2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[venkyhere]

I don't know whether it's already been discussed, but something 'non-ignorable' worth noting :
Piastri finished +8s behind Norris, despite Norris having an extra 22s pitstop, so actually it's a +30s. That's nearly 0.6s per lap, on race pace, over a 50 lap race.

How did he fall so far back ?
Stella mentioned how they went for extreme changes using the steering wheel and Norris had to change his driving style, to post laptimes similar to the leaders, on the final H stint. My guess is that this is where the difference lies, in that Norris was able to hustle the car with the new settings, whilst Piastri wasn't.
It wasn't as if one guy had free air and the other was caught up behind slower traffic. They both were one behind the other, from very early in the race, weren't they ?

[Ben1980]

I'm not at all techy. But my query on the amendedments to all rear wings, why design it as it was if negligible impact? Or were they designed as they were changed to, but with the "trick" knowing it can be sorted.

I would expect the team to downplay it's impact though.

[mwillems]

I'm not at all techy. But my query on the amendedments to all rear wings, why design it as it was if negligible impact? Or were they designed as they were changed to, but with the "trick" knowing it can be sorted.

I would expect the team to downplay it's impact though.

I think the latter. As they built new wings based they included added flexibility where appropriate, rather than designing wings just to get flexibility.

The reason why it isn't going to make that big a deal is because the drag only really starts to make a difference over 220-250+kph

At Vegas, we were one of the fastest over the straights. We actually lost most of our time from the start finish through to turn 7/8 which has one mid speed corner that we have been struggling with for most of the season, the rest being low speed corners that this wing or one with a bit more DF is unlikely to help with much. The suffering at Vegas looks more to be with the way we were able to enter the slow speeds with other teams able to carry more speed on entry to the corner. Front end traction under breaking seemed to be the issue.

[Waz]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/lando-nor ... .%E2%80%9D

An extremely strong response for "those believing their own BS" that the rear wing made anything more than a minor difference.

Minor differences are everything in F1. These cars are bespoke but several can be separated by less than a tenth of a second over a 4+ km circuit.

Maybe it "only" added 1 or 2 kph, but that can be enough to defend with.

Edit: or rather, instead of adding top speed, the benefit was in acceleration towards that top speed after 220 kph.

[BMMR61]

It's pretty tedious reading the last few pages, not gonna lie!

I have to agree.

McLaren are closing in on a world championship with 2 rounds to go. The next round should play more to McLaren than Ferrari though nothing is welded in.... If over the Sprint and the GP at Qatar McLaren can eke out a dozen more points or more then the title is almost in the bag. I hope they don't go conservative, and go for the win, with both drivers free to fight within the normal guidelines that they play fair. This weekend ought to be where we start to feel confident. I hope the moaning media give all the "bottled it" rubbish a rest and we can celebrate an historic McLaren moment, maybe with Mika and Emmo on hand.

[Farnborough]

I'm not at all techy. But my query on the amendedments to all rear wings, why design it as it was if negligible impact? Or were they designed as they were changed to, but with the "trick" knowing it can be sorted.

I would expect the team to downplay it's impact though.

I think the latter. As they built new wings based they included added flexibility where appropriate, rather than designing wings just to get flexibility.

The reason why it isn't going to make that big a deal is because the drag only really starts to make a difference over 220-250+kph

At Vegas, we were one of the fastest over the straights. We actually lost most of our time from the start finish through to turn 7/8 which has one mid speed corner that we have been struggling with for most of the season, the rest being low speed corners that this wing or one with a bit more DF is unlikely to help with much. The suffering at Vegas looks more to be with the way we were able to enter the slow speeds with other teams able to carry more speed on entry to the corner. Front end traction under breaking seemed to be the issue.

That, probably inadvertently, EXACTLY describes why the wing was designed built and implemented by this team.

With it there, top speed it enhanced,, while maintaining wing load as speed comes off for those type corner.

Without it .... flap compromise to keep top speed, leads to reducing load into that type corner. This also (low download rear) brings a corresponding reduction in front flap required to balance the two, leading to front graining. EXACTLY what we saw in that Las Vegas race.

Those that have watched this for detail over the years can see that clearly from the race evidence, it's not a myth.

[mwillems]

I'm not at all techy. But my query on the amendedments to all rear wings, why design it as it was if negligible impact? Or were they designed as they were changed to, but with the "trick" knowing it can be sorted.

I would expect the team to downplay it's impact though.

I think the latter. As they built new wings based they included added flexibility where appropriate, rather than designing wings just to get flexibility.

