2025 McLaren F1 Team

[Big Tea]

[quote=venkyhere post_id=1306311 time=1761215154 user_id=48120
[/quote]

McLaren should ask one of their drivers to cleverly have a late-braking torpedo and take out Verstappen, while the other driver benefits, and do the same again with the other driver in the next race. The risk is that in one/both cases, Verstappen can end up not-DNF -ing while the McLaren does. There is the risk of being found guilty and getting 1/more race ban(s). There is also the risk of the 2nd torpedo deciding 'well, I dont need to do it, my teammate is out of the picture anyway'. F1 is not a gentleman's sport. No matter how much it's dressed up to be, by the team-PR/commentary/F1-media. It wouldn't surprise me if something like this happens. It has happened so many times in the past.

Will McLaren do it ? Whether they do or don't, are the people who like/dislike the team/driver(s) going to change their opinion ? None of our opinions matter, honestly. I don't know why we are wasting time on 'what should they do' , instead of analyzing 'what they have done' after a race.
[/quote]

The way Max has been driving, he would sidestep it and the errant Mclaren would skip off the wall and take their team mate out too

[Darth-Piekus]

They won't use a driver to take Max out. It's against sporting fairness.

[Farnborough]

Yes, it's based on setup, as I understand, McLaren can afford to run a much softer setup for slow corner dominated tracks, since they have a wide working range of ride heights. Strange that Stella made that comment, it was in Singapore race that we saw how benign the McL39 was on kerbs (I forgot to mention which T17 I was talking about in my post, edited it to specify which track it was on) - if you can rewatch it, watch one of the laps where the TV coverage showed T17 (looking front on) with Max and Lando back-to-back passing through there. Another stellar example is T23 kerb in Jeddah - the McL39 was a class above when it was able to simply smash through it, while other cars were getting severely 'jiggled' doing the same thing and they resorted to just 'half-ride' that T23 (watch 1:04 to 1:06 = T23, https://www.formula1.com/en/video/ghost ... 5538230907 , and look how Piastri 'gained' through T23)

The greater acceptance of curb/bump movement ordinarily comes from the high speed damper interaction. Thats high "shaft" speed, if a conventional push/pull damper rod is in use. This to enact high response rate for that initial hit as it comes. Effectively it accepts the movement in that pace by yealding under that speed input, whereas it wouldn't respond that way under the threshold, still imparting it's designed for speed modulation for normal bump absorption.

The "springs" as such have a limit if we are talking about softness as they (for all the cars in field) must support ultimately the total load the aero platform can apply to them.

We have illustration of total movement range capabilities in Oscar driving with broken pull rod (example over in car thread) without being constrained by the spring damper control. Not often that could be seen out in the wild

[mwillems]

Was just going to talk about this. Whilst I have no idea if it is the case, I'm interested to look into whether the aero load through mid to high corners might mitigate the stiffness with which we run our car whereas in slower corners, there is nothing to counterbalance the stiffness and bumps and kerbs will simply remove our traction more than it might another car. I get the impression we need to run stiffer than some others, it certainly tends to look this way.

This would tie into the general issue with bumps on entry to corners, which is I think one of the main contributors to COTA and Singapore.

[AR3-GP]

I think that the new suspension geometry would contribute to making bumpy circuits more difficult for Mclaren. The anti dive (which works especially in braking and acceleration) is a direct measure of distribution of the forces of the wheel to the spring, and to the control arm. More anti-dive means more force in the control arm which has "infinite" stiffness and no movement, and thus less dive.

In other words, increasing anti-dive would increase the minimum stiffness level of the suspension.


It is as Wache said in the beginning of the season

Speaking to The Race, Wache said: “The suspension of the McLaren is very interesting – in terms of kinematics. And one aspect is the anti-dive. It is very high. “It is quite a risky kinematic for me. If they can make it work, it will be interesting.”

Asked what he meant by it being risky, Wache said: “In terms of the load on the suspension legs and everything.”

The suspension arms experience greater compression forces in order to reduce the dive under braking.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mcla ... uspension/

but then who can really complain (besides Lando )? Mclaren was dominant.

