A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
I think it is a antenna. It was also reported that mclaren had lost the telemetrie connection between box and cars in FP3.
According to Scarb is an aero sensor
I don't really know how it works exactly, but if it is an aero sensor, isn't the positioning a little bit weird? It's quite high-up. Seems like it wouldn't measure anything but "clean air" before it hits the halo behind.
I think it is a antenna. It was also reported that mclaren had lost the telemetrie connection between box and cars in FP3.
According to Scarb is an aero sensor
I don't really know how it works exactly, but if it is an aero sensor, isn't the positioning a little bit weird? It's quite high-up. Seems like it wouldn't measure anything but "clean air" before it hits the halo behind.
Isn’t that the exact purpose of it? To measure air pressure, speed, and direction during the run
Maybe something to do with simulator correlation or CFD correlation
I don't really know how it works exactly, but if it is an aero sensor, isn't the positioning a little bit weird? It's quite high-up. Seems like it wouldn't measure anything but "clean air" before it hits the halo behind.
These aero sensors are usually pressure probes. The hole at the front experiences the stagnation pressure which is a combination of static pressure and dynamic pressure (the fact, that the air particles hit the probe at the front, exerting force). The dynamic pressure is directly related to the velocity (for an incompressible flow this relation is p_dyn = ½ * density * v^2). The holes at the sides experience only static pressure (when the probe is thin enough to neglect the shape. When the shape changes the flow, you can use measure coefficients to get the static).
Therefore, subtracting the static pressure from the total you get the dynamic, from which you can calculate the speed in relation to the air, which is the most important factor for downforce generation.
Now, from the pressure differences of the holes at an angle (or in MCL solution at both sides) you can calculate the yaw.
And a comparison between Qatar and AbuDhabi for both RBR21 and MCl39.
Maybe is the angle but for me there is no perfect match between the 2 RW's for MCL39 as formula is saying. Maybe I'm wrong:
As we are closing onto this chapter, wanted to touch one last subject which was particularly impactful on McLaren I would say. The original idea behind the ground effect rules was to make the cars follow more closely, but as the seasons went on most teams shifted their aero philosophy toward generating a stronger outboard fence vortex at the front of the floor. I believe that vortex became a key part of sealing the tunnels and protecting the low-pressure region from tyre wake. The problem is that, at least from an amateur eye's perspective, that kind of structure seems extremely dependent on receiving clean, energetic flow. Once it gets hit with disturbed air from the car ahead, it can weaken, diffuse or shift laterally, and the whole pressure distribution under the floor becomes less stable almost instantly.
I believe McLaren was one of the teams leaning the hardest into a high-energy, highly loaded version of this concept. Their floor design rewards them with very strong peak downforce and a predictable platform when everything is running smoothly. You can see this in how confident their front end looks in clean air. In my opinion this came at a trade-off. Their aero platform seemed to operate closer to the edge of stability with the MCL39 and I believe that's why Lando in particular suffered so much earlier on the season, making a lot of mistakes.
And I believe, for McLaren in particular, the "over-reliance" on that vortex was probably one of the reasons why they seemed to struggle more in dirty air than others. If that vortex loses strength even slightly, the forward part of the tunnel stops pulling as hard and the front grip falls away very quickly.
A small caveat here, this is obviously just an amateur's interpretation from the outside, but I think the pattern fits. The regulations pushed everyone toward more vortex-supported floors, but I think McLaren’s particular implementation seemed to rely on that structure being perfectly preserved. With the MCL39, they chased a closer and more complex interaction between the front suspension arms and that outboard fence, potentially acting as a "booster" to deal with the tire wake. So from that perspective, I believe the decision to go for it had less to do with chasing an extreme anti-dive setup, as some earlier comments suggested, but mostly about "reviving" the y250 vortex conceptually.
In the end, this car had many more tricks up its sleeves, particularly with temp management, which until the end of the season, remained uncracked (as far as I know). Going into next year, it would be interesting to see how the current McLaren fares on a brand new regulation cycle. In 2022 they struggled, but we are talking about two completely different teams. These last 2 years were impressive, but they did not have to "come up" with the "correct" aero platform by themselves. RedBull proved the right direction already in 2022.
The big question now is whether McLaren can be the ones who set the trends going forward. On paper, they should be one of the most capable teams in the field. So if they are not at least challenging for the podium from the start of the year, I think it would be fair to consider it a major disappointment.
