2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team

[AR3-GP]

Gasly is saying they are just a passenger to the Mercedes PU.

"For the same engine, someone who has more capacity to figure it all out and how to get on top of the energy management [will benefit], but at the same time, there's quite a lot of stuff we don't have control over.

"So it feels like we are more on the passenger side with what we can do inside the car, but I think it is going to evolve, but it is not like a case of: 'Oh, I am going to recharge my battery now and deploy it here because I decide to do this and that.'

"There might be some engines which allow that, and others which don't, but I still don't think it is going to be as straightforward as the guys with more capacity will be able to do better, as I'm not sure he'll have the tools to actually do the stuff he wants.

https://racingnews365.com/pierre-gasly- ... t=14255208

[Watto]

Mclaren seem to be one of the faster Mercs. Either the Merc engine is sandbagged for political reasons or we just aren't in the same league as Ferrari and Red Bull.

However, the chances that Merc engines are not showing their pace may well be real.

It's very much wait and see on all fronts.

I suspect Mercedes are sandbagging a little with the controversy over their engine - albeit its I'd imagine kinda pointless as the FIA would have had them on a dyno.

While I think the controversy is going on about the though they will give Ferrari,Honda, RBPT,Audi as little ammunition as they can

[LionsHeart]

I love graphics like this.
https://youtu.be/XNbm-949aOQ?si=KgAC3yddc-QOObcU

[LionsHeart]

It’s true that many of the factors that will make cars successful here will be highly circuit specific.

We saw a similar effect in the DRS era, some cars were simply more efficient in the low-drag (open) state than others. Teams that achieve lower drag in the open aero configuration will naturally have an advantage at circuits where the FIA enables more active aero usage. The Red Bull isn't fast just because of deployment.

The move to smaller rear tyres also increases the importance of traction and rear tyre management. Cars that can preserve the rears while maintaining traction will have more freedom to deploy energy aggressively on corner exit.

Teams that are harsh on rear tyres may find those deployment strategies less accessible, even if they are theoretically desirable.

But to be honest I posted that having observed many quick reactions to each article and quote about pecking order that contradicts the last. It's politics, and media taking advantage making sure every team fan has multiple articles to lift them up and pull them down

They must absolutely make a killing on ad revenue during testing

I'm already used to it when they say, "Wait a couple of races, let everyone get their bearings." But this happens every year and feels like déjà vu.

By the way, yes, the rear tires are a limiting factor here in Bahrain, as the track puts a lot of strain on the rear tires. I watched the video yelinister posted. Compared to last year, there's more wheelspin, and the cars don't catapult out of slow corners as quickly. This was to be expected, but then after 170 km/h the cars quickly gain acceleration due to electric power.

Now that several top teams have race pace training, I want to look at which cars of which years are closest to that average pace. And if we assume this is close to the maximum, then there's still some headroom for qualifying pace. That means the overall pace difference between qualifying and the race could be over 6 seconds. Maybe 7. That seems like a lot. I'll need to spend a lot of time comparing everything. I'll post my observations here afterward.

I think there's more for the teams to learn in order to refine setups, driving styles and deployment maps before we know who's really going to struggle.

I remember last year the concerns about McLaren's rear, for instance. The rear looked "edgy" at Bahrain testing, however deg was still low and the car was good with the tyres at the race, pretty good. Testing does seem to exacerbate some of the visual traits, like rear spin and peakiness.

We probably do need to get in to the season to see what is what.

I also watched a few videos and you can see deployment being administered carefully after exit, sometimes considerably after exit, in relative terms. Teams who can get a handle on that and exit early will benefit as much as someone who can deploy a bit more at the end of the straight, due to the "multiplier" effect of more power early. In the bits I saw, the Mclaren is also one being tentative on exit, for the time being - at least in the small bit of footage I saw.

Yes, I think so too. Teams will be focusing a lot on the rear suspension, rear tire temperature management, and electrical energy mapping to maximize the power delivery and acceleration out of slow corners.

[LionsHeart]

Yes, I agree with that statement. But that's the way it goes year after year. Therefore, the test results can be taken as facts in themselves, and within these tests, one can simply speculate. The second and third races are Shanghai and Suzuka. These tracks will reveal a lot about the reality.

I am waiting for China T1-2-3 and Sector1 in Suzuka. In my mind, they are perfect benchmarks for an F1 car.

McLaren was on par with RedBull in the first sector of Suzuka back in 2019. Yet they were shockingly bad in slow & medium speed corners.

Those sections tell you who has the most usable peak downforce, but they're not necessarily the best benchmark, because there's usually not a lot of time to be gained in very high speed sections. You can think of it in terms of percentages. If the best car takes a very fast corner at 270 kmh, if the second best takes it at 265 then they're just 1.85% slower. However, if on a medium speed corner the best car takes it at 90 kmh, but the second best has to slow down to 85 kmh, that's 5.56% slower.

