the car probably had really good low speed downforce due to the rake, but probably lost some as the rear end would squat under load. This transition was where the driver felt instability, and tuning that out probably took more than just the front wing.

Nah I don't think that is the case. Such transition wouldn't be abrupt enough to unsettle a top tier (F1) driver. We're talking a rear compression of possibly a centimeter, over a span of 300 km/h. Even at max compression and thus max reduced angle of attack there will still be major loading going on otherwise the rear would decompresse. Actually it doesn't make sense because a driver will "get his downforce back" as soon as he reduces speed through either lifting, braking or by rubbing off speed mid corner through steering angle. It would compensate the inherent loss of downforce through the loss of speed somewhat. But at no point should there be a weird drop of downforce and thus grip which would unsettle the driver.

EDIT: By the way Abu Dhabi showed some great rear compression/decompression in turn 4 or 5. The Mercedes especially lifted its rear a lot while reducing speed. Worth to watch if anyone hasn't seen that and is interested.

Can you post it ?? Thx

[godlameroso]

The rate at which rake is decreased, or if it decreases at all at speed also plays a big part. In the RB15's case, the car probably had really good low speed downforce due to the rake, but probably lost some as the rear end would squat under load. This transition was where the driver felt instability, and tuning that out probably took more than just the front wing.

Nah I don't think that is the case. Such transition wouldn't be abrupt enough to unsettle a top tier (F1) driver. We're talking a rear compression of possibly a centimeter, over a span of 300 km/h. Even at max compression and thus max reduced angle of attack there will still be major loading going on otherwise the rear would decompresse. Actually it doesn't make sense because a driver will "get his downforce back" as soon as he reduces speed through either lifting, braking or by rubbing off speed mid corner through steering angle. It would compensate the inherent loss of downforce through the loss of speed somewhat. But at no point should there be a weird drop of downforce and thus grip which would unsettle the driver.

EDIT: By the way Abu Dhabi showed some great rear compression/decompression in turn 4 or 5. The Mercedes especially lifted its rear a lot while reducing speed. Worth to watch if anyone hasn't seen that and is interested.

Yes Max did very well with the RB15 despite it's relative flaws. But this is the McLaren topic, and to be honest I think it's a bit disrespectful to bash(suspension pun intended) one of the best aspects on the McLaren car.

The truth of the matter is that McLaren's lack of results came from complacency and poor management. That ship appears to be heading in a much better direction. The fact that McLaren has turned things around shows the power inherent in the F1 team, the pieces are still top notch. The chassis itself is rather good, the downsides are obviously aero related. The aero problem is caused by a funding problem, which is needed to create more aero real estate.

I think a big gain is still possible for McLaren mostly because of the conservative packaging forced on them by Renault. Not directly because of Renault, but due to their inexperience with the power unit. Having switched from Mercedes, then to Honda, then to Renault all cost McLaren nearly a year of development each. They've essentially had to claw back 3 years of chassis development because of the lumps in the back.

Resources that could have been spent developing aero were instead spent on new transmissions, and cooling solutions, and tub modifications which cost hundreds of man hours. Now that next year's Renault engine will be better than ever, and McLaren having spent a good chunk of time again this year improving the design of the rear end, together with the talented but underutilized aero team finally getting to show their stuff, it should be better.

Other teams get hand me downs from their engine supplier, so they get transmissions, and rear ends and can design their tubs around that years in advance. McLaren hasn't had that luxury and still outperforms all the other teams when left to their own devices.

[godlameroso]

Now put the Mclaren in that same windtunnel and repeat the process, starting with a high air speed and continually reducing it. The Mclaren would likely run into separation and collapsing vortices issues earlier, i.e. at a higher speed.
So while both cars might perform well at high speed, it should certainly be possible that one car is significantly better at reduced speed aerodynamically.

Do you know how to fix this? How do you get a stalling wing to stall less? What is the dumbest easiest way you can think of? Make the wing bigger right? Well what do you do if there's an engine and radiators in the way of your wing? What if you can't make your wing bigger but you can make the engine and radiators take up less space? What if doing this costs tremendous amounts of money and effort?

McLaren makes their own transmission, their own tub, they get a lump from Renault and package their rear end around it and it's cooling requirements. That lump is directly in front of the upper surface of the diffuser. You can duct the air going through the car over the diffuser as well, while dealing with the airflow going to the rear wing. This costs more money and then costs more money again because it reduces cooling efficiency and you have to over engineer some other components to deal with that.

[SmallSoldier]

Now put the Mclaren in that same windtunnel and repeat the process, starting with a high air speed and continually reducing it. The Mclaren would likely run into separation and collapsing vortices issues earlier, i.e. at a higher speed.
So while both cars might perform well at high speed, it should certainly be possible that one car is significantly better at reduced speed aerodynamically.

Do you know how to fix this? How do you get a stalling wing to stall less? What is the dumbest easiest way you can think of? Make the wing bigger right? Well what do you do if there's an engine and radiators in the way of your wing? What if you can't make your wing bigger but you can make the engine and radiators take up less space? What if doing this costs tremendous amounts of money and effort?

McLaren makes their own transmission, their own tub, they get a lump from Renault and package their rear end around it and it's cooling requirements. That lump is directly in front of the upper surface of the diffuser. You can duct the air going through the car over the diffuser as well, while dealing with the airflow going to the rear wing. This costs more money and then costs more money again because it reduces cooling efficiency and you have to over engineer some other components to deal with that.

