McLaren MCL36

[FittingMechanics]

I personally think some people are making way too big a deal out of this. If front pullrod was a magic bullet, everyone would have done it.

I feel you are making a big deal out of it?

The point is, McLaren did not go down a dead end path, at least it seems that Red Bull chose a similar path. If McLaren was only team making this change, it could be because everyone else realized it is a mistake.

Of the changes McLaren made, the switch to rear pushrod is actually the one that seems most debated. It bucks a trend going back more than a decade, and no other team besides Alfa have done it. Again, it probably isn't a deal breaker, but interesting nonetheless.

I don't think we've seen Red Bull rear suspension. It might end up being a pull rod.

[SmallSoldier]

Having the same suspension philosophy as RB is not the same as making all of those kinematics work

I'm not sure this is any kind of litmus test for our design, nor a certificate of Mr Newey's approval lol

The cars do all look very different, which is wonderful to see. Given all of the designs it does feel now that we are little "Middle of the road". I wonder what scope we have for adjustment around the different areas of the car.

Key did mentioned that the current concept was intended with adapting solutions from others in mind… If you go for a concept that only has one path of development, you could be in real trouble since you would need to start almost from scratch to implement certain solutions… Bringing a concept that has flexibility built into it and with several paths of potential development, allows you to integrate other solutions that may not have been part of your scope and if you did get it right, to go into different paths depending on what you learn on track.

Given our conversation about undercuts yesterday it was almost inevitable to see the faux bargeboards/tunnel entrances coupled with sidepod undercuts of the Merc!

I suppose it depends on how everything is packaged internally and how easy it would be to reconfigure the cooling if that was required to alter sidepod shape. I can't help but look t the Merc and admire the neatness of their solution but otherwise there are similarities between the cars.

There are a couple of similarities, but I feel they are very different concepts… Mclaren (purposely) has a very wide front of the sidepods, while mercedes still encourages an undercut there… The way the tunnels are treated is also very different (beyond the use of of the strakes)… Mercedes uses the full length and with of the Tunnel entrance, while Mclaren’s is shorter and narrower… They both do have similar treatments to back of the car with the Cannon exits and as narrow waist as possible towards the diffuser

[Herr_Koos]

I personally think some people are making way too big a deal out of this. If front pullrod was a magic bullet, everyone would have done it.

I feel you are making a big deal out of it?

The point is, McLaren did not go down a dead end path, at least it seems that Red Bull chose a similar path. If McLaren was only team making this change, it could be because everyone else realized it is a mistake.

Of the changes McLaren made, the switch to rear pushrod is actually the one that seems most debated. It bucks a trend going back more than a decade, and no other team besides Alfa have done it. Again, it probably isn't a deal breaker, but interesting nonetheless.

I don't think we've seen Red Bull rear suspension. It might end up being a pull rod.

Me make a big deal? I've barely talked about it.

[mwillems]

Key did mentioned that the current concept was intended with adapting solutions from others in mind… If you go for a concept that only has one path of development, you could be in real trouble since you would need to start almost from scratch to implement certain solutions… Bringing a concept that has flexibility built into it and with several paths of potential development, allows you to integrate other solutions that may not have been part of your scope and if you did get it right, to go into different paths depending on what you learn on track.

Given our conversation about undercuts yesterday it was almost inevitable to see the faux bargeboards/tunnel entrances coupled with sidepod undercuts of the Merc!

I suppose it depends on how everything is packaged internally and how easy it would be to reconfigure the cooling if that was required to alter sidepod shape. I can't help but look t the Merc and admire the neatness of their solution but otherwise there are similarities between the cars.

There are a couple of similarities, but I feel they are very different concepts… Mclaren (purposely) has a very wide front of the sidepods, while mercedes still encourages an undercut there… The way the tunnels are treated is also very different (beyond the use of of the strakes)… Mercedes uses the full length and with of the Tunnel entrance, while Mclaren’s is shorter and narrower… They both do have similar treatments to back of the car with the Cannon exits and as narrow waist as possible towards the diffuser

Yes the difference is the the Tunnel entrance which is being used to push the wake outwards and is enabling an undercut behind. Aside from that the cars don't diverge too much. It's a great idea for sure but it's not out of the reach of change for either team if they wished to move in that direction unlike Ferrari who are quite a way apart. Suspension is more baked in and represents something more than the tunnels, as well might other fundamentals of the car we can not yet see or understand. We will see just what the differences are when the real cars come out on track and I think we will properly understand the fundamental differences then.

[Mansell89]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLYeOmoXMAE ... name=large

I love this shot from Karun! Lots of carbon-fibre sheets covering up some details.
- Nose tip is far more sculpted than the render, blending into the front wing nicely.
- Front wing elements completely different from render, as we've already seen.
- Thin slot on the front wheel flow deflectors.
- Rear of the floor was clearly covered up.
- Front wing end slots covered up too, so assuming different from the render.
- Good angle of the bulges on top of the sidepods above Velo logo.
- Are they covering something up below where the halo joins the rear? Can make out some edges of possible slots?

Having seen the Mercedes today I’m looking forward to seeing what intricacies McLaren have covered up. Was anyone surprised Merc showed that? I’d suspect they obviously have something further to launch at testing and that they’re playing games a little bit today, they’re quite clever like that.

Can’t wait for some track and natural light photos of our car to really appreciate the details and contours on the body work.

