McLaren MCL33

[M840TR]

good thing im not a f1 engineer because this looks very well integrated through my glasses with an obvious focus on a low CoG, but something clearly doesnt work

https://i.imgur.com/CqC3AQ0.jpg

via forthegoats on Reddit

It IS well integrated. It's quite extreme like the Redbull, just the opposite way. And they've had relatively better reliability in a short installation period as well. Some talented engineers at the team.

[f1rules]

shared on autosport, nice article on amus wth qoutes from stella and morris
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

recap

Big wake upcall came in bahrain, something did not work as expected on the car according to stella
then came spain and monaco which was reasonable. We knew that there where things on the car we didnt quit understand but we thought we could solve. In montreal reality hit, finally we became aware we had a real problem and from then on development was put on hold.
Further stella says. our 2017 car was a good platform, we wanted to develop on from that. In 2017 though we lost masively to rb in some corners and we wanted to solve that with the 18 model. Unfortunately we brought over the problem. In hinsight we went to far in certain areas which contributed to some aerodynamic problems, and we got ourself into a deadend situation
Amus: the mcl was not able to keep constant/stabile df through the whole corner. To counter that and get more stability they ran more wing which contributed to the lower top speeds
Amus: mclaren was not the only team having trouble keeping constant df. Stella explains its due to the wider cars, and says the biggest challenge of the aerodynamic team is to control front wheel wake since the frontwheels are now bigger hence producing more turbulence. This is even more critical due to the wider floor. The floor today is responsible for a higher % of overall df then before. And that according to stella is the secret of the top teams. Who manages to keep stabile df all through a corner is in another league.
Then he mentions they reached the borders of what can be simulated with cfd and windtunnel. From austrian gp and forwards fp1 was dedicated to testing, and according to simon roberts every single stone was turned to find out where the mistake was hidden
Stella: in fast corners our car was not that bad. Our deficit was mainly in slow corners. And that part is extremly difficult to simulate with cfd and windtunnel.
Amus: as soon the engineers realized the car was traped in its own concept, they did everything to understand why. Stella mentions that often its not one detail/component but the result of components combined. To get a better overall understanding they changed/updated their testing procedures
Simon roberts: is confident all problems has been identified. It was a long process, not something that happened one day to the other.We could have introduced soultions to the current car but that would have added weight. That why the development was slow during the sec half of the year. Stella adds. Its not as if we lacked ideas.The concept just had its limitations and many of the changes would not have had an impact.
lastly stella mentions that always when a car is difficult, its where alonso excel. Last year stoffel was closer but with the difficult car this year with unstable rear df, stoffel suffered more

[wesley123]

shared on autosport, nice article on amus wth qoutes from stella and morris
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/


Amus: the mcl was not able to keep constant/stabile df through the whole corner. To counter that and get more stability they ran more wing which contributed to the lower top speeds

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?

Amus: mclaren was not the only team having trouble keeping constant df. Stella explains its due to the wider cars, and says the biggest challenge of the aerodynamic team is to control front wheel wake since the frontwheels are now bigger hence producing more turbulence. This is even more critical due to the wider floor.

Considering how only McLaren and Williams have fallen back and everyone else has improved, we can make the assumption that everyone has gotten (more) to grips with it. After which you should ask yourself how teams with much less resources can get a grip on it but you can't.

Then he mentions they reached the borders of what can be simulated with cfd and windtunnel.

Is this so far behind compared to the top teams?

Stella: in fast corners our car was not that bad. Our deficit was mainly in slow corners. And that part is extremly difficult to simulate with cfd and windtunnel.

WTF?! That is completely contradicting what was said before. If your issue is sensitivity you would notice this in the fast corners, where aero matters more than in slow corners.

Simon roberts: is confident all problems has been identified. It was a long process, not something that happened one day to the other.We could have introduced soultions to the current car but that would have added weight.

Huh?

That why the development was slow during the sec half of the year. Stella adds. Its not as if we lacked ideas.The concept just had its limitations and many of the changes would not have had an impact.

Again contradicting itself.

