McLaren MCL36

[maxpp]

Just curious to know how difficult would it be for McLaren to change concept at this point in the season? for example if they wanted to go for an undercut in the sidepods, could that be something they could realistically change or to many fundamental components that would need to be move like radiator layout etc. Think there is at least some scope for changing the way sidepods would aid airflow to the rear of the car if that isn't working as intended and not creating the high pressure airflow they want at the moment.

For the record I do believe they are somewhat compromised by there brake setup atm, so they have some time in hand there for sure. But as the team said that could be the 3rd-4th race in before they get on top of those issue's clearly not easy manufacturing the part's they need for the brakes or they have decided to adopt a new philosophy from another team there.

This is not a matter of having an undercut or not having an undercut. You can put an undercut on that car and it will probably work the same, if not worse. I understand, you look at the other cars, you look at McLaren and the first difference you see is the lack of undercut. But Mercedes doesn't even have sidepods yet they qualified a full second ahead. F*cking Aston Martin has the biggest undercut of them all and they are tied for the slowest car on the grid ...

Eye aero is bullsh*t and pointless. You can't know how good a concept performs just by looking at it. So no, their issues aren't magically going to disappear just by opening up a path below their sidepods.

Aston martin are losing 0.75 seconds from porpoising solutions, and are working on revamping their car. And btw using your eyes to analyze a cars aero is all we can do, do you have their wind tunnel and CFD data? NO. You can figure out the core concept of a car by seeing it just with your eyes, the details are different.

[KingHamilton01]

That was a very insightful reply, I never suggested that having an undercut in there sidepod was necassarily the way to go, if you actually read what I wrote then you would realise I put that as an example. Honestly why is there so much hostility in this forum? You could have just put your opinion instead of swearing and suggesting I am just looking at the car and saying they should copy another one? or eye aero as you put it.

I would suggest in future if you don't have anything constructive to reply then don't bother, didn't realise you were the resident expert around here, but please don't reply trying to be little me.

I'm sorry, what?
He basically just constructively countered your argument without attacking you in any way, and you reply saying he was hostile and tried to belittle you in some way?

There is absolutely no evidence to us, without seeing any data, that McLaren's sidepods are problematic. We know they've definitely have an issue with brake cooling, which may or may not have an impact on the rest of the car's aero. We may speculate that Mercedes' Power Unit isn't top notch this year, since the worst 6 cars used Merc PUs, and even Mercedes themselves wasn't as fast as expected. There's the fact that McLaren is the only team to route the air from above the tea tray around the sidepods and so on and so forth.

There is also the fact that between the top 3 teams we have different power units and completely different sidepod philosophies, including the fact that the fastest team of the weekend has even bulkier sidepods than McLaren in terms of frontal area.

So randomly arguing about what concept the team could revolutionize after the first race weekend, even before they've fixed their big known issues, is not very constructive and you can expect that people won't agree with you if you do so.

1st You clearly didn’t read what I had written originally judging from your reply to me. It wasn’t an argument, I put my opinion across and suggested it was an example. He then proceeded to suggest I can’t make an type of suggestion by eye aero. Also on top of that swearing within his own reply, but no he wasn’t being aggressive? And if you class swearing as being constructive then good luck to you on that one.

Why do you have to weigh on it anyway, he can speak for himself and has already done so.
You then come in saying I was arguing about sidepod concept when I wasn’t, I stated my opinion. Of course people don’t have to agree with each other on here but you are wrong with your reply. Trying to suggest I am saying to revolutionise sidepod concept and then say it’s not very constructive. There have been plenty of sensible replies to what I put on here, but thanks for showing me you aren’t someone to engage with on here also.

Better still maybe the moderator’s should have a look at how members are participating in replying to people here….? Is this acceptable behaviour?

[Emag]

What's the best guess we have on the function of these channels?
They are the only team sacrificing tunnel entrance space to pull air from the bib into their sidepods. I remember AeroGandalf speculated that they could perhaps be part of McLaren's tire wake management solution, however by his idea, there would have to be a slot/flap at the side near the leading edge of the floor to help with that, and there is none in the actual car.

I feel like this channel at the leading edge of the floor might be a big part of their aero philosophy as it works closely with that shape of sidepod. If they ever decide to move away from this idea, I would assume the sidepod shape will change with it.

But they clearly saw some benefit in sacrificing underfloor performance for this idea (which may or may not be the right call), but I am just not sure what exactly it's doing.

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

IMHO, the sidepods are being used to prep the air for the beam wing and rear diffuser(rear aero structures). The rear floor will work with those tunnels and the front of the sidepods will. The sidepods as a whole don't interact with those tunnels.

Oh and my guess for the red arrows pointing to the closest to the bib tunnel, isn't a tunnel but a short fin creating vortices in that tunnel.

Oh it's definitely channeling air on top of the floor towards the front of the sidepods. I'll find some other angles to show it in a minute.

[DragonSGC]

What's the best guess we have on the function of these channels?
They are the only team sacrificing tunnel entrance space to pull air from the bib into their sidepods. I remember AeroGandalf speculated that they could perhaps be part of McLaren's tire wake management solution, however by his idea, there would have to be a slot/flap at the side near the leading edge of the floor to help with that, and there is none in the actual car.

