2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team

[mwillems]

They have logical reasons for what they have done, I'm sure. The ratios need to consider the whole package and how that car will generate its speed.

They do, but they were only putting the car on the dyno prior to the Barcelona test and have openly spoke about needing to learn about harvesting, which gearing will play a role in. So I'd assume that these ratios may be subject to change based on learnings.

All of this would have been in simulation. There's no basis to conclude Mclaren have done anything wrong. It's just different. We don't yet know what benefits will come from it, but I'm sure there are.

It's not about wrong, I'm sure all teams, if they have the opportunity, will take their real world learnings and make adjustments if they can and need to, which feels like it may be the case given how much the drivers have discussed the subject of the driveshaft rotation through corners. My post was not to suggest that McLaren's extreme was the wrong route, just a general thought.

[AR3-GP]

They do, but they were only putting the car on the dyno prior to the Barcelona test and have openly spoke about needing to learn about harvesting, which gearing will play a role in. So I'd assume that these ratios may be subject to change based on learnings.

All of this would have been in simulation. There's no basis to conclude Mclaren have done anything wrong. It's just different. We don't yet know what benefits will come from it, but I'm sure there are.

It's not about wrong, I'm sure all teams, if they have the opportunity, will take their real world learnings and make adjustments if they can and need to, which feels like it may be the case given how much the drivers have discussed the subject of the driveshaft rotation through corners. My post was not to suggest that McLaren's extreme was the wrong route, just a general thought.

I understand.

[mwillems]

Everyone is faster than everyone else

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/ar ... mgv9vmxwxo

I prefered the cartoon dog.

He's on so many mugs and pyjamas in this house that I'm sick of the sight of him!

My daughter is a Ferrari fan, but I did buy her a Mclaren hoodie to see if she could be swayed.

[ME4ME]

F1 teams are allowed one gear ratio change in 2026 so they might make adjustments at some point.

I like that Mclaren have done their own thing. Makes it more interesting.

[venkyhere]

Amongst the big four, McLaren trust themselves to have the smallest drag , otherwise they wouldn't have chosen such short gear ratios compared to the other three. Seems to me that Ferrari have taken a safe/conservative path. None of this info is serving any clue as to who will be fastest on which tracks. Such a divergence is a welcome variable that is going to be the 'biggest factor' in the unpredictability about 2026. Fastest car in the first 4-5 races may be the 4th fastest for the rest of the season. Just that fact that there is so much variance in pecking order is going to make the season 'not dull'.

(personally, I think those who have shorter numbers in the lower gears will 'recover energy' very well through the lap)

[mwillems]

I imagine that gears won't help just by being shorter, but how they can be used for engine braking in corners, longer gears might well perform the same function depending on driving style and rear mechanical traction.

Though the shorter gears suggest Mclaren has again not prioritised outright top speed. If the final gears were longer this would confirm a team believes it is low drag.

The MCL40 may be low drag, but the gearing doesn't lend weight to that idea.

[ME4ME]

Amongst the big four, McLaren trust themselves to have the smallest drag , otherwise they wouldn't have chosen such short gear ratios compared to the other three.

Could you explain your reasoning?

[_cerber1]

[venkyhere]

I imagine that shorter gears won't help just by being shorter, but how they can be used for engine braking in corners.

Though the shorter gears suggest Mclaren has again not prioritised outright top speed. If the final gears were longer this would confirm a team believes it is low drag.

The MCL40 may be low drag, but the gearing doesn't lend weight to that idea.

Could you explain your reasoning?

with a shorter gears, they could aim for the battery pack to take up a larger share (than other teams) of the 'aero load' in the straights (ICE will be at higher rpms, but not burning as much fuel) and vice versa (battery pack taking lesser share w.r.t other teams, of the 'aero load' through medium/high speed corners). Battery discharge of power being a more efficient activity than ICE discharge of power, it can only mean that by using higher RPM on the ICE in the medium/high speed sections, they are using ICE power more effectively (more recharge at these speeds than others), and by having low drag in the straights, they are using battery power more effectively.

This goes against the traditional notion that if you choose shorter gears, your top speed will be limited. Because whatever be the gearing, the ratios are never chosen such that ICE rpm becomes a limitation anyway; it has always been the drag being the limitation. And I believe even in these regulation sets, no team will choose ICE rpm to be defining their limit at top gear. And we are not talking about big differences in the ratios across teams - that whole chart is ranging between 80% to 100%.

[_cerber1]

It's possible that the team believes that on the longest straights like Monza or Baku, everyone will have energy problems, regardless of the gear ratios chosen in the gearbox, and their choice will give them better energy collection on average tracks.

[mwillems]

It'll definitely be geared to what they think will be the "average" or more populous track requirements, and the super long straights aren't common so they don't need to focus on them. How problematic that might be at tracks like Jeddah, Monza, Spa or Baku, I don't know, but you can foresee potential vulnerability there if the aero and deployment isn't up to scratch.

[mwillems]

I imagine that shorter gears won't help just by being shorter, but how they can be used for engine braking in corners.

Though the shorter gears suggest Mclaren has again not prioritised outright top speed. If the final gears were longer this would confirm a team believes it is low drag.

The MCL40 may be low drag, but the gearing doesn't lend weight to that idea.

Could you explain your reasoning?

with a shorter gears, they could aim for the battery pack to take up a larger share (than other teams) of the 'aero load' in the straights (ICE will be at higher rpms, but not burning as much fuel) and vice versa (battery pack taking lesser share w.r.t other teams, of the 'aero load' through medium/high speed corners). Battery discharge of power being a more efficient activity than ICE discharge of power, it can only mean that by using higher RPM on the ICE in the medium/high speed sections, they are using ICE power more effectively (more recharge at these speeds than others), and by having low drag in the straights, they are using battery power more effectively.