Now I'm just hoping that a lot of stuff is lost in translation, because this makes very little sense.
I particularly like the 'we could have' idea. Imagine a soccer team that is in last place in the league saying they're actually the best team in the league, as they 'could have scored more goals'. It's a child's way of saying he wasn't actually as good at it as he thought he was.

Out of all the articles that are posted I can only read one thing; They have no clue.

But I suppose we're going to see if they figured it out next year.

[f1rules]

shared on autosport, nice article on amus wth qoutes from stella and morris
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/


Amus: the mcl was not able to keep constant/stabile df through the whole corner. To counter that and get more stability they ran more wing which contributed to the lower top speeds

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?
stabilising with more wing yes

Amus: mclaren was not the only team having trouble keeping constant df. Stella explains its due to the wider cars, and says the biggest challenge of the aerodynamic team is to control front wheel wake since the frontwheels are now bigger hence producing more turbulence. This is even more critical due to the wider floor.

Considering how only McLaren and Williams have fallen back and everyone else has improved, we can make the assumption that everyone has gotten (more) to grips with it. After which you should ask yourself how teams with much less resources can get a grip on it but you can't.

Then he mentions they reached the borders of what can be simulated with cfd and windtunnel.

Is this so far behind compared to the top teams?

Stella: in fast corners our car was not that bad. Our deficit was mainly in slow corners. And that part is extremly difficult to simulate with cfd and windtunnel.

WTF?! That is completely contradicting what was said before. If your issue is sensitivity you would notice this in the fast corners, where aero matters more than in slow corners.
the 2017 car

Simon roberts: is confident all problems has been identified. It was a long process, not something that happened one day to the other.We could have introduced soultions to the current car but that would have added weight.

Huh?
thats what it says, sounds reasonable to me, they needed time to get the puzzle together

That why the development was slow during the sec half of the year. Stella adds. Its not as if we lacked ideas.The concept just had its limitations and many of the changes would not have had an impact.

Again contradicting itself.
development meaning ,not a lot of parts was brought to the actual race car im interpetating, because the concept/problem would mask the gains, this is not the same as no development going on

Now I'm just hoping that a lot of stuff is lost in translation, because this makes very little sense.
I particularly like the 'we could have' idea. Imagine a soccer team that is in last place in the league saying they're actually the best team in the league, as they 'could have scored more goals'. It's a child's way of saying he wasn't actually as good at it as he thought he was.

Out of all the articles that are posted I can only read one thing; They have no clue.

But I suppose we're going to see if they figured it out next year.

we will see if they have an idea, i think its a interesting interview, where they admit it took time due to the complex nature of these cars but they are confident to have identified the problems

one area that maybe also muddy a bit, is that stella says there are not that many fast corners left in f1, even pouhon is easyli full he says, with that comment in mind, a lot of corners is put in the category slow, even medium ones that rely on aero

[KingHamilton01]

Got to say it doesn't fill me with confidence that they admitted the car had a fundamental flaw but yet won't say what it is? won't make any difference to the opposition if they know what the flaw is right? so why do they want to keep it a secret. Could well be that they still have issue's that need to be sorted, if correlation is still an issue in the wind tunnel then that will still affect them in 2019.

Hopefully Key can have a good input on the situation and will give the team a good direction to go in for 2020 but next season could be another transition.

[aral]

I am not sure why you feel that it would be necessary for McLaren to disclose what the flaw was. If they did, that could aid another manufacturer. There is no onus on any team to disclose good or bad points of their cars.

[wesley123]

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?
stabilising with more wing yes

The point is that increasing wing angles increases the sensitivity. It's weird to make it more sensitive when sensitivity is already a problem.

Huh?
thats what it says, sounds reasonable to me, they needed time to get the puzzle together

My question comes from saying it added weight. Are they trying to make body parts out of tungsten?

Again contradicting itself.
development meaning ,not a lot of parts was brought to the actual race car im interpetating, because the concept/problem would mask the gains, this is not the same as no development going on

It contradicts itself with the sentence above, where it was said that they could have introduced solutions.