The reason why it isn't going to make that big a deal is because the drag only really starts to make a difference over 220-250+kph

At Vegas, we were one of the fastest over the straights. We actually lost most of our time from the start finish through to turn 7/8 which has one mid speed corner that we have been struggling with for most of the season, the rest being low speed corners that this wing or one with a bit more DF is unlikely to help with much. The suffering at Vegas looks more to be with the way we were able to enter the slow speeds with other teams able to carry more speed on entry to the corner. Front end traction under breaking seemed to be the issue.

That, probably inadvertently, EXACTLY describes why the wing was designed built and implemented by this team.

With it there, top speed it enhanced,, while maintaining wing load as speed comes off for those type corner.

Without it .... flap compromise to keep top speed, leads to reducing load into that type corner. This also (low download rear) brings a corresponding reduction in front flap required to balance the two, leading to front graining. EXACTLY what we saw in that Las Vegas race.

Those that have watched this for detail over the years can see that clearly from the race evidence, it's not a myth.

It's not a myth, but on wings the size used at Vegas, it's also not going to make any real difference and the tops speed gain would likely be 1kph or less due to much smaller amount of wing flex.

The gaps here had nothing to do with the wing, IMO, and everything about mechanical traction, partially down to how we could get the car to interact with the tyres.

Baku was different.

[Farnborough]

"The gaps here had nothing to do with the wing, IMO, and everything about mechanical traction, partially down to how we could get the car to interact with the tyres."

Interaction with the tires is pure load, from the wings and floor. Take any away from that total and it'll get harder, choices less, driver confidence diminished, etc. Graining increased and so forth. It's there in plain sight.

Stella even confirmed this in his words of "Extreme set up shift from drivers steering wheel controls" or words to that effect. Those to counter load missing from the setup they chose to Q and race with.

[mwillems]

"The gaps here had nothing to do with the wing, IMO, and everything about mechanical traction, partially down to how we could get the car to interact with the tyres."

Interaction with the tires is pure load, from the wings and floor. Take any away from that total and it'll get harder, choices less, driver confidence diminished, etc. Graining increased and so forth. It's there in plain sight.

Stella even confirmed this in his words of "Extreme set up shift from drivers steering wheel controls" or words to that effect. Those to counter load missing from the setup they chose to Q and race with.

It's not pure load, everything he was talking about to make it work had nothing to do with load it was about how they treated the tyres. You can't increase DF from the onboard settings, you can adjust the balances and other non DF settings and alter the way you throw or push the car into the corner with your steering inputs.

What they did was change settings so that the car was easier on the tyres. They are not pushing as fast as they can go, they are pushing as fast as they can go to a tyre delta. Naturally the car could go way faster than it did over a lap, during the race.

In qualifying, we were 7 tenths off. Suggesting this is flexiwing is madness. Not even a tenth of it is flexiwing. Most of the track is low speed corners where a more flexible loaded wing isn't going to help massively. DRS meant that any drag reduction effects of flexing were heavily mitigated. And we were 7 tenths off. We simply couldn't get the tyres to work for us in these temps due to a mixture of setup and driving style. The car doesn't like the conditions and clearly has some areas to work on.

[Farnborough]

Not load ? Really.

Its always load, the whole purpose of down force is to load the tires. They didn't run the necessary level here, factually illustrated by tires staying below temperature, not matching those around them, again factual in Q & race.

There's no suggestion from me that they can increase load from steering wheel setting, only supplement/supplant that missing load through "Extreme" (Stella description) setting. Thats the same as formation lap type behaviour when speed is not there to apply aero load.
Its speculation on my part exactly what driver changes were made, but from informed point of view.

They didn't or couldn't use the wing they would like while keeping top speed competitive. That's what a flex rear wing was about.
The physics of that showed here, by moving them back against those three team cars finishing ahead of them. Thats not speculative, they have to answer to physics not me.

Likely they'll have a better balance mix at this race with the corner type that is primary focus this track.

[PapayaFan481]

Not load ? Really.

Its always load, the whole purpose of down force is to load the tires. They didn't run the necessary level here, factually illustrated by tires staying below temperature, not matching those around them, again factual in Q & race.

There's no suggestion from me that they can increase load from steering wheel setting, only supplement/supplant that missing load through "Extreme" (Stella description) setting. Thats the same as formation lap type behaviour when speed is not there to apply aero load.
Its speculation on my part exactly what driver changes were made, but from informed point of view.

They didn't or couldn't use the wing they would like while keeping top speed competitive. That's what a flex rear wing was about.
The physics of that showed here, by moving them back against those three team cars finishing ahead of them. Thats not speculative, they have to answer to physics not me.

Likely they'll have a better balance mix at this race with the corner type that is primary focus this track.

