McLaren MCL33

[PhillipM]

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.

You'd also add a lot of extra weight to the car trying to shift structural members and pickup points, and have to add a whole new gearbox build to the mix when you've already got the team working on the 2019 gearbox variant anyway.

[Big Tea]

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.

You'd also add a lot of extra weight to the car trying to shift structural members and pickup points, and have to add a whole new gearbox build to the mix when you've already got the team working on the 2019 gearbox variant anyway.

Are they not adding lots of 'weight' by winding wing on? I know it is inverse to speed while actual weight is not, but there must be a tipping point?

[PhillipM]

Downforce is not weight.

[Big Tea]

Downforce is not weight.

I know, but I'm sure you follow what I mean. (not saying I am right, just asking)

[PhillipM]

Not really, if you add weight, you need even *more* downforce to get the same level of performance.

[DiogoBrand]

So to sum it up: Let's hope they actually did figure out what went wrong rather than it being another McLaren Promise™ and can fight for top of the midfield next year.

[Nonserviam85]

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.

This is true as I mentioned a couple of pages before, the big undercut is not working well with a high-rake philosophy.

[hollus]

Hi all, the season is over, so the usual procedure applies.
Posts about the 2018 contender go here.
Posts about the 2019 contender go to the speculation thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=27793
the latest posts that fit into the latter category have been split to that new home:
MCL34 speculation thread for the 2019 contender

[UlleGulle]

This is true as I mentioned a couple of pages before, the big undercut is not working well with a high-rake philosophy.

Interesting. I read your post about this, did the engineer tell you why it doesn't work well together?

If this is correct, it correlates with the narrative of the MCL33 being a mishmash of good ideas. The chassis is built for a high rake concept, and the aero is built for a low-rake one.

Well, I guess, that's how you bring the fight to Williams. Mclaren has been outsmarting themselfes rather than use their superior resources compared to the other midfield teams to build a simple and consistent car.

[Nonserviam85]

This is true as I mentioned a couple of pages before, the big undercut is not working well with a high-rake philosophy.

Interesting. I read your post about this, did the engineer tell you why it doesn't work well together?

If this is correct, it correlates with the narrative of the MCL33 being a mishmash of good ideas. The chassis is built for a high rake concept, and the aero is built for a low-rake one.

Well, I guess, that's how you bring the fight to Williams. Mclaren has been outsmarting themselfes rather than use their superior resources compared to the other midfield teams to build a simple and consistent car.

The conversation was getting very technical and I was losing track as I am not an aero expert but the key issue in his point of view was that the huge undercut sidepods are prone to flow separation under yaw leading to reduced efficiency in the diffuser. Funny enough he was agreeing with your point of view that McLaren need a reality check and stop living in the glory day, instead of trying to find the revolutionary idea that will bring them back in the front, just build a solid concept, understand how it works and evolve.

I believe the new management realised that and are working towards that approach, sacrificing this year to build a solid concept for next year.

[M840TR]

via Albert Fabrega

[mmred]

This is true as I mentioned a couple of pages before, the big undercut is not working well with a high-rake philosophy.

Interesting. I read your post about this, did the engineer tell you why it doesn't work well together?

If this is correct, it correlates with the narrative of the MCL33 being a mishmash of good ideas. The chassis is built for a high rake concept, and the aero is built for a low-rake one.

Well, I guess, that's how you bring the fight to Williams. Mclaren has been outsmarting themselfes rather than use their superior resources compared to the other midfield teams to build a simple and consistent car.

The conversation was getting very technical and I was losing track as I am not an aero expert but the key issue in his point of view was that the huge undercut sidepods are prone to flow separation under yaw leading to reduced efficiency in the diffuser. Funny enough he was agreeing with your point of view that McLaren need a reality check and stop living in the glory day, instead of trying to find the revolutionary idea that will bring them back in the front, just build a solid concept, understand how it works and evolve.

I believe the new management realised that and are working towards that approach, sacrificing this year to build a solid concept for next year.

technically undercuts should be optimal for high rake cars, cause they bring even more flux to the diffuser, allowing more angle there without separation.
the problem is of course if some geometrical error has been made in the sidepod shape that brings an already separated flow. But the issue would be not in the undercut itself but in maybe too big radiators with a lot of lateral section with a sudden renter toward the middle line. the convex shape brings lateral separation, and seeing the elongated mclaren it is really the case in wich an extreme shape is not tuned to the rest of the package ( in this situation the real problems would be the radiator geometry and the shappe behind it not the shape under it )

[f1rules]

i dont think i noticed this extra level in the frontwing elements, seems this design was introduced for the last two gps. So probably wanting to verify for next year

[mclaren111]

This FW was used in FP testing only. Apparently for 2019 only...

[cramr]

This FW was used in FP testing only. Apparently for 2019 only...

but for 2019 there are not allowed that many elements or the tunneling you see here