McLaren MCL38

[mwillems]

I am looking at it a bit more now and I was thinking that perhaps the tips are not what is flexing but rather the elements around the top flap are flexing in a way that is increasing the DRS gap under load.

Specifically this area around the top flap of the rear wing :

https://i.imgur.com/6XSLH0q.png

If you make the top connector more rigid, it will pull the top down while taking the sides down with them too, which would create this effect of bigger separation at the tips.

This way, the top flap (DRS flap) is technically staying motionless, but the other parts are moving around it to open the gap.

Maybe that's how they kept it within the rules.
I really doubt they brought an illegal car in the middle of a title fight and risk disqualification, but who knows. Even if it is technically legal, the FIA may intervene here.

Because of the DRS actuator in the middle of the front of DRS flap holding that area rigid , the force is on the top of the top of the DRS Flap being pushed back and forcing the deformation of the only other part that can bend, the front outside edges.

Simple but clever. Are the outside edges at the front of the flap are the symptom of a bigger gain?

If you place your mouse at the top of the rear wing on the video and play, you can see it deform, the amount of flex at the top of the RW is actually quite big and I'd be surprise if that is only worth a couple of kph. There is definitely a lot of flex in the top of that flap.

Not having seen any other rear wings yet, I haven't compared to other cars.


Edit: Did a screenshot, the actuator is a handy demonstration of the flex. The outer edges of the top of the flap are else being deformed and pushed back, but I suspect less so than the centre due to being attached to the pivot mechanism. But you can clearly see a lot of flex at the top of that DRS flap. How much to the other RW flex at the top?

[Farnborough]

I've posted this contribution in "car comparison" thread too.

Looking at the rules posted on here somewhere and relating to, specifically, the DRS operation ..... it excludes any movement of the flap without being under the control method of the driver and through the mechanism provided.

This doesn't appear to impinge on those words ... it does however bend within it's structure to distort with considerable deflection and ultimately change the aerodynamic gain a wider cross section of flow will give by going through the resulting gap between the two components.

The FACT that it bends evenly at BOTH ends, this without flutter or anything else that would suggest error, says it's designed to operate in this manner. The movement of both sides the same illustration of competency in manufacture and therefore design, shows its stepping through the rules carefully.

I wouldn't call that "cheating" but it does encompass design and execution to run "parallel" with the rule's written word and interpretation to give a very obvious affect that those words in particular don't adequately define.

Another rule being "rigidly " fixed, which it also seems to comply with.

We can all see what they're doing, along with it's successful gain. Either it's clarified and losed down by the FIA or the invite goes out to all,the others to follow

[mwillems]

Exactly my thoughts, but I hadn't seen other cars so I don't know the context of the flex. But it is substantial in this instance and the bulk of the gain is from the top of the DRS flap.

[Quantum]

[mwillems]

The actuator will be receiving less load, so the idea of DRS failure seems like it is besides the point and just needless waffle to add drama. There is absolutely nothing to suggest DRS failure might occur, and the whole principle we have around aero is that there must be some flex or they'd snap so if we have DRS failure for some other reason, has the tolerable flexing suddenly been outlawed and the wing suddenly illegal? No, of course not, the principle is set.

It is just flexible aero again, and seeing the context between cars, the difference isn't massive between the teams, but we are doing it more based on this example plus the curling tips. When it comes to flexible aero, the FIA can decide what they want, the rules are vague enough that they can make a dynamic choice in the season on what is OK, and bring in tests and clarifications to back it up. Flexi Wings Round 3.

Just speaking anecdotally, if when DRS is open at Baku there is a 20kph gain, then I do not think that the difference there is 4-5kph as some have suggested, over other cars. And that is only metric we car about, relative gain or loss between competitors, not gain or loss between flex and no flex because everyone will have some flex.

Feels like a nothing burger to be quite honest and a whole load of drama. Even if we have to flex less, I think the performance difference will be marginal and other parts brought to the car would have already made up any loss.

Mclaren seem to have a rather sensible approach of looking to see what our competitors do, and just do it a little bit more so that it isn't too far out there that it needs to be banned. Totally designing in the grey areas, but intelligently and with restraint.

[Emag]

Just based on "historic" DRS delta for McLaren, this would probably be worth 1-3 kmh. The opening only appears huge if you zoom into it and it's borderline unnoticeable otherwise, unless you point a camera directly on top of it.

Nevertheless, the effect in performance isn't really a talking point. Of course it brings something, however miniscule because otherwise they wouldn't have made it this way. The wing in itself was less loaded compared to the competition (perhaps equal with Ferrari), so the straight line speed was going to be competitive regardless.

The only problem is that this plays around the rules by exploiting the DRS opening which under normal circumstances should not be moving. If indeed the parts around it are flexing in such a way that it opens up this gap in the side, then that means the flap in itself is remaining static and it would be legal. They can argue that it is compliant on every test they have, but we might see FIA intervene just because they're exploiting an area which is meant to be very strict in its purpose.

If it is allowed, I don't think it's some ingenious design that cannot be implemented on other cars. They would just have to manufacture new wings with a specific composite that allows flexing in that manner.

[bluechris]

If it is allowed, I don't think it's some ingenious design that cannot be implemented on other cars. They would just have to manufacture new wings with a specific composite that allows flexing in that manner.

Seems ingenious to me because you must have the exact forces of the stable wing under, to load the specific ends in the DRS flap. Does all the other wings in the other cars press in the exact place so much?

[Emag]

If it is allowed, I don't think it's some ingenious design that cannot be implemented on other cars. They would just have to manufacture new wings with a specific composite that allows flexing in that manner.

