McLaren MCL33

[dren]

Thoughts on if they'll retain that rear suspension upper arm next year?

[BrunoH]

i dont think so.. its something that maybe caused the problems they have this year, i dont think they will take a chance and continue with it in order to have better assurances next year car is good

[trinidefender]

i dont think so.. its something that maybe caused the problems they have this year, i dont think they will take a chance and continue with it in order to have better assurances next year car is good

Maybe or maybe not. Contrary to popular belief there is zero evidence to say that it is the cause of the problems at the rear this year. There is only the very reaching and terrible argument that is:
- New rear wishbone is more extreme (even though last years own was very similar to this one and that car was supposedly very stable under braking)
- MCL33 has rear instability
Ergo new rear wishbone = instability
...sounds dumb doesn't it....thought so.

I'm actually going to hark at a guess and say a large part of the rear instability comes from the regulations for 2018 that forced changes in the front suspension and steering geometry which caused compromises in other parts of the car.

Back on point...the choice whether or not to run such an extreme wishbone will come down to a mathematical calculation between what gives a greater lap time improvement, either a lighter split wishbone or a heavier but more aerodynamic single piece.

N.b. Slightly off topic but that seems to be the crux of McLarens woes right now. There seems to be ambiguity in the team to decide what route to take when it comes to car development and car design as there is no one clear leader. No one is forced to stick their neck on the line for fear of it getting chopped off so the reponsibility gets passed from manager to manager in their so called matrix management structure. A bit sad really.

[PhillipM]

Thoughts on if they'll retain that rear suspension upper arm next year?

I'd imagine so, if they have any weakness/flex (see the ones that broke on Alonso for example), they've had a full year to analyse any stiffness problems and work on them if need be.
It's not great mechanically (and that's where the arguements against it are routed, there's no denying it gives more issues on motion ratio, friction and installation stiffness, it has to, that's simple mathematics) but F1 is an aero formula, which is why they compromised it to start with.

In next years car with tighter packaging and sidepods there'll be even more aero benefit to it.

[diffuser]

Thoughts on if they'll retain that rear suspension upper arm next year?

I think they will. Initially when I thought the rear suspension was suspect, I hadn't seen this bar ...



It's pretty well hidden. I always wonders how, the other bar, an almost completely north/south suspension bar could hold the car under left/right pressures. Well, the obvious answer is, it doesn't. It has help. Once i saw it, I started seeing it everywhere....



and




In short, I don't think their rear suspension is that much different than last years after all.

[godlameroso]

i dont think so.. its something that maybe caused the problems they have this year, i dont think they will take a chance and continue with it in order to have better assurances next year car is good

Maybe or maybe not. Contrary to popular belief there is zero evidence to say that it is the cause of the problems at the rear this year. There is only the very reaching and terrible argument that is:
- New rear wishbone is more extreme (even though last years own was very similar to this one and that car was supposedly very stable under braking)
- MCL33 has rear instability
Ergo new rear wishbone = instability
...sounds dumb doesn't it....thought so.

I'm actually going to hark at a guess and say a large part of the rear instability comes from the regulations for 2018 that forced changes in the front suspension and steering geometry which caused compromises in other parts of the car.

Back on point...the choice whether or not to run such an extreme wishbone will come down to a mathematical calculation between what gives a greater lap time improvement, either a lighter split wishbone or a heavier but more aerodynamic single piece.

N.b. Slightly off topic but that seems to be the crux of McLarens woes right now. There seems to be ambiguity in the team to decide what route to take when it comes to car development and car design as there is no one clear leader. No one is forced to stick their neck on the line for fear of it getting chopped off so the reponsibility gets passed from manager to manager in their so called matrix management structure. A bit sad really.

Maybe time for someone to risk it all. I thought they understood what the problem was and how to fix it.

You need a clear hierarchy with no flippancy or it'll poison the whole process.

[diffuser]

Doesn't fit to their design philosophy. They have to keep a much wider sidepod for the vortex generators to work. Plus if they went the RB way they'd compromise the intercoolers which itself compensate for the narrow upper body.

But this is the issue, this design seems to underperform compared to the tall and narrow sidepod design. The Renault PU might have different packaging requirements but Red Bull made it work, so I guess McLaren should be looking that way.

This is not the issue. It's a less ambitious sidepod design that's all. Their issues are some fundamental aero flaws that would take months worth of R&D. Renault's is even less aggressive but they were 0.8 sec ahead in Germany.