If you translate that into lap time, the difference becomes even clearer. Over a typical high-speed corner of around 300 meters, that 5 kmh deficit would only cost around 0.08s. But over a shorter 100-meter medium-speed corner, the same 5 kmh gap can cost around two to three tenths. Basically, it's because you're spending more time per meter at lower speeds, so percentage losses in medium and slow corners hurt lap time disproportionately compared to very fast sections.

That's why the best benchmark are usually the medium speed corners. Off-camber if possible. It's what has traditionally separated the best teams to the midfield. They're just much better on these tricky section where downforce is lower. Top teams generate more downforce at slower speeds than midfielders and they typically have a much better mechanical platform as well.

I guess corners that fall into this "benchmark" category would be corners like Imola 17 and 18 , or Melbourne T3. Or the last real corner in Bahrain. You could put T4 and particularly T5 in Barcelona in there as well. And many more.
There's basically a lot of such corners in the calendar where you can lose a lot of laptime for being a handful of kmh slower than the best car.

I can't disagree with your assertion. I'd just add that McLaren's main problems previously were in long, slow corners, which aren't particularly common in Bahrain. But they are present in Suzuka and Shanghai. McLaren didn't lose much time in those slow corners that are taken quickly, where the steering wheel reverses in a short period of time. So, not only does it take longer to negotiate the corners in slow corners, but it takes even more time in long, slow corners. This is what we saw in 2020 and 2021, when McLarens were quick in high-speed corners and straights, but lost 0.8 seconds in slow corners.

I'm also interested to see how McLaren builds on last year's success with its emphasis on medium-speed corners. Stella said that was a key priority in 2025. This year, with less overall downforce, that could reach a new level.

[LionsHeart]

And they aren’t wrong… Last year Mercedes finished first, Williams was actually third and Alpine 5th coming out of testing… and that couldn’t be more different than the actual pecking order during the season.

Bahrain is also a very particular track, not necessarily representative of the whole season… Doing well at Bahrain isn’t necessarily something that correlates to most races in the season.

Not only will doing well (or poorly) in a particular race won’t create correlation to other races, this season in particular will be one of rapid development for most teams and a potential constant change of the pecking order… It should be a fun one

Yes, I agree with that statement. But that's the way it goes year after year. Therefore, the test results can be taken as facts in themselves, and within these tests, one can simply speculate. The second and third races are Shanghai and Suzuka. These tracks will reveal a lot about the reality.

I am waiting for China T1-2-3 and Sector1 in Suzuka. In my mind, they are perfect benchmarks for an F1 car.

The long, slow corner sequences will be a major challenge. Of course, there was even less downforce before, and the drivers coped with it. Let's just say it might be a little more challenging for the new generation of drivers. But I'm sure everyone will fully adapt to the new rules and cars within a few weekends. The adaptation process usually happens quickly. Turns 1 and 2 in Shanghai are interesting because the speed constantly decreases, the rear end is relieved, and the balance shifts sharply from understeer to oversteer. We'll see whose chassis is more stable. On the second snail, where the acceleration onto the long straight occurs, on the other hand, it will be crucial to carefully adjust the power release map to avoid losing the rear end just as abruptly. Colapinto's epic fail during the launch seems to hint that there's a lot of torque, and that turning the steering wheel can quickly send the car careening toward the grass and the wall.

Of course, there's a lot to ponder. It's unclear how right or wrong we are right now. But how the teams and drivers will cope with this will be very interesting. I'm looking forward to the new season.

[LionsHeart]

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.

I'll chime in a bit, as the topic of gear ratios is very interesting. The gear ratio of a single gear is also interesting, but does that graph already include the final drive ratio? If so, then shorter gears deliver more torque to the drive wheels. Also, given that energy isn't always released from the battery, this will make it easier for the internal combustion engine to rotate the wheels. In other words, less electrical energy will be required to produce the same amount of torque at the wheels.

Theoretically, this should allow the car to use a lower-power electric energy map, thereby better preserving the battery's overall charge over long race distances. The same applies to long straights, when the car is driven at full throttle for extended periods. This also leads to another consequence: the engine revs higher, fuel consumption is slightly higher, and the opportunity for energy recovery during braking is slightly greater. This shouldn't affect overall acceleration, but it can help in areas where electric energy is released only at partial capacity, or not at all. One such example in Bahrain is the approach to turns 12-13, where only the combustion engine is running.

Shorter gearing will give slightly better chassis rotation in medium-speed corners. The engine also revs up faster, which should also reduce turbo lag. Although with a dual-clutch transmission, I don't think this happens in higher gears. Perhaps only when exiting slow and medium-speed corners, or when starting from a standing start. Again, understanding that clipping will start earlier, shorter gears allow you to downshift a little later without losing resistance in the transmission.