[venkyhere]

Yes, it's based on setup, as I understand, McLaren can afford to run a much softer setup for slow corner dominated tracks, since they have a wide working range of ride heights. Strange that Stella made that comment, it was in Singapore race that we saw how benign the McL39 was on kerbs (I forgot to mention which T17 I was talking about in my post, edited it to specify which track it was on) - if you can rewatch it, watch one of the laps where the TV coverage showed T17 (looking front on) with Max and Lando back-to-back passing through there. Another stellar example is T23 kerb in Jeddah - the McL39 was a class above when it was able to simply smash through it, while other cars were getting severely 'jiggled' doing the same thing and they resorted to just 'half-ride' that T23 (watch 1:04 to 1:06 = T23, https://www.formula1.com/en/video/ghost ... 5538230907 , and look how Piastri 'gained' through T23)

The greater acceptance of curb/bump movement ordinarily comes from the high speed damper interaction. Thats high "shaft" speed, if a conventional push/pull damper rod is in use. This to enact high response rate for that initial hit as it comes. Effectively it accepts the movement in that pace by yealding under that speed input, whereas it wouldn't respond that way under the threshold, still imparting it's designed for speed modulation for normal bump absorption.

The "springs" as such have a limit if we are talking about softness as they (for all the cars in field) must support ultimately the total load the aero platform can apply to them.

We have illustration of total movement range capabilities in Oscar driving with broken pull rod (example over in car thread) without being constrained by the spring damper control. Not often that could be seen out in the wild

high damping rate = stiff at low speed (low freq impulse), soft at high speed (high freq impulse) , right ? irrespective of whether they use road car like springs/shockers or F1 style torsion springs / dampers. The concept stands, doesn't it ? The only difference being that unlike road cars, the 'pre-loading' on the 'spring element' is higher at higher speed for F1 cars due to the variable aero loading - kind of like an 'automatic' progressive spring.

However, that was not the point I was trying to illustrate with the video link (perhaps it's unrepresentative for Mexico where the cornering speeds are nowhere near Jeddah) ; what I was driving at, is that inherently McLaren can 'afford' to run less stiff (whether they implement this through the torsion rod or the damper or both), because their aero platform is more robust to dynamic ride height changes, whether at low or high speeds. And for a track dominated by slow speed turns, everyone is going to run less stiff (more dynamic weight changes help mechanical grip over low speed chicane kerbs, U-turns, small radius turns), than say at Spa/Jeddah. I am expecting that McLaren hasn't lost this capability over the 'updates' they brought since that Jeddah race (highly unlikely) , and that such 'softening' wont hurt their performance through the T7 to T10 excursion as much as it would hurt other teams.

[Farnborough]

Was just going to talk about this. Whilst I have no idea if it is the case, I'm interested to look into whether the aero load through mid to high corners might mitigate the stiffness with which we run our car whereas in slower corners, there is nothing to counterbalance the stiffness and bumps and kerbs will simply remove our traction more than it might another car. I get the impression we need to run stiffer than some others, it certainly tends to look this way.

This would tie into the general issue with bumps on entry to corners, which is I think one of the main contributors to COTA and Singapore.

This is quite a difficult area in suspension generally. If the suspension is allowed to compress in response to that particular type of bump by damping modulation, then it can run the risk of "jacking" downward as the compression input total linear accumulation could possibly exceed the recovery to level achieved by the spring.
Another discipline, IoM TT bike racing, they habitually run low resistance on forks return damping for example otherwise hitting successive bumps on brakes near corner entry ends up with the front compressed, the steering geometry going steeper, and tyre then taking high staccato forces (rather than suspension) with poorer handling and grip consequences.

These F1 cars have to resist the full accumulation of aero load (that's what makes the tyres grip, by transferring through the springs) and then try to impart control over that necessity with damping demand.
Broadly ... springs support the load fully, dampers control the time frame over which the various inputs are distributed.