Even though you are right in regards to the rear end impact on the car’s performance... I don’t think Mclaren had an issue with an oversized rear end... It may not be the skinniest car out there, but it definitely wasn’t bulky compared to the rest of the field.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[godlameroso]

Now put the Mclaren in that same windtunnel and repeat the process, starting with a high air speed and continually reducing it. The Mclaren would likely run into separation and collapsing vortices issues earlier, i.e. at a higher speed.
So while both cars might perform well at high speed, it should certainly be possible that one car is significantly better at reduced speed aerodynamically.

Do you know how to fix this? How do you get a stalling wing to stall less? What is the dumbest easiest way you can think of? Make the wing bigger right? Well what do you do if there's an engine and radiators in the way of your wing? What if you can't make your wing bigger but you can make the engine and radiators take up less space? What if doing this costs tremendous amounts of money and effort?

McLaren makes their own transmission, their own tub, they get a lump from Renault and package their rear end around it and it's cooling requirements. That lump is directly in front of the upper surface of the diffuser. You can duct the air going through the car over the diffuser as well, while dealing with the airflow going to the rear wing. This costs more money and then costs more money again because it reduces cooling efficiency and you have to over engineer some other components to deal with that.

Even though you are right in regards to the rear end impact on the car’s performance... I don’t think Mclaren had an issue with an oversized rear end... It may not be the skinniest car out there, but it definitely wasn’t bulky compared to the rest of the field.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which is why McLaren beat them, but couldn't beat the big 3 who have a better setup due to having a works engine deal. It's also partly why McLaren is leaving Renault, they want McLaren to help them with their chassis.

[ME4ME]

The rate at which rake is decreased, or if it decreases at all at speed also plays a big part. In the RB15's case, the car probably had really good low speed downforce due to the rake, but probably lost some as the rear end would squat under load. This transition was where the driver felt instability, and tuning that out probably took more than just the front wing.

Nah I don't think that is the case. Such transition wouldn't be abrupt enough to unsettle a top tier (F1) driver. We're talking a rear compression of possibly a centimeter, over a span of 300 km/h. Even at max compression and thus max reduced angle of attack there will still be major loading going on otherwise the rear would decompresse. Actually it doesn't make sense because a driver will "get his downforce back" as soon as he reduces speed through either lifting, braking or by rubbing off speed mid corner through steering angle. It would compensate the inherent loss of downforce through the loss of speed somewhat. But at no point should there be a weird drop of downforce and thus grip which would unsettle the driver.
.
.

Yes Max did very well with the RB15 despite it's relative flaws. But this is the McLaren topic, and to be honest I think it's a bit disrespectful to bash(suspension pun intended) one of the best aspects on the McLaren car.
.
.

I ment to discuss the phenomena which you described. Not the RB15 or any driver specifically. Please re-read my comment, I'd welcome a solid counter argument, because I realize I might be wrong. But so may you.

[godlameroso]

Nah I don't think that is the case. Such transition wouldn't be abrupt enough to unsettle a top tier (F1) driver. We're talking a rear compression of possibly a centimeter, over a span of 300 km/h. Even at max compression and thus max reduced angle of attack there will still be major loading going on otherwise the rear would decompresse. Actually it doesn't make sense because a driver will "get his downforce back" as soon as he reduces speed through either lifting, braking or by rubbing off speed mid corner through steering angle. It would compensate the inherent loss of downforce through the loss of speed somewhat. But at no point should there be a weird drop of downforce and thus grip which would unsettle the driver.
.
.

Yes Max did very well with the RB15 despite it's relative flaws. But this is the McLaren topic, and to be honest I think it's a bit disrespectful to bash(suspension pun intended) one of the best aspects on the McLaren car.
.
.

I ment to discuss the phenomena which you described. Not the RB15 or any driver specifically. Please re-read my comment, I'd welcome a solid counter argument, because I realize I might be wrong. But so may you.

Well first you'd have to know how abrupt the transition is. Aero more or less increases squared over speed, so naturally there's going to be a noticeable transition somewhere in that curve. Cross/head/tailwinds will only increase the transition. McLaren spent a lot of the first week testing in 2019 working on the balance of the car, partly because of the wind itself.

A crosswind can also transition into a tailwind or head wind, especially in long corners of the Barcelona circuit further causing instabilities.

I remember Alonso crashing during testing during 2015 in curve 3.

[Macklaren]

Seems unusually quiet in terms of info/feedback leaking out from the team on the new car this year. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. Semi-insiders like PhilipM, what are you hearing?

[godlameroso]

Car won't be very different than last year's car. Imagine the 34, but more shrink wrapped, and a lot of detail changes. The outward appearance won't be as radical a departure as the 34 was vs the 33. There might be some surprises, naturally if you slim the side pods you have to get some of your cooling through the roll hoop duct.

I'm most looking forward to see what they and other teams do with the barge boards. The last year of these crazy devices.

[_cerber1]

There was a big step from the MCL33 to the MCL34; what can we expect from the MCL35 in 2020?
First of all, I am very happy with the progress I see in the factory regarding the preparations for the 2020 season. I think we have a very good understanding of the weaknesses the MCL34 had in 2019 and it is great to see how the entire team is working together very hard on improving. I’m optimistic that we can make the next step, which is to further reduce the lap time deficit to the top three teams.

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/team/and ... 2019-2020/

[Ground Effect]

How early into 2020 will McLaren switch to developing its 2021 car?

Like everyone, we want to have a good start to the season. The speed of your 2020 car will determine to some degree when you switch all your resources towards 2021. It’s a juggling act that we have every year, but it’s more extreme this time because of the change in technical regulations for 2021.

We’re not going to sacrifice 2020; we want to have another good season because it’s important for the development of the team to have continuous improvement.

I like that bit.

[_cerber1]

https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/12 ... 3884193792