McLaren MCL34

[SmallSoldier]

This is a chart with the levels of downforce required per GP/Track... I guess that if the team has aimed for a low downforce setup or a car that is more suited for circuits with a low downforce requirements, it could be a in a good position more often than not... Bahrain should be a good test for this theory.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GoranF1]

This is a chart with the levels of downforce required per GP/Track... I guess that if the team has aimed for a low downforce setup or a car that is more suited for circuits with a low downforce requirements, it could be a in a good position more often than not... Bahrain should be a good test for this theory.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201903 ... 2a17d1.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Old Hockenhaim .... -1

[mwillems]

This is a chart with the levels of downforce required per GP/Track... I guess that if the team has aimed for a low downforce setup or a car that is more suited for circuits with a low downforce requirements, it could be a in a good position more often than not... Bahrain should be a good test for this theory.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201903 ... 2a17d1.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's possible they run low down force because they cant get enough df on the front wing and therefore cant increase the rear wing too much.

[M840TR]

This is a chart with the levels of downforce required per GP/Track... I guess that if the team has aimed for a low downforce setup or a car that is more suited for circuits with a low downforce requirements, it could be a in a good position more often than not... Bahrain should be a good test for this theory.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201903 ... 2a17d1.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's possible they run low down force because they cant get enough df on the front wing and therefore cant increase the rear wing too much.

Can you elaborate your point a bit?

[jh199]

This is a chart with the levels of downforce required per GP/Track... I guess that if the team has aimed for a low downforce setup or a car that is more suited for circuits with a low downforce requirements, it could be a in a good position more often than not... Bahrain should be a good test for this theory.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201903 ... 2a17d1.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's possible they run low down force because they cant get enough df on the front wing and therefore cant increase the rear wing too much.

Can you elaborate your point a bit?

I believe he is trying to say that Mclaren have more downforce generating potential at the rear of the car but they are not exploiting this potential because they cannot balance the downforce at the front end. If they do in fact produce their maximum downforce at the rear of the car, the car would then be unbalanced as they cannot produce the necessary downforce at the front of the car. This would, of course, lead to a car with a lot of understeer. I think this is what mwilliams is saying. It is always easier to produce the necessary downforce with the front wing however so I personally don't believe this reasoning.

[diffuser]

Horror, it looks like the chassis and engine suffered very badly.

https://radikal.ru

Well the monocoque probably didn't suffer anything since it's further ahead. The brake ducts, floor and diffuser might have. As for the engine, the mgu-K, manifold and wiring is definitely gone. There's a good chance the block might've been damaged as well.

You're allowed to replace wiring. You can also replace seals in some places. Don't forget the PUs have layers of shielding and the paint cracks with heat easily but. Agreed it doesn't look good.

[SmallSoldier]

It's possible they run low down force because they cant get enough df on the front wing and therefore cant increase the rear wing too much.

Can you elaborate your point a bit?

I believe he is trying to say that Mclaren have more downforce generating potential at the rear of the car but they are not exploiting this potential because they cannot balance the downforce at the front end. If they do in fact produce their maximum downforce at the rear of the car, the car would then be unbalanced as they cannot produce the necessary downforce at the front of the car. This would, of course, lead to a car with a lot of understeer. I think this is what mwilliams is saying. It is always easier to produce the necessary downforce with the front wing however so I personally don't believe this reasoning.

I have 2 guesses (so they could be way off the mark)... But, when designing a new car, you should can either shoot for a design that maximizes performance in some type of races or that has average performance in a wide array of races.

I believe that Mclaren designed a car that should provide them good results in most medium to low downforce tracks with the intention of improving the car for the high downforce tracks during the year (finishing with a car that works well in a wider array of races)... Going through this design path allows them to have a larger probability of point making opportunities during the season (because the amount of tracks that require low downforce setups exceeds the tracks that require high downforce).

This is something that Williams did back in 2014-2015 if I’m not wrong... Had a car that was very quick in low downforce tracks, but struggled in high downforce and ended third both years in the Championship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M840TR]

It's possible they run low down force because they cant get enough df on the front wing and therefore cant increase the rear wing too much.

Can you elaborate your point a bit?

I believe he is trying to say that Mclaren have more downforce generating potential at the rear of the car but they are not exploiting this potential because they cannot balance the downforce at the front end. If they do in fact produce their maximum downforce at the rear of the car, the car would then be unbalanced as they cannot produce the necessary downforce at the front of the car. This would, of course, lead to a car with a lot of understeer. I think this is what mwilliams is saying. It is always easier to produce the necessary downforce with the front wing however so I personally don't believe this reasoning.