Interestingly, the F1 cars force a wave form distortion within the tarmac surface, the grip being so high .... which is hated by the Moto-GP riders as it's very disruptive to them

The wave form in surface a product of hyteris/flow within materials and frequency of spring damper interaction as the cars try to grip it. Each iteration of a car braking effectively causes change to that surface.

[mwillems]

With the unique suspension layout of Mclaren where load is more vertical and pushing a little less into the dampners, which was part of what wache was referring to as having increased the anti dive, does this reduce the damping effect we can produce and therefore affect ride height and softness setup a bit more

Tracks where it is all slow corners would be fine. But tracks with varied sections could cause greater compromise, like Baku, Canada and even Singapore with the newer layout.

Interestingly, Stella has commented that the car struggles in low downforce configuration, again, makes me wonder if this car works better under load for these reasons.

I'd just assumed previously that the need for speed was about getting the floor to work.

Now im wondering if the platform as a whole needs load to be in the window.

[mwillems]

This is almost pure supposition, I know.

[Farnborough]

With the unique suspension layout of Mclaren where load is more vertical and pushing a little less into the dampners, which was part of what wache was referring to as having increased the anti dive, does this reduce the damping effect we can produce and therefore affect ride height and softness setup a bit more

Tracks where it is all slow corners would be fine. But tracks with varied sections could cause greater compromise, like Baku, Canada and even Singapore with the newer layout.

Interestingly, Stella has commented that the car struggles in low downforce configuration, again, makes me wonder if this car works better under load for these reasons.

I'd just assumed previously that the need for speed was about getting the floor to work.

Now im wondering if the platform as a whole needs load to be in the window.

The "anti dive" component in suspension is effectively a geometric "conflict" within the suspension arm's design that causes kinetic mass etc when applied to counteract what we'd expect it to do without that.

Simplistically, it acts in isolation of the spring by trying to lift the car (in this case under braking load) ultimately to obviate the springs having to contend with this force. No it's not controlled by damping action, just resistive while being exposed to the input force. The tire contact and dynamic will receive all of the forces acting on it though, both spring derived and anti element.
This SHOULD allow softer springs to be used as they don't logically have to have a rating sufficient to take that additional loading.
As already understood on here, different % of anti effect can be designed into the whole suspension system.

Its commonly viewed that this effect "numbs" driver feedback and interpretation, which may figure more prominent in some drivers perception of the grip they are deploying.

[Farnborough]

Yes, it's based on setup, as I understand, McLaren can afford to run a much softer setup for slow corner dominated tracks, since they have a wide working range of ride heights. Strange that Stella made that comment, it was in Singapore race that we saw how benign the McL39 was on kerbs (I forgot to mention which T17 I was talking about in my post, edited it to specify which track it was on) - if you can rewatch it, watch one of the laps where the TV coverage showed T17 (looking front on) with Max and Lando back-to-back passing through there. Another stellar example is T23 kerb in Jeddah - the McL39 was a class above when it was able to simply smash through it, while other cars were getting severely 'jiggled' doing the same thing and they resorted to just 'half-ride' that T23 (watch 1:04 to 1:06 = T23, https://www.formula1.com/en/video/ghost ... 5538230907 , and look how Piastri 'gained' through T23)

The greater acceptance of curb/bump movement ordinarily comes from the high speed damper interaction. Thats high "shaft" speed, if a conventional push/pull damper rod is in use. This to enact high response rate for that initial hit as it comes. Effectively it accepts the movement in that pace by yealding under that speed input, whereas it wouldn't respond that way under the threshold, still imparting it's designed for speed modulation for normal bump absorption.

The "springs" as such have a limit if we are talking about softness as they (for all the cars in field) must support ultimately the total load the aero platform can apply to them.

We have illustration of total movement range capabilities in Oscar driving with broken pull rod (example over in car thread) without being constrained by the spring damper control. Not often that could be seen out in the wild

high damping rate = stiff at low speed (low freq impulse), soft at high speed (high freq impulse) , right ? irrespective of whether they use road car like springs/shockers or F1 style torsion springs / dampers. The concept stands, doesn't it ? The only difference being that unlike road cars, the 'pre-loading' on the 'spring element' is higher at higher speed for F1 cars due to the variable aero loading - kind of like an 'automatic' progressive spring.

