McLaren MCL34

[_cerber1]

No, it looks like this is a vertical monocoque element.

[SmallSoldier]

China is a low-medium downforce track under these aero regulations. The rear wing may change for Barcelona which is a medium-high downforce track.

Mclaren are hunting for front downforce not just from front wing but also from speeding up the the air flow under the floor.

Floor downforce helps rear-end traction. The FW is the only part of the car - since there's no S-duct - that generates upwash for the front.

Why wouldn't McLaren make use of an S duct though? Looks like it wasn't there last year either, if I'm not mistaken.

Probably the drag created by the S-Duct is higher than the aero benefit from it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

Floor downforce helps rear-end traction. The FW is the only part of the car - since there's no S-duct - that generates upwash for the front.

Why wouldn't McLaren make use of an S duct though? Looks like it wasn't there last year either, if I'm not mistaken.

They use the duct to power the cape.

There is no “S-Duct”, it’s not that they use it for the cape... And having their current nose design doesn’t prevent them from having an S-Duct, simply they don’t find the benefit that the rest of the teams seem to find for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M840TR]

Why wouldn't McLaren make use of an S duct though? Looks like it wasn't there last year either, if I'm not mistaken.

They use the duct to power the cape.

There is no “S-Duct”, it’s not that they use it for the cape... And having their current nose design doesn’t prevent them from having an S-Duct, simply they don’t find the benefit that the rest of the teams seem to find for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's what I said. I meant the middle duct which can be used for the S-duct - like Redbull - is used for the cape instead. So they technically can use the S-duct with this nose but that would entail more weight on top of the already hefty structure (crash tests requirements) which probably wouldn't be ultimately beneficial to performance. This is also a feature carried over from last year when they had rear-end traction issues as opposed to front-end this year. Changing it now would entail further adjustments downstream.
I should've elaborated further but it's been discussed an incalculable number of times before so didn't bother.

[Ground Effect]

They use the duct to power the cape.

There is no “S-Duct”, it’s not that they use it for the cape... And having their current nose design doesn’t prevent them from having an S-Duct, simply they don’t find the benefit that the rest of the teams seem to find for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's what I said. I meant the middle duct which can be used for the S-duct - like Redbull - is used for the cape instead. So they technically can use the S-duct with this nose but that would entail more weight on top of the already hefty structure (crash tests requirements) which probably wouldn't be ultimately beneficial to performance. This is also a feature carried over from last year when they had rear-end traction issues as opposed to front-end this year. Changing it now would entail further adjustments downstream.
I should've elaborated further but it's been discussed an incalculable number of times before so didn't bother.

Thanks, sorry for taking you back, didn't know it had already been discussed.

[M840TR]

There is no “S-Duct”, it’s not that they use it for the cape... And having their current nose design doesn’t prevent them from having an S-Duct, simply they don’t find the benefit that the rest of the teams seem to find for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's what I said. I meant the middle duct which can be used for the S-duct - like Redbull - is used for the cape instead. So they technically can use the S-duct with this nose but that would entail more weight on top of the already hefty structure (crash tests requirements) which probably wouldn't be ultimately beneficial to performance. This is also a feature carried over from last year when they had rear-end traction issues as opposed to front-end this year. Changing it now would entail further adjustments downstream.
I should've elaborated further but it's been discussed an incalculable number of times before so didn't bother.

Thanks, sorry for taking you back, didn't know it had already been discussed.

No worries.

[M840TR]

via Albert Fabrega

[DiogoBrand]

Can someone explain how the strakes on the front wing generate outwash? I didn't know they do that.

[roon]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D34QaTmUIAITC20.jpg:large

via Albert Fabrega

[FW17]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D34QaTmUIAITC20.jpg:large

via Albert Fabrega

Why are these made with carbon fiber? does each of those elements have a profile to it or they are flat?

Can the same be made with sheets of aluminium?

or 3d printed with aluminium?

[PhillipM]

They're profiled. And you can make them lighter in carbon than aluminium, so why would you make them in ally?

[M840TR]

Can someone explain how the strakes on the front wing generate outwash? I didn't know they do that.

They generate vortexes that are pushed outwards due to their path of travel in a similar fashion to the endplate. This pulls the tyre wake towards it after it merges with the y250 etc.

[M840TR]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D34QaTmUIAITC20.jpg:large

via Albert Fabrega

https://www.americanlearninglibrary.com ... 279653.jpg

What on Earth?!

[zoroastar]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D34QaTmUIAITC20.jpg:large

via Albert Fabrega

https://www.americanlearninglibrary.com ... 279653.jpg

What on Earth?!

trilobite? an ancient water creature. never thought of them as being aerodynamic though.

[Big Tea]

They're profiled. And you can make them lighter in carbon than aluminium, so why would you make them in ally?

Also (I assume) aluminium would bend when hit and could cause a lot of disruption.