[trinidefender]

shared on autosport, nice article on amus wth qoutes from stella and morris
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/


Amus: the mcl was not able to keep constant/stabile df through the whole corner. To counter that and get more stability they ran more wing which contributed to the lower top speeds

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?

Amus: mclaren was not the only team having trouble keeping constant df. Stella explains its due to the wider cars, and says the biggest challenge of the aerodynamic team is to control front wheel wake since the frontwheels are now bigger hence producing more turbulence. This is even more critical due to the wider floor.

Considering how only McLaren and Williams have fallen back and everyone else has improved, we can make the assumption that everyone has gotten (more) to grips with it. After which you should ask yourself how teams with much less resources can get a grip on it but you can't.

Then he mentions they reached the borders of what can be simulated with cfd and windtunnel.

Is this so far behind compared to the top teams?

Stella: in fast corners our car was not that bad. Our deficit was mainly in slow corners. And that part is extremly difficult to simulate with cfd and windtunnel.

WTF?! That is completely contradicting what was said before. If your issue is sensitivity you would notice this in the fast corners, where aero matters more than in slow corners.

Simon roberts: is confident all problems has been identified. It was a long process, not something that happened one day to the other.We could have introduced soultions to the current car but that would have added weight.

Huh?

That why the development was slow during the sec half of the year. Stella adds. Its not as if we lacked ideas.The concept just had its limitations and many of the changes would not have had an impact.

Again contradicting itself.

Now I'm just hoping that a lot of stuff is lost in translation, because this makes very little sense.
I particularly like the 'we could have' idea. Imagine a soccer team that is in last place in the league saying they're actually the best team in the league, as they 'could have scored more goals'. It's a child's way of saying he wasn't actually as good at it as he thought he was.

Out of all the articles that are posted I can only read one thing; They have no clue.

But I suppose we're going to see if they figured it out next year.

- They can turn up the wing angles without putting the wing into the stall region. As long as the wing operates out of the stall region then this will work through 2 ways:
1) increases the percentage of rear downforce compared to the floor/diffuser therefore when you loose some downforce from the floor/diffuser the percentage of rear downforce lost is lower.
2) a stronger up wash created by a harder working rear wing can encourage more flow through the diffuser making it more stable overall.

- Slower corners are run at a different speed range putting the car at different ride heights (less rear squat at lower speed). Also, slower corners generally are tighter corners = larger steering angles and higher slip angles. It more points to there being an aero sensitivity issue under high levels of yaw.

Don't see much contradiction there at all actually.

[UlleGulle]

I'm only speculating here, but couldn't the high-rake / short wheelbase coupled with the aero-focused rear upper wishbone be the root of the problem.

According to the internet, which never lies, MCL33 has a wheelbase 3550 mm, which is equal to Red Bull. As I have understood it, the key to making a high rake to work without a drag penalty is using a soft rear suspension. That in it's turn requires a very well functioning suspension system, which the rear upper wishbone might not provide. In the early technical analysis of the car, some concerns were voiced over the rigidity of the wishbone.

This would explain the inconsistency, and why Mclaren haven't been able to fix it. Going for a low rake would require a a long wheelbase car, whilst changing the suspension would severly impact the flow over the diffusor.

As I said, just putting the theory out there.

[M840TR]

shared on autosport, nice article on amus wth qoutes from stella and morris
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/


Amus: the mcl was not able to keep constant/stabile df through the whole corner. To counter that and get more stability they ran more wing which contributed to the lower top speeds

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?

Amus: mclaren was not the only team having trouble keeping constant df. Stella explains its due to the wider cars, and says the biggest challenge of the aerodynamic team is to control front wheel wake since the frontwheels are now bigger hence producing more turbulence. This is even more critical due to the wider floor.

Considering how only McLaren and Williams have fallen back and everyone else has improved, we can make the assumption that everyone has gotten (more) to grips with it. After which you should ask yourself how teams with much less resources can get a grip on it but you can't.

Then he mentions they reached the borders of what can be simulated with cfd and windtunnel.

Is this so far behind compared to the top teams?

Stella: in fast corners our car was not that bad. Our deficit was mainly in slow corners. And that part is extremly difficult to simulate with cfd and windtunnel.