Perhaps someone else has a different opinion on this matter. I'd be happy to hear others' thoughts on this matter.

[LionsHeart]

Mclaren never featured above the low drag-high efficiency diagonal of the f1telem downforce map on any of the test days. They were always below the diagonal. Ferrari and Red Bull took turns above the diagonal. Mclaren seems to have similar characteristics to last year.

https://i.postimg.cc/J0KVNzgX/image.png

https://i.postimg.cc/FFx45TRz/image.png

https://i.postimg.cc/NffwgR96/image.png

From these pictures, I only understood one thing: McLaren is the most consistent in terms of top speed and average speed. The other teams are erratic. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

[Emag]

I am waiting for China T1-2-3 and Sector1 in Suzuka. In my mind, they are perfect benchmarks for an F1 car.

McLaren was on par with RedBull in the first sector of Suzuka back in 2019. Yet they were shockingly bad in slow & medium speed corners.

Those sections tell you who has the most usable peak downforce, but they're not necessarily the best benchmark, because there's usually not a lot of time to be gained in very high speed sections. You can think of it in terms of percentages. If the best car takes a very fast corner at 270 kmh, if the second best takes it at 265 then they're just 1.85% slower. However, if on a medium speed corner the best car takes it at 90 kmh, but the second best has to slow down to 85 kmh, that's 5.56% slower.

If you translate that into lap time, the difference becomes even clearer. Over a typical high-speed corner of around 300 meters, that 5 kmh deficit would only cost around 0.08s. But over a shorter 100-meter medium-speed corner, the same 5 kmh gap can cost around two to three tenths. Basically, it's because you're spending more time per meter at lower speeds, so percentage losses in medium and slow corners hurt lap time disproportionately compared to very fast sections.

That's why the best benchmark are usually the medium speed corners. Off-camber if possible. It's what has traditionally separated the best teams to the midfield. They're just much better on these tricky section where downforce is lower. Top teams generate more downforce at slower speeds than midfielders and they typically have a much better mechanical platform as well.

I guess corners that fall into this "benchmark" category would be corners like Imola 17 and 18 , or Melbourne T3. Or the last real corner in Bahrain. You could put T4 and particularly T5 in Barcelona in there as well. And many more.
There's basically a lot of such corners in the calendar where you can lose a lot of laptime for being a handful of kmh slower than the best car.

I can't disagree with your assertion. I'd just add that McLaren's main problems previously were in long, slow corners, which aren't particularly common in Bahrain. But they are present in Suzuka and Shanghai. McLaren didn't lose much time in those slow corners that are taken quickly, where the steering wheel reverses in a short period of time. So, not only does it take longer to negotiate the corners in slow corners, but it takes even more time in long, slow corners. This is what we saw in 2020 and 2021, when McLarens were quick in high-speed corners and straights, but lost 0.8 seconds in slow corners.

I'm also interested to see how McLaren builds on last year's success with its emphasis on medium-speed corners. Stella said that was a key priority in 2025. This year, with less overall downforce, that could reach a new level.

Yes I missread the original comment (which was later clarified) and I took an example with the 2019 McLaren specifically because I remember they almost beat Max in qualifying there, yet they lost way too much time on any track where medium and low speed corners were more prevalent.

So it was specifically about the 2019 McLaren. Although in 2023 after Austria upgrade they had something similar going on as well, just not as extreme. The car became the best in high speed corners, but they were suffering on medium speed corners in particular, like T11 in Austin.

In 2024 they built a more balanced package where they compromised their high speed strengths a bit, but in return they became the best in medium speed corners (after Miami of course). 2025 then just built on that. They improved everywhere by a bit but the biggest thing was the temperature management. The optimal operating window was increased to the point where no other car could be as consistently good. RedBull turned it around after Monza where they could output a higher peak performance every once in a while, but they still couldn’t beat McLaren’s consistency.

[FittingMechanics]

I haven't seen this earlier but apparently that failed test start by Piastri at the end of Day 3 was not because of any issue, but because he had instructions to launch one by one.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/oscar-pia ... y-concerns

Piastri said that there was nothing sinister going on from a power unit point of view.

“I think the start today was just a mix-up in instructions,” he said. “I got told to wait until whoever was in front of me had gone and then do my own launch, and not do it to the lights.

“Clearly, some other people had a different idea.

“So that was nothing to do with the power units.”

[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.

I'll chime in a bit, as the topic of gear ratios is very interesting. The gear ratio of a single gear is also interesting, but does that graph already include the final drive ratio? If so, then shorter gears deliver more torque to the drive wheels. Also, given that energy isn't always released from the battery, this will make it easier for the internal combustion engine to rotate the wheels. In other words, less electrical energy will be required to produce the same amount of torque at the wheels.