Seems ingenious to me because you must have the exact forces of the stable wing under, to load the specific ends in the DRS flap. Does all the other wings in the other cars press in the exact place so much?

Well, firstly after reviewing the footage again, I don't think the flap ends are twisting under load. It's a bit bizarre if that would be the case and I don't know how exactly they would be able to pull that off since the downforce would be pulling everything down instead of up. Unless they somehow manage to create significant lift only at the tips, which sounds like science-fiction. Not to mention the fact that if the flap in itself is deforming in an unexpected matter, it would probably be illegal.

I made another post previously with my theory on how it works.

The short(er) version is :
The bottom part of the wing is flexing normally under load, and the upper part (flap + sides) is also flexing normally under load. They have put a more rigid joint at the top of the flap while keeping the bottom loose. There's naturally less force being applied in the bottom side of the DRS flap because the angle is not as steep there. The bulk of the force is applied at the top. Combine this with the imbalanced joints, where the DRS flap is connected with the rest of the wing at the top but not at the bottom and you get this effect where the entire wing around the flap is being pushed downwards by the downforce, but the flap in itself is remaining relatively stationary. This is what is creating the gap at the sides.

So, it's a clever thing but not really ingenious and something that is relatively easy to copy.

[.Bole]

People that dont understand that this kind of small margins they talk about matter a lot when 3 cars are within less than 0.1s of each other in terms of pace

[Emag]

People that dont understand that this kind of small margins they talk about matter a lot when 3 cars are within less than 0.1s of each other in terms of pace

And what does this have to do with the wing being legal or not? You don't make decisions to ban a device based on how significant its benefits are. It's either within the rules or not, nothing else matters.

[mwillems]

Just based on "historic" DRS delta for McLaren, this would probably be worth 1-3 kmh. The opening only appears huge if you zoom into it and it's borderline unnoticeable otherwise, unless you point a camera directly on top of it.

Nevertheless, the effect in performance isn't really a talking point. Of course it brings something, however miniscule because otherwise they wouldn't have made it this way. The wing in itself was less loaded compared to the competition (perhaps equal with Ferrari), so the straight line speed was going to be competitive regardless.

The only problem is that this plays around the rules by exploiting the DRS opening which under normal circumstances should not be moving. If indeed the parts around it are flexing in such a way that it opens up this gap in the side, then that means the flap in itself is remaining static and it would be legal. They can argue that it is compliant on every test they have, but we might see FIA intervene just because they're exploiting an area which is meant to be very strict in its purpose.

If it is allowed, I don't think it's some ingenious design that cannot be implemented on other cars. They would just have to manufacture new wings with a specific composite that allows flexing in that manner.

Performance will be a consideration when the FIA engage in the Ad-Hoc'ery that will be discussions over what is allowed, a bigger gain is more likely to attract unwanted attention, but this is no silver bullet, it's just headlines.

But otherwise agreed. Everyone is flexing, the difference between our flexing and there's is not a big deal and from a development perspective you have the wing and winglets to strengthen, which you could probably do with existing parts anyway, but even if done from new, is minor.

But even then, the FIA have OK'd much more dramatic and important flexing at the front. Perhaps not in terms of drag, but certainly in terms of flow conditioning, this rear wing flex is a smaller impact.

It's a nothing burger.

[hollus]

Looking at past races onboards... there isn't rear facing footage for both drivers at every race. Where there is footage:
Whatever is going on with this DRS edge lift, it was already there (looks like with a smaller movement) in Monza in Piastri's car, but it does not seem to have been there, also for Piastri, in Zandvoort.
Norris had a bit of it in Spa.
Piastri did not have it in Hungary. Norris didn't either in Hungary.
Norris didn't have it in Silverstone.
Norris had a minusculous amount of it in Austria.
Piastri did not have it in Spain.
It was either absent on miniscule for Piastri in Miami.
Norris didn't have it in Jeddah.

So either this a relatively new development, or it correlates with very low load wings.

[101FlyingDutchman]

Looking at past races onboards... there isn't rear facing footage for both drivers at every race. Where there is footage:
Whatever is going on with this DRS edge lift, it was already there (looks like with a smaller movement) in Monza in Piastri's car, but it does not seem to have been there, also for Piastri, in Zandvoort.
Norris had a bit of it in Spa.
Piastri did not have it in Hungary. Norris didn't either in Hungary.
Norris didn't have it in Silverstone.
Norris had a minusculous amount of it in Austria.
Piastri did not have it in Spain.
It was either absent on miniscule for Piastri in Miami.
Norris didn't have it in Jeddah.

So either this a relatively new development, or it correlates with very low load wings.

I can only see this be beneficial at a limited amount of tracks. Long straights with no long medium to high speed corners. 90deg point and squirt and shed drag on long straight scenario. You’d hate for the downforce to be a movable feast going into high speed cornering. Talking about a butt clenching ride

[bluechris]

No matter where they had their "revelation" something like what Alison said about MB where the only change was their front wing, it's something that we all see that must gives something in drag and Max speed. It's not a coincidence that McLaren was the team with the less delta in maximum speed when the DRS was on and off.

Either way if it's simple we will see it soon from the other teams but not in Singapore.

[warpomex]

McLaren also opens a gap in the FW plane at speed... yes, all fw flex, all produce a discontinuity in the plane but only McLaren seem to open a gap between the metal tabs leaving an actual opening. Does that make a difference? Why do it differently from others?

https://x.com/433_marc/status/183535404 ... hwjfA&s=19