[Emag]

I was a bit young at the time, but was the switch to pull rod suspension back in 2009/2010 strictly for aero reasons, or did it have mechanical benefits as well?

Given that RedBull has gone for a pull-rod on the front, and also the fact that they have the ability to put a nicer angle on it compared to the last time they tried it, I am not very worried about the front.

But the rear, is an interesting choice. We haven't had push-rod suspensions for over a decade now, so it's definitely a brave switch.

[Mansell89]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

[Marc.W]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

Much better news that him liking it

[mclaren_mircea]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

Much better news that him liking it

Yes guys... you have all the right to be euphoric because the cars that Garry said were good cars then in testing and races were slow cars... and the other way around the cars that Gary was not at all impressed were fast cars. As a Hamilton and Mercedes fan after I saw his comments Im having chills and anxiety is striking to my head. We know this now: Mclaren and Ferrari are going to fight for the title.

[Henri]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

If you listen to gary its like he hates every car always not satisfied

[Shakeman]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

If you're so confident that Gary Anderson is wrong how about you explain why?

His points appear perfectly valid but over to you to refute them.

[SmallSoldier]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

If you're so confident that Gary Anderson is wrong how about you explain why?

His points appear perfectly valid but over to you to refute them.

I guess is because of his track record? This is his take at the MCL35, calling it “disappointing”

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... ppointing/

That was the car that finished 3rd that season… He was also not very complimentary of the MCL34 either (which finished 4th), can’t post the article because it is under a paywall.

But yes, he allows his bias towards a team to cloud his analysis of such team… If you had a great season, your next car will be great (Mercedes, Red Bull), if you are coming from a drought you are disappoint (McLaren, Ferrari).

He really doesn’t say “why” either… He has a simple exit line and that is that he was “expecting more”, he won’t say what he was expecting… But I could have bet you a not insignificant amount of money that he was going to be amazed by Mercedes and Red Bull and disappointed with McLaren and Ferrari even before a single car was launched.

[FittingMechanics]

He really doesn’t say “why” either… He has a simple exit line and that is that he was “expecting more”, he won’t say what he was expecting… But I could have bet you a not insignificant amount of money that he was going to be amazed by Mercedes and Red Bull and disappointed with McLaren and Ferrari even before a single car was launched.

Completely agree. It's all very transparent. Even in testing, he (and others) usually ignore the data, high fuel runs and race sims and focus on their gut feeling. Most teams that finished well last year will be predicted to be good next year, except if they are showing amazing amount of problems. I'm quite confident that if you painted any car Mercedes or Red Bull colors and showed him that he would find it good.

Btw it's quite telling that Kyle Engineers (who was a aerodynamicist working for Mercedes F1) in his analysis never really talks about performance, he is very clear that he cannot see if something is fast or not, that can't be understood without running simulations. Aero is very sensitive and can be counter intuitive plus you can't really tell which is better. Kyle explains concepts and ideas he sees, but never really talks about whether a car looks fast or not.

Gary Anderson is from an old school of F1 where they designed things on a sheet of paper and by gut feeling.


Btw I'd recommend Kyle Engineers as a channel to watch, I find him much more technical and interesting than other technical pundits (Scarbs for example).

[Nicktendo86]

Gary Anderson has had a pop at our rear suspension, saying he can’t see the benefits of it as it raises centre of gravity and clutters up the upper gearbox area.

He’s also saying Mercedes car is how he would be how he would have approached these regs if still involved in F1.

That’s actually good news isn’t it?

If you're so confident that Gary Anderson is wrong how about you explain why?

His points appear perfectly valid but over to you to refute them.

I guess is because of his track record? This is his take at the MCL35, calling it “disappointing”

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... ppointing/

That was the car that finished 3rd that season… He was also not very complimentary of the MCL34 either (which finished 4th), can’t post the article because it is under a paywall.

But yes, he allows his bias towards a team to cloud his analysis of such team… If you had a great season, your next car will be great (Mercedes, Red Bull), if you are coming from a drought you are disappoint (McLaren, Ferrari).

He really doesn’t say “why” either… He has a simple exit line and that is that he was “expecting more”, he won’t say what he was expecting… But I could have bet you a not insignificant amount of money that he was going to be amazed by Mercedes and Red Bull and disappointed with McLaren and Ferrari even before a single car was launched.

He praised the MP4-28 on launch as well lol

[SmallSoldier]

If you're so confident that Gary Anderson is wrong how about you explain why?

His points appear perfectly valid but over to you to refute them.

I guess is because of his track record? This is his take at the MCL35, calling it “disappointing”

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... ppointing/

That was the car that finished 3rd that season… He was also not very complimentary of the MCL34 either (which finished 4th), can’t post the article because it is under a paywall.

But yes, he allows his bias towards a team to cloud his analysis of such team… If you had a great season, your next car will be great (Mercedes, Red Bull), if you are coming from a drought you are disappoint (McLaren, Ferrari).

He really doesn’t say “why” either… He has a simple exit line and that is that he was “expecting more”, he won’t say what he was expecting… But I could have bet you a not insignificant amount of money that he was going to be amazed by Mercedes and Red Bull and disappointed with McLaren and Ferrari even before a single car was launched.

He praised the MP4-28 on launch as well lol

Is there a link? I would love a laugh… I called him out on twitter once and Matt Bishop blocked me… I wasn’t rude at all, simply stated what I have here and how they don’t ever write an article later saying “I was wrong on that one”