Yup. Their front wing design isn't that extreme anyway and they seemed to have resolved their understeer issues for quali in Melbourne. It's much more likely - as @smallsoldier pointed out - they're aiming for a car that works in most circuits; then slowly developing it into something with a wider working window throughout the season.

[M840TR]

Horror, it looks like the chassis and engine suffered very badly.

https://radikal.ru

Well the monocoque probably didn't suffer anything since it's further ahead. The brake ducts, floor and diffuser might have. As for the engine, the mgu-K, manifold and wiring is definitely gone. There's a good chance the block might've been damaged as well.

You're allowed to replace wiring. You can also replace seals in some places. Don't forget the PUs have layers of shielding and the paint cracks with heat easily but. Agreed it doesn't look good.

Layers of shielding? This is the first I'm hearing about this...

[diffuser]

Well the monocoque probably didn't suffer anything since it's further ahead. The brake ducts, floor and diffuser might have. As for the engine, the mgu-K, manifold and wiring is definitely gone. There's a good chance the block might've been damaged as well.

You're allowed to replace wiring. You can also replace seals in some places. Don't forget the PUs have layers of shielding and the paint cracks with heat easily but. Agreed it doesn't look good.

Layers of shielding? This is the first I'm hearing about this...

It is usually to not allow the heat out. the gold sheeting.

[diffuser]

Interesting. Most of the time is lost in the corners and made up on the straights. I'm not sure this much focus on low-drag is beneficial for factors such as tyre deg etc.

https://i.redd.it/xpzecu8ckon21.png

I saw that, I thought it was BS. It's based on the race lap averages. By the end of the race most of the drivers were struggling to stay awake.

[mwillems]

Can you elaborate your point a bit?

I believe he is trying to say that Mclaren have more downforce generating potential at the rear of the car but they are not exploiting this potential because they cannot balance the downforce at the front end. If they do in fact produce their maximum downforce at the rear of the car, the car would then be unbalanced as they cannot produce the necessary downforce at the front of the car. This would, of course, lead to a car with a lot of understeer. I think this is what mwilliams is saying. It is always easier to produce the necessary downforce with the front wing however so I personally don't believe this reasoning.

Yup. Their front wing design isn't that extreme anyway and they seemed to have resolved their understeer issues for quali in Melbourne. It's much more likely - as @smallsoldier pointed out - they're aiming for a car that works in most circuits; then slowly developing it into something with a wider working window throughout the season.

Yes it was a late night post. I am referring to the car being understeery. I'm not convinced it is gone yet but stand to be completely wrong. I don't think they would run the car to lose so much time in corners to gain a little speed on the straights because they wanted to, or it was the natural choice. I wonder if the balance issue was resolved by simply carrying less aero on the rear.

[M840TR]

You're allowed to replace wiring. You can also replace seals in some places. Don't forget the PUs have layers of shielding and the paint cracks with heat easily but. Agreed it doesn't look good.

Layers of shielding? This is the first I'm hearing about this...

It is usually to not allow the heat out. the gold sheeting.

But that's aft the monocoque to protect the fuel tank etc. Engine is pretty much exposed. It's cooled by the intercooler air which we see exited at the back.

[M840TR]

Interesting. Most of the time is lost in the corners and made up on the straights. I'm not sure this much focus on low-drag is beneficial for factors such as tyre deg etc.

https://i.redd.it/xpzecu8ckon21.png

I saw that, I thought it was BS. It's based on the race lap averages. By the end of the race most of the drivers were struggling to stay awake.

If it is based on race data and not quali then it's a bit unreliable. Too many variables.

[M840TR]

I believe he is trying to say that Mclaren have more downforce generating potential at the rear of the car but they are not exploiting this potential because they cannot balance the downforce at the front end. If they do in fact produce their maximum downforce at the rear of the car, the car would then be unbalanced as they cannot produce the necessary downforce at the front of the car. This would, of course, lead to a car with a lot of understeer. I think this is what mwilliams is saying. It is always easier to produce the necessary downforce with the front wing however so I personally don't believe this reasoning.

Yup. Their front wing design isn't that extreme anyway and they seemed to have resolved their understeer issues for quali in Melbourne. It's much more likely - as @smallsoldier pointed out - they're aiming for a car that works in most circuits; then slowly developing it into something with a wider working window throughout the season.

Yes it was a late night post. I am referring to the car being understeery. I'm not convinced it is gone yet but stand to be completely wrong. I don't think they would run the car to lose so much time in corners to gain a little speed on the straights because they wanted to, or it was the natural choice. I wonder if the balance issue was resolved by simply carrying less aero on the rear.

Do you mean less wing angle?