Theoretically, this should allow the car to use a lower-power electric energy map, thereby better preserving the battery's overall charge over long race distances. The same applies to long straights, when the car is driven at full throttle for extended periods. This also leads to another consequence: the engine revs higher, fuel consumption is slightly higher, and the opportunity for energy recovery during braking is slightly greater. This shouldn't affect overall acceleration, but it can help in areas where electric energy is released only at partial capacity, or not at all. One such example in Bahrain is the approach to turns 12-13, where only the combustion engine is running.

Shorter gearing will give slightly better chassis rotation in medium-speed corners. The engine also revs up faster, which should also reduce turbo lag. Although with a dual-clutch transmission, I don't think this happens in higher gears. Perhaps only when exiting slow and medium-speed corners, or when starting from a standing start. Again, understanding that clipping will start earlier, shorter gears allow you to downshift a little later without losing resistance in the transmission.

Perhaps someone else has a different opinion on this matter. I'd be happy to hear others' thoughts on this matter.

Yes this is what we are saying (Though without the context of rotation and turbo lag), but highlighting that it may be an indicator that they expect to run with less top speed, or are happy to sacrifice some top speed for the sake of gearing and single circuit performance (ICE doing more work earlier, and the traction limit transition to power limit occuring a bit later on exit), but with the caveat that it could also be an indicator of drag or perhaps that we think our efficiency might be less that what other teams think they will have.

Or we are spot on! lol We can't know just know, but it is the first indicator of what the team are thinking.

Aside from that, given that speed differences can be 10kph or more, and that unlike DRS the speed difference will occur and grow earlier on the straight (DRS speed differential was always the last few seconds on a straight, and minimal time difference) - that the speed differential could be a material race issue - if it materialises and our closer competitors have better deployment and drag.

So whilst we cannot know the answer, the concern was that gearing itself might highlight an issue with drag or deployment. Might.

We are though, at testing at least, the fastest Merc powered car in a straight line, so then there is the question of politics and sandbagging, and if you look at all the comments from every team about their pace, it does feel very much like we are steeped in a political battle and the comments about performance may have absolutely nothing to do with actual performance

I suspect that gearing is very much going to be linked to "average" corner profiles for engine braking, rear balance, rear wear, driving style and harvesting - and probably the affect these things will have on the front. And the original question from me was, since they are doing so much learning as to what is the right amount of RPM and gearing through certain corners, are they still able to alter their gearing before the seasons start. But then it grew.

[mwillems]

If you hope to overtake anyone ever, you do. Although maybe Mclaren realized that overtake mode is really useless as I was suggesting in pre-season thread.

It's the point I made at the start, the shorter top end gearing may indicate more drag or less energy efficiency than others.

Of course it may be spot on, but you kind of think that as FM says, they have geared for the speed they think they can reach.

Yes I agree with that, for better or worse. I think it is already an indication that the Mclaren is quite draggy again. One assumes they will need a similar or greater downforce advantage than last year to compensate.

Yes, I am thinking they might be.

[chrisc90]

I haven't seen this earlier but apparently that failed test start by Piastri at the end of Day 3 was not because of any issue, but because he had instructions to launch one by one.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/oscar-pia ... y-concerns

Piastri said that there was nothing sinister going on from a power unit point of view.

“I think the start today was just a mix-up in instructions,” he said. “I got told to wait until whoever was in front of me had gone and then do my own launch, and not do it to the lights.

“Clearly, some other people had a different idea.

“So that was nothing to do with the power units.”

Oscar was on the front row though…

[FittingMechanics]

I haven't seen this earlier but apparently that failed test start by Piastri at the end of Day 3 was not because of any issue, but because he had instructions to launch one by one.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/oscar-pia ... y-concerns

Piastri said that there was nothing sinister going on from a power unit point of view.

“I think the start today was just a mix-up in instructions,” he said. “I got told to wait until whoever was in front of me had gone and then do my own launch, and not do it to the lights.

“Clearly, some other people had a different idea.

“So that was nothing to do with the power units.”

Oscar was on the front row though…

You still launch one by one, usually they do it that way.

But I guess maybe Oscar is lying to the press.

[chrisc90]

I haven't seen this earlier but apparently that failed test start by Piastri at the end of Day 3 was not because of any issue, but because he had instructions to launch one by one.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/oscar-pia ... y-concerns

Oscar was on the front row though…

You still launch one by one, usually they do it that way.

But I guess maybe Oscar is lying to the press.

There’s the race start. (Ignore the guy in the top)
Why does space wait until near enough the whole grid is at turn 1 before moving away?


Likely ties in with why McLaren are asking for race start changes.