However, that was not the point I was trying to illustrate with the video link (perhaps it's unrepresentative for Mexico where the cornering speeds are nowhere near Jeddah) ; what I was driving at, is that inherently McLaren can 'afford' to run less stiff (whether they implement this through the torsion rod or the damper or both), because their aero platform is more robust to dynamic ride height changes, whether at low or high speeds. And for a track dominated by slow speed turns, everyone is going to run less stiff (more dynamic weight changes help mechanical grip over low speed chicane kerbs, U-turns, small radius turns), than say at Spa/Jeddah. I am expecting that McLaren hasn't lost this capability over the 'updates' they brought since that Jeddah race (highly unlikely) , and that such 'softening' wont hurt their performance through the T7 to T10 excursion as much as it would hurt other teams.

Road car springs are torsion, just wrapped in a coil shape to fit in a space. They twist along their length in torsion to produce the same resistance as a straight bar arrangement. No different in that aspect.

Spring progression can be designed into that torsion component, F1 system USUALLY make use of the "bell cranks" to bring progression to the wheel by altering the mechanical ratio as it swings, such that the wheel is more at leverage disadvantage the further it moves upward.
In simple terms, the spring would be specified to rate in supporting the vehicle gross weight, then through bellcrank geometric "curve" upwards (if plotted for rate) in a notional match for the progressively higher loading as aero gain came on. If it didn't do this, the aero load would completely flatten the system down to nothing.
With dampers attached also through those bellcrank devices, then they too give the wheel progression in damping by that increasing disadvantage as it gets further into its stroke.

To complicate things, they seem to be making at least at the rear the travel to drop the car when subjected to more load after initial response, contrary to that I've just written. More informed knowledge and detail would be needed to understand what they have in there .... they are keeping those things tightly garded though.

[erikejw]

George(Mercedes engine) almost managed to torpedo Max in the sprint at COTA.

Cheered on by Toto.

I guess George has other motivations to dislike Max than supporting us though

[
quote=Darth-Piekus post_id=1306358 time=1761242806 user_id=39050]
They won't use a driver to take Max out. It's against sporting fairness.
[/quote]

[venkyhere]

Spring progression can be designed into that torsion component, F1 system USUALLY make use of the "bell cranks" to bring progression to the wheel by altering the mechanical ratio as it swings, such that the wheel is more at leverage disadvantage the further it moves upward.
In simple terms, the spring would be specified to rate in supporting the vehicle gross weight, then through bellcrank geometric "curve" upwards (if plotted for rate) in a notional match for the progressively higher loading as aero gain came on. If it didn't do this, the aero load would completely flatten the system down to nothing.
With dampers attached also through those bellcrank devices, then they too give the wheel progression in damping by that increasing disadvantage as it gets further into its stroke.

To complicate things, they seem to be making at least at the rear the travel to drop the car when subjected to more load after initial response, contrary to that I've just written. More informed knowledge and detail would be needed to understand what they have in there .... they are keeping those things tightly garded though.

Thanks, now I can grasp your previous post on this. Although what you described about the rear has confused me

[Ben1980]

https://x.com/wearetherace/status/19814 ... MeeJQ&s=19

All a bit silly.

[mwillems]

I guess I badly explained what i was getting at.

With the front suspension, a more parallel arm can change the energy transfer characteristics from the suspension arms to springs/dampers, affecting how forces like lateral loads, braking, and downforce are handled.

This is the key difference I'm trying to get at between our design and others, and how this might affect our setup.

The rear isn't the issue, it has more ride height to play with so can drop. I'm wondering if the front, due to height and kinematics, is a bit more stiff or behaves differently and might be more sensitive to aero loading than other cars.

Another thought is the geometries of the floor being designed for certain ride heights, and if we are able to run a bit lower that our geometry has a window to accommodate this, but when ride height is compromised in setup, that the car loses it's advantage compared to others on the same track.