WTF?! That is completely contradicting what was said before. If your issue is sensitivity you would notice this in the fast corners, where aero matters more than in slow corners.

Simon roberts: is confident all problems has been identified. It was a long process, not something that happened one day to the other.We could have introduced soultions to the current car but that would have added weight.

Huh?

That why the development was slow during the sec half of the year. Stella adds. Its not as if we lacked ideas.The concept just had its limitations and many of the changes would not have had an impact.

Again contradicting itself.

Now I'm just hoping that a lot of stuff is lost in translation, because this makes very little sense.
I particularly like the 'we could have' idea. Imagine a soccer team that is in last place in the league saying they're actually the best team in the league, as they 'could have scored more goals'. It's a child's way of saying he wasn't actually as good at it as he thought he was.

Out of all the articles that are posted I can only read one thing; They have no clue.

But I suppose we're going to see if they figured it out next year.

- They can turn up the wing angles without putting the wing into the stall region. As long as the wing operates out of the stall region then this will work through 2 ways:
1) increases the percentage of rear downforce compared to the floor/diffuser therefore when you loose some downforce from the floor/diffuser the percentage of rear downforce lost is lower.
2) a stronger up wash created by a harder working rear wing can encourage more flow through the diffuser making it more stable overall.

- Slower corners are run at a different speed range putting the car at different ride heights (less rear squat at lower speed). Also, slower corners generally are tighter corners = larger steering angles and higher slip angles. It more points to there being an aero sensitivity issue under high levels of yaw.

Don't see much contradiction there at all actually.

I think the contradiction is where Stella reportedly says the car's good in high speed corners but simultaneously says it looses downforce mid-way through the corners.

[Jackles-UK]

I'm only speculating here, but couldn't the high-rake / short wheelbase coupled with the aero-focused rear upper wishbone be the root of the problem.

According to the internet, which never lies, MCL33 has a wheelbase 3550 mm, which is equal to Red Bull. As I have understood it, the key to making a high rake to work without a drag penalty is using a soft rear suspension. That in it's turn requires a very well functioning suspension system, which the rear upper wishbone might not provide. In the early technical analysis of the car, some concerns were voiced over the rigidity of the wishbone.

This would explain the inconsistency, and why Mclaren haven't been able to fix it. Going for a low rake would require a a long wheelbase car, whilst changing the suspension would severly impact the flow over the diffusor.

As I said, just putting the theory out there.

I don’t think that is the krux of the problem. Im not ruling out that the suspension had some limitations but if the “major issue” they spotted was as clear-cut as it being caused exclusively by the fat rear suspension arm they would have just changed it. It would have required a fair bit of work (new gearbox casing, wheel hub adaptation and minor amendments to the rear bodywork) but nothing like the total overhaul that various team members have indicated it would have taken to rectify and totally possible to change mid-season.

[DiogoBrand]

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?
stabilising with more wing yes

The point is that increasing wing angles increases the sensitivity. It's weird to make it more sensitive when sensitivity is already a problem.(1)

Huh?
thats what it says, sounds reasonable to me, they needed time to get the puzzle together

My question comes from saying it added weight. Are they trying to make body parts out of tungsten?(2)

Again contradicting itself.
development meaning ,not a lot of parts was brought to the actual race car im interpetating, because the concept/problem would mask the gains, this is not the same as no development going on

It contradicts itself with the sentence above, where it was said that they could have introduced solutions. (3)

1 Increasing wing angle will increase the sensitivity of the rear wing, but you have an issue with diffuser sensitivity it may help a bit.

2 Adding new parts with new concepts to a new car designed from scratch with those ideas in mind is okay, adding that to a car that was designed around other ideas will add weight, because it's never a seamless change, you always have to adapt the parts to a car that wasn't designed for them.

3 They're saying they could have introduced new parts to solve the issues they've identified, but doing so on a car that was designed around different ideas would probably not bring the gains to make it worth the effort.

[Nonserviam85]

So the solution to it's aero sensitivity was to turn up the wing angles, making them more sensitive?