Didn't they run a high DF wing than others? That would increase load wouldn't it?

[Farnborough]

The images in McL38 thread indicate dropping rear wing flap load (more top speed) for Q&R running.

That MUST bring a shift in front flap to accommodate the loss, else the oversteer is wild.

This is exactly why they built that flex one.

For the record, I felt they should allow that "Baku" wing until season's end, being ingenious and not absolutely controlled by the regulations as they were worded.

There's big investment in that, through CFD, 60% build for wind tunnel, correlation and final race build of at least 4 items.

BUT and its a big one, the two wings they took to Las Vegas sat either above or below that flex wing. Thats why it was effective. It did give top speed AND accumulation of load as that speed diminished. Very clever, but obviously missed here.
RB in comparison couldn't shed enough load as they had no alternative, but worked their tires better into heat range, without extreme settings. Importantly because they are the opposition in WDC, obviously.

The loss against Ferrari more importantly is notable from there in WCC.

[mwillems]

Not load ? Really.

Its always load, the whole purpose of down force is to load the tires. They didn't run the necessary level here, factually illustrated by tires staying below temperature, not matching those around them, again factual in Q & race.

There's no suggestion from me that they can increase load from steering wheel setting, only supplement/supplant that missing load through "Extreme" (Stella description) setting. Thats the same as formation lap type behaviour when speed is not there to apply aero load.
Its speculation on my part exactly what driver changes were made, but from informed point of view.

They didn't or couldn't use the wing they would like while keeping top speed competitive. That's what a flex rear wing was about.
The physics of that showed here, by moving them back against those three team cars finishing ahead of them. Thats not speculative, they have to answer to physics not me.

Likely they'll have a better balance mix at this race with the corner type that is primary focus this track.

I was referring to load without being more specific as I was talking within your parameters of load from the wing and floor. Yes, the tyres work through load. The mechanical loading is latitudinal and longitudinal and is not the same type of load as comes from downforce.

It's factually illustrated that they did nothing to change the DF settings and yet managed to set up the car during the race to find the pace they hadn't been able to find for the first 2 stints. It is incontrovertible that the issues this weekend were to do with setup and that the car could have been competitive with the wings they ran, which totally nullifies any need to discuss physics of a flexi wing.

Changing things like brake balance do not directly increase the aero load, they increase the mechanical load and this is not coming from the wings and floor as you state, but it can impact it. They will change the way the tyres load up, which is a different concept, in the same way that drivers used to energise the tyres by throwing the car briefly into the opposite direction before turning in. It is also possible that they changed the balance so that the front bites in further on braking to lower the FW and increase the AoO but once again, this is coming from mechanical changes and demonstrates that the wings were sufficient to be competitive here. I do not think this is what they did, as this would be more aggressive on the front tyres.

As the team said. The changes were only to reduce graining on the fronts. This isn't just done from affecting downforce (When you can make those changes), but from affecting the cars mechanical load so that it is kinder to the tyres. This then increases the delta that the cars run to. That's all they did. They changed some mechanical setup so that the car was kinder to the front tyres probably by being more stable on corner entry.

Incidentally, the wing still flexes, not all the benefit has been lost, it's just reigned in a little. it wasn't a zero sum solution.

[Farnborough]

I don't feel the tires and how they work is understood here in your comments.

Emphatically, the tires structure were never going to overheat here at this ambient and pressure combination. Any mitigation from team or driver would be to place more load into the tire (whole assembly) through aero and or their actions, not less.

MB aero map had it in spades, and it showed by considerable margin, over everyone else. McL moved themselves behind the three teams that had cars finish in front of them. That's the observable reality.

McL couldn't pull theirs into range with the aero load map they chose to run. That was also compromised by their mid season choice to develop the flex rear wing. That has an affect, and we could see it here.

The driver can, by pushing brake bias forward, load more extremely the front tires to bring heat into them, as needed here.
Making it clear, THERE'S NO SUGGESTION IN MY WRITING THAT SAYS THEY CAN CHANGE AERO MAP FROM STEERING WHEEL loading front tires is completely normal under extreme braking, more so with bias moved in that direction.

If you don't hold a full picture of the tire characteristics, then most debate will lead to nowhere. In which case there's no logical and productive discourse to be had in this topic.

[mwillems]

Just remembering something else, the Monza wing did not flex like Baku. Few wings had that flex built in. Unless evidence can be found that the Monza wing flexed in a Baku style. So I'm not sure that going back to the previous Monza wing will bring any additional balance.

But from previous analysis I think only the one wing flexed in that manner that was used 3 times this year.

Will be interesting to look at the upgrades docs and see how many rear wings have changed since.