I was talking about this as a counter to a longer wheelbase. I think this is a hell of a lot better solution than a longer wheel base (and by extension a longer car). You could still have vortex generators if you wanted. Narrowing the sidepods, by filling some of that void above the PU, would decrease drag.

Weight
- Longer car, heavier Car. Compromises on Balance
- Sidepod that start further back is even lighter still (less sidepod).

[604gtir]

I'm actually going to hark at a guess and say a large part of the rear instability comes from the regulations for 2018 that forced changes in the front suspension and steering geometry which caused compromises in other parts of the car.

I've been thinking the same thing for awhile.

Does the Mclaren run a hydraulic heave element like the Mercedes/Redbull? or did they in 2017 and have lost it in 2018?

[M840TR]

But this is the issue, this design seems to underperform compared to the tall and narrow sidepod design. The Renault PU might have different packaging requirements but Red Bull made it work, so I guess McLaren should be looking that way.

This is not the issue. It's a less ambitious sidepod design that's all. Their issues are some fundamental aero flaws that would take months worth of R&D. Renault's is even less aggressive but they were 0.8 sec ahead in Germany.

I was talking about this as a counter to a longer wheelbase. I think this is a hell of a lot better solution than a longer wheel base (and by extension a longer car). You could still have vortex generators if you wanted. Narrowing the sidepods, by filling some of that void above the PU, would decrease drag.

Weight
- Longer car, heavier Car. Compromises on Balance
- Sidepod that start further back is even lighter still (less sidepod).

Ferrari had it last year yet they still went with longer wheelbase. Getting the intake narrower and higher doesn't free up more space for the bargeboards which is what they wanted for more efficiency. However, narrow sidepods do mean more area to play around with the diffuser and floor which is what RB did. But it's still not an adequate alternative for long wheelbase.

[diffuser]

This is not the issue. It's a less ambitious sidepod design that's all. Their issues are some fundamental aero flaws that would take months worth of R&D. Renault's is even less aggressive but they were 0.8 sec ahead in Germany.

I was talking about this as a counter to a longer wheelbase. I think this is a hell of a lot better solution than a longer wheel base (and by extension a longer car). You could still have vortex generators if you wanted. Narrowing the sidepods, by filling some of that void above the PU, would decrease drag.

Weight
- Longer car, heavier Car. Compromises on Balance
- Sidepod that start further back is even lighter still (less sidepod).

Ferrari had it last year yet they still went with longer wheelbase. Getting the intake narrower and higher doesn't free up more space for the bargeboards which is what they wanted for more efficiency. However, narrow sidepods do mean more area to play around with the diffuser and floor which is what RB did. But it's still not an adequate alternative for long wheelbase.

True about Ferrari, they did go with a longer wheelbase. What is unclear is if Ferrari's longer wheelbase is better. Clearly it wasn't at Monaco where RBR didn't have a power deficiency. but then the difference between the 2 chassis are greater than just the wheelbase.

At any rate. If I where McLaren I would go the same route as Ferrari + RBR and shorten the sidepods BEFORE lengthening the wheelbase.

[M840TR]

I was talking about this as a counter to a longer wheelbase. I think this is a hell of a lot better solution than a longer wheel base (and by extension a longer car). You could still have vortex generators if you wanted. Narrowing the sidepods, by filling some of that void above the PU, would decrease drag.

Weight
- Longer car, heavier Car. Compromises on Balance
- Sidepod that start further back is even lighter still (less sidepod).

Ferrari had it last year yet they still went with longer wheelbase. Getting the intake narrower and higher doesn't free up more space for the bargeboards which is what they wanted for more efficiency. However, narrow sidepods do mean more area to play around with the diffuser and floor which is what RB did. But it's still not an adequate alternative for long wheelbase.

True about Ferrari, they did go with a longer wheelbase. What is unclear is if Ferrari's longer wheelbase is better. Clearly it wasn't at Monaco where RBR didn't have a power deficiency. but then the difference between the 2 chassis are greater than just the wheelbase.

At any rate. If I where McLaren I would go the same route as Ferrari + RBR and shorten the sidepods BEFORE lengthening the wheelbase.

Vettel was only 0.2 sec down in quali. The Redbull still has more downforce; could notice it in Silverstone so it's not just slow corners.
I agree. Long wheelbase is too big a risk and they need some stability.

[M840TR]

[M840TR]

Why is Mclaren so coy with their front suspension?

[M840TR]

Only car on the grid completely without a tea-tray extension.

[M840TR]