Considering how only McLaren and Williams have fallen back and everyone else has improved, we can make the assumption that everyone has gotten (more) to grips with it. After which you should ask yourself how teams with much less resources can get a grip on it but you can't.



Is this so far behind compared to the top teams?



WTF?! That is completely contradicting what was said before. If your issue is sensitivity you would notice this in the fast corners, where aero matters more than in slow corners.


Huh?



Again contradicting itself.

Now I'm just hoping that a lot of stuff is lost in translation, because this makes very little sense.
I particularly like the 'we could have' idea. Imagine a soccer team that is in last place in the league saying they're actually the best team in the league, as they 'could have scored more goals'. It's a child's way of saying he wasn't actually as good at it as he thought he was.

Out of all the articles that are posted I can only read one thing; They have no clue.

But I suppose we're going to see if they figured it out next year.

- They can turn up the wing angles without putting the wing into the stall region. As long as the wing operates out of the stall region then this will work through 2 ways:
1) increases the percentage of rear downforce compared to the floor/diffuser therefore when you loose some downforce from the floor/diffuser the percentage of rear downforce lost is lower.
2) a stronger up wash created by a harder working rear wing can encourage more flow through the diffuser making it more stable overall.

- Slower corners are run at a different speed range putting the car at different ride heights (less rear squat at lower speed). Also, slower corners generally are tighter corners = larger steering angles and higher slip angles. It more points to there being an aero sensitivity issue under high levels of yaw.

Don't see much contradiction there at all actually.

I think the contradiction is where Stella reportedly says the car's good in high speed corners but simultaneously says it looses downforce mid-way through the corners.

Stella implies that short corners i.e higher lateral angles affect the aero more than low lateral angles. The car was losing its peak downforce when the car had to turn a lot in simple terms.

[UlleGulle]

I'm only speculating here, but couldn't the high-rake / short wheelbase coupled with the aero-focused rear upper wishbone be the root of the problem.

I don’t think that is the krux of the problem. Im not ruling out that the suspension had some limitations but if the “major issue” they spotted was as clear-cut as it being caused exclusively by the fat rear suspension arm they would have just changed it. It would have required a fair bit of work (new gearbox casing, wheel hub adaptation and minor amendments to the rear bodywork) but nothing like the total overhaul that various team members have indicated it would have taken to rectify and totally possible to change mid-season.

You could be right, but I think the suspension is a key aerodynamic device on the MCL33. The other extreme-rake car, the RB14 has no undercut, and seems to rely on air clinging to the bodywork to reach the end of the diffusor. The MCL33 IMHO however seems to be built around a concept with the undercuts channeling air under the upper wishbone, thus aiding the diffusor.

To change the rear suspension in order to get a better would bin this whole concept, which might cost more perfomance than the possible gains. In a position where you cannot trust your CFD or wind tunnel to give you good data, you'd need an Adrian Newey to pull it off.

[M840TR]

I'm only speculating here, but couldn't the high-rake / short wheelbase coupled with the aero-focused rear upper wishbone be the root of the problem.

I don’t think that is the krux of the problem. Im not ruling out that the suspension had some limitations but if the “major issue” they spotted was as clear-cut as it being caused exclusively by the fat rear suspension arm they would have just changed it. It would have required a fair bit of work (new gearbox casing, wheel hub adaptation and minor amendments to the rear bodywork) but nothing like the total overhaul that various team members have indicated it would have taken to rectify and totally possible to change mid-season.

You could be right, but I think the suspension is a key aerodynamic device on the MCL33. The other extreme-rake car, the RB14 has no undercut, and seems to rely on air clinging to the bodywork to reach the end of the diffusor. The MCL33 IMHO however seems to be built around a concept with the undercuts channeling air under the upper wishbone, thus aiding the diffusor.

To change the rear suspension in order to get a better would bin this whole concept, which might cost more perfomance than the possible gains. In a position where you cannot trust your CFD or wind tunnel to give you good data, you'd need an Adrian Newey to pull it off.

Just to elaborate further on your point, the RB14 is focused on matching the sidewash and undercut air speed to extract more air from the diffuser when it passes over it, which is why it doesn't have an undercut as pronounced as the Mcl33.