McLaren MCL33

[trinidefender]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... 56233/?s=1

Oh dear...

I'm going to guess that the addition of the halo and the loss of the T wing are the main cause of this.

They need more ellipse shaped bits.

Not this again....wasn't this being thrown around 2 years ago or something?

[dren]

I'm going to guess that the addition of the halo and the loss of the T wing are the main cause of this.

They need more ellipse shaped bits.

Not this again....wasn't this being thrown around 2 years ago or something?

I'll never forget that post. One of my all time favorites! It was a few years back further, when the Red Bull was dominating.

As to the woes of the MCL33, I wonder if they are having issues with the new nose's interaction with the front wing vortexes?

[Dipesh1995]

Does anyone think this is due to a wind tunnel issue where it’s not correlating to the track such that they’re seeing downforce levels in the wind tunnel not being replicated on the track? They’ve mentioned seeing an aero characteristic on track which they can’t replicate in the wind tunnel but I think there’s more than that going on. Otherwise, surely they would have known that the 2018 car has less downforce than the 2017 car during its design stage last year and done something about it before it hit the track? This also suggests why they’ve removed the detail (wavy wing thing) behind the bargeboards, maybe the car performed better in the WT without them but on track that’s not case but they’ve not realised that yet? The only other thing is the PU change but the back end of car doesn’t look significantly different compared to 2017. The introduction of the Halo and loss shark fin and T-Wing may have played a part but that’s the same for everybody and its unlikely that only McLaren have suffered from it.

[Dipesh1995]

As to the woes of the MCL33, I wonder if they are having issues with the new nose's interaction with the front wing vortexes?

I doubt it as the car was still poor without the new nose at the beginning of the season.

[PhillipM]

The nose seemed to actual work with the uptick in performance, and they still have the expertise there - you only have to look at the rear wing, vg's, nose, etc, being copied over the past year, there's obviously just something going on that's not quite tying the car together.

[dren]

The nose seemed to actual work with the uptick in performance, and they still have the expertise there - you only have to look at the rear wing, vg's, nose, etc, being copied over the past year, there's obviously just something going on that's not quite tying the car together.

My reasoning is that the car looks under developed rearward of the front nose/wing, so I figure they are having issues in the front that they need to sort before they follow with developments rearward.

[Vanja #66]

I'm going to guess that the addition of the halo and the loss of the T wing are the main cause of this.

Mercedes claimed they completely negated Halo negative effects with the new car, so McLaren didn't keep up if that's the case. And T-wing is a loss, but not that big to be honest.

There could be a lot of reasons for this, my best guess is correlation issues.

[diffuser]

Does anyone think this is due to a wind tunnel issue where it’s not correlating to the track such that they’re seeing downforce levels in the wind tunnel not being replicated on the track? They’ve mentioned seeing an aero characteristic on track which they can’t replicate in the wind tunnel but I think there’s more than that going on. Otherwise, surely they would have known that the 2018 car has less downforce than the 2017 car during its design stage last year and done something about it before it hit the track? This also suggests why they’ve removed the detail (wavy wing thing) behind the bargeboards, maybe the car performed better in the WT without them but on track that’s not case but they’ve not realised that yet? The only other thing is the PU change but the back end of car doesn’t look significantly different compared to 2017. The introduction of the Halo and loss shark fin and T-Wing may have played a part but that’s the same for everybody and its unlikely that only McLaren have suffered from it.

Not sure where you'd think they'd check to see DF levels when the car is at the design stage (aside from the wind tunnel). If the wind tunnel is lieing to you, you will not know till the car is on the track.

[Zynerji]

Did anyone ever answer if they can still trade a straight line test day for a full scale tunnel day?

Would be top of my list if still allowed.