I feel like this channel at the leading edge of the floor might be a big part of their aero philosophy as it works closely with that shape of sidepod. If they ever decide to move away from this idea, I would assume the sidepod shape will change with it.

But they clearly saw some benefit in sacrificing underfloor performance for this idea (which may or may not be the right call), but I am just not sure what exactly it's doing.

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

IMHO, the sidepods are being used to prep the air for the beam wing and rear diffuser(rear aero structures). The rear floor will work with those tunnels and the front of the sidepods will. The sidepods as a whole don't interact with those tunnels.

Oh and my guess for the red arrows pointing to the closest to the bib tunnel, isn't a tunnel but a short fin creating vortices in that tunnel.

Oh it's definitely channeling air on top of the floor towards the front of the sidepods. I'll find some other angles to show it in a minute.

Theres a post a few pages back where there was flowvis on this area of the car and the corner of the sidepod, basically they are using the high pressure air and the coanda effect to "wrap" that air around the sidepod instead of guiding it with an undercut, no CFD eyes but the flowvis says all the airflow in that area is nicely attatched.

[DiogoBrand]

1st You clearly didn’t read what I had written originally judging from your reply to me. It wasn’t an argument, I put my opinion across and suggested it was an example. He then proceeded to suggest I can’t make an type of suggestion by eye aero. Also on top of that swearing within his own reply, but no he wasn’t being aggressive? And if you class swearing as being constructive then good luck to you on that one.

Why do you have to weigh on it anyway, he can speak for himself and has already done so.
You then come in saying I was arguing about sidepod concept when I wasn’t, I stated my opinion. Of course people don’t have to agree with each other on here but you are wrong with your reply. Trying to suggest I am saying to revolutionise sidepod concept and then say it’s not very constructive. There have been plenty of sensible replies to what I put on here, but thanks for showing me you aren’t someone to engage with on here also.

Better still maybe the moderator’s should have a look at how members are participating in replying to people here….? Is this acceptable behaviour?

It is incredible to me that the only one that's attacking people instead of attacking technical ideas in this discussion is the one victimizing himself, talking about acceptable behaviour, questioning wether or not the moderators should intervene and saying who is worthy or not of being engaged on a conversation.

[KingHamilton01]

As I explained what did it have to do with you in the first place, I wasn’t talking to you but no you take it upon yourself to get involved and being arrogant as to how I should perceive someone swearing at me on a forum.

You didn’t have to add anything to that it was done, but no you want say that he wasn’t trying to be-little me. Tell me something do you even know what that mean’s? I’m not sure you do? Now your suggesting I am the one attacking people’s opinion’s.

Bit strange you come in making all these comments towards me, never even made an attempt to answer any of my question’s when I replied to you. Now resorting to making things up as you go along, saying I’m playing the victim. Yes I asked for a moderator to look at you and ask if that is acceptable behaviour, sorry I didn’t realise you do this on the regular in here. I have no interest in sharing any opinion’s with you on here, never asked for the smart reply in the first place and now coupled with that you are suggesting I’m the one with a problem? Weird.

[KingHamilton01]

I apologise for anyone having to read the above, I’ll be blocking this individual and suggests he does the same with me. No interest in exchanging anything else with him.

[Emag]

IMHO, the sidepods are being used to prep the air for the beam wing and rear diffuser(rear aero structures). The rear floor will work with those tunnels and the front of the sidepods will. The sidepods as a whole don't interact with those tunnels.

Oh and my guess for the red arrows pointing to the closest to the bib tunnel, isn't a tunnel but a short fin creating vortices in that tunnel.

Oh it's definitely channeling air on top of the floor towards the front of the sidepods. I'll find some other angles to show it in a minute.

Theres a post a few pages back where there was flowvis on this area of the car and the corner of the sidepod, basically they are using the high pressure air and the coanda effect to "wrap" that air around the sidepod instead of guiding it with an undercut, no CFD eyes but the flowvis says all the airflow in that area is nicely attatched.

That's the one I was going to link, so I guess there's no need to duplicate stuff on the thread. They have definitely taken air that would have otherwise gone under the floor and pulling it on top. And as far as I am aware, they are the only one doing it. Hard to judge this idea with all the issues they are having. Perhaps once they start bringing updates to the thing we will start seeing whether they will build around it, or just ditch this idea entirely.

Would be a shame if the latter happens. It's clearly an innovation on part of McLaren and it would be nice to see them validate and build upon this idea instead of abandoning it.

[AR3-GP]

IMHO, the sidepods are being used to prep the air for the beam wing and rear diffuser(rear aero structures). The rear floor will work with those tunnels and the front of the sidepods will. The sidepods as a whole don't interact with those tunnels.

Oh and my guess for the red arrows pointing to the closest to the bib tunnel, isn't a tunnel but a short fin creating vortices in that tunnel.

Oh it's definitely channeling air on top of the floor towards the front of the sidepods. I'll find some other angles to show it in a minute.

Theres a post a few pages back where there was flowvis on this area of the car and the corner of the sidepod, basically they are using the high pressure air and the coanda effect to "wrap" that air around the sidepod instead of guiding it with an undercut, no CFD eyes but the flowvis says all the airflow in that area is nicely attatched.

Coanda effect is when a smooth jet air (like from an exhaust) attaches itself to a