This goes against the traditional notion that if you choose shorter gears, your top speed will be limited. Because whatever be the gearing, the ratios are never chosen such that ICE rpm becomes a limitation anyway; it has always been the drag being the limitation. And I believe even in these regulation sets, no team will choose ICE rpm to be defining their limit at top gear. And we are not talking about big differences in the ratios across teams - that whole chart is ranging between 80% to 100%.

So you mean the ICE will bear the brunt of the work for exits and the MGU used more at post 180kph (ish)?
Is that an effective strategy rather than using full power earlier in the straight, or did I misunderstand?

I've just found an article about this from Scarbs, it has likely been posted elsewhere, but am posting here again.

https://motorsport.tech/formula-1/2026- ... s-in-focus

It doesn't sound very efficient as it seems you may be suggesting being part throttle on the straights for regen, but I don't think that is efficient. Are you able to explain a bit more as I may be misunderstanding. I guess these cars will be traction limited a bit more after corner exit and might not be power limited until what, 150+kph? That would be the same for most though, right? But that is under traditional F1 engines with 1000hp, so Power limitation would happen sooner?

I'm not sure how the teams can avoid some battery usage on corner exit without paying for it, though deployment will be graduated I guess?

[venkyhere]

I imagine that shorter gears won't help just by being shorter, but how they can be used for engine braking in corners.

Though the shorter gears suggest Mclaren has again not prioritised outright top speed. If the final gears were longer this would confirm a team believes it is low drag.

The MCL40 may be low drag, but the gearing doesn't lend weight to that idea.

Could you explain your reasoning?

with a shorter gears, they could aim for the battery pack to take up a larger share (than other teams) of the 'aero load' in the straights (ICE will be at higher rpms, but not burning as much fuel) and vice versa (battery pack taking lesser share w.r.t other teams, of the 'aero load' through medium/high speed corners). Battery discharge of power being a more efficient activity than ICE discharge of power, it can only mean that by using higher RPM on the ICE in the medium/high speed sections, they are using ICE power more effectively (more recharge at these speeds than others), and by having low drag in the straights, they are using battery power more effectively.

This goes against the traditional notion that if you choose shorter gears, your top speed will be limited. Because whatever be the gearing, the ratios are never chosen such that ICE rpm becomes a limitation anyway; it has always been the drag being the limitation. And I believe even in these regulation sets, no team will choose ICE rpm to be defining their limit at top gear. And we are not talking about big differences in the ratios across teams - that whole chart is ranging between 80% to 100%.

So you mean the ICE will bear the brunt of the work for exits and the MGU used more at post 180kph (ish)?
Is that an effective strategy rather than using full power earlier in the straight, or did I misunderstand?

I've just found an article about this from Scarbs, it has likely been posted elsewhere, but am posting here again.

https://motorsport.tech/formula-1/2026- ... s-in-focus

It doesn't sound very efficient as it seems you may be suggesting being part throttle on the straights for regen, but I don't think that is efficient. Are you able to explain a bit more as I may be misunderstanding. I guess these cars will be traction limited a bit more after corner exit and might not be power limited until what, 150+kph? That would be the same for most though, right? But that is under traditional F1 engines with 1000hp, so Power limitation would happen sooner?

I'm not sure how the teams can avoid some battery usage on corner exit without paying for it, though deployment will be graduated I guess?

No.. 'larger share' / 'lesser share' - I meant relative to others. let's say someone (say mercedes) chose 80:20 as the ICE:MGU energy share for a particular stretch. After looking at that chart, McLaren could be doing 83:17 with shorter gears or be one gear higher and still make it 75:25 for the same stretch. What I wrote about, was all 'in relative terms'. Using more battery for climbing from 300 to 330 kph in a straight will make sense because drag is growing exponentially, and given the fact that torque delivery tapers off at higher RPMs -> this will be a most efficient strategy, if McLaren have the 'lowest Cd of all'. That's what I meant.

[mwillems]

I can see the argument that the traction to power crossover may occur later, allowing ERS to ramp progressively, and a bit later, so that we have more deployment in the high speed phase of the straight, or we can max out deployment more later in the straight.

But if the strategy really is to lean more on electrical torque at the top end as you mentioned at the start, I’d expect to see slightly longer gearing in the top two gears to reflect that. I’m not sure the current ratios fully support the idea that we'll have strong top speed on the straight, but I do agree the lower gears look set up to let the ICE carry more of the exit. It may be just my understanding, I'm sure all will become clear to me/us in time. At the moment, that gearing means we have either got it really right, or there is a disadvantage in deployment/drag, because longer gears, if you do have the energy and the car is slippy, would still benefit I would think?

I suspect we aren't even scratching the surface of the physics here, if I'm honest.

[mwillems]

Big difference in gear ratios between Mclaren and Mercedes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBImPP2awAA ... =4096x4096

I wonder if the gearboxes are homologated yet, or if they are able to bring changes prior to Melbourne.
I'd assume we'll see a more engine braking this year, I wonder what toll that will take on the engines and gearbox over time, and how that is going to affect the brake balance and car balance going in to and through corners, drivers will have to work hard to keep the rear in check and to regenerate.

Apparently Merc are indeed concerned about excessive engine braking.

https://www.f1oversteer.com/news/merced ... -concerns/