[Dipesh1995]

Does anyone think this is due to a wind tunnel issue where it’s not correlating to the track such that they’re seeing downforce levels in the wind tunnel not being replicated on the track? They’ve mentioned seeing an aero characteristic on track which they can’t replicate in the wind tunnel but I think there’s more than that going on. Otherwise, surely they would have known that the 2018 car has less downforce than the 2017 car during its design stage last year and done something about it before it hit the track? This also suggests why they’ve removed the detail (wavy wing thing) behind the bargeboards, maybe the car performed better in the WT without them but on track that’s not case but they’ve not realised that yet? The only other thing is the PU change but the back end of car doesn’t look significantly different compared to 2017. The introduction of the Halo and loss shark fin and T-Wing may have played a part but that’s the same for everybody and its unlikely that only McLaren have suffered from it.

Not sure where you'd think they'd check to see DF levels when the car is at the design stage (aside from the wind tunnel). If the wind tunnel is lieing to you, you will not know till the car is on the track.

I meant they would have known via CFD and/or wind tunnel. In other words, I think they thought the 2018 car had more downforce than the 2017 car via the results from the CFD and wind tunnel but that hasn’t been translated onto the track which suggests to me that they’ve got fundamental correlation issues between WT and track.

[diffuser]

I know that we learned of the aero issues after the new nose was introduced. I wonder if they knew before and the new nose is them starting over? Generally when you go back to the nose and you make as big a change to it as McLaren have, everything else that follows the car's nose needs to be changed/adjusted. You start to tweak the FW, T-tray and that area then the midwing, bargeboards, sidepods, etc.

[diffuser]

Does anyone think this is due to a wind tunnel issue where it’s not correlating to the track such that they’re seeing downforce levels in the wind tunnel not being replicated on the track? They’ve mentioned seeing an aero characteristic on track which they can’t replicate in the wind tunnel but I think there’s more than that going on. Otherwise, surely they would have known that the 2018 car has less downforce than the 2017 car during its design stage last year and done something about it before it hit the track? This also suggests why they’ve removed the detail (wavy wing thing) behind the bargeboards, maybe the car performed better in the WT without them but on track that’s not case but they’ve not realised that yet? The only other thing is the PU change but the back end of car doesn’t look significantly different compared to 2017. The introduction of the Halo and loss shark fin and T-Wing may have played a part but that’s the same for everybody and its unlikely that only McLaren have suffered from it.

Not sure where you'd think they'd check to see DF levels when the car is at the design stage (aside from the wind tunnel). If the wind tunnel is lieing to you, you will not know till the car is on the track.

I meant they would have known via CFD and/or wind tunnel. In other words, I think they thought the 2018 car had more downforce than the 2017 car via the results from the CFD and wind tunnel but that hasn’t been translated onto the track which suggests to me that they’ve got fundamental correlation issues between WT and track.

That's how I understand what they've come out and said to us.

[trinidefender]

I'm going to guess that the addition of the halo and the loss of the T wing are the main cause of this.

Mercedes claimed they completely negated Halo negative effects with the new car, so McLaren didn't keep up if that's the case. And T-wing is a loss, but not that big to be honest.

There could be a lot of reasons for this, my best guess is correlation issues.

Maybe but Mercedes saying that they negated the negative effects of the halo is a rather grey term. It could mean that Mercedes is saying that even with the halo there they were able to make the bodywork and rear wing behind act as if it weren't there or, how I read it, that it just sounds like they are saying that they were able to make this years car have more downforce than last years car regardless of the halo....in which case yes, it means that they did do a better job than McLaren.

I believe the loss of the shark fin had a large effect as well...not on total downforce numbers, but on the stability of the car which may have led to McLaren making more compromises in other parts of the car. If I remember correctly, Mercedes ran one of the smallest shark fins last year...I'm guessing therefore that the loss of some of that bodywork hurt them the least as they lost the least bodywork percentage wise.

Something just isn't adding up with the new car and I would have to agree that correlation issues sounds like the most plausible answer.

Thoughts?

[diffuser]

That would be ironic considering they blocked its return for 2018

[diffuser]

Remember 2017 honda was crowded up top but the 2016 was a lot more crowded..

But the Mcl32 isn't that crowded on top relative to others. I can understand 2016 because the cars were smaller however this indicates to a clear development direction by the design department.

Right......I'm guessing they've had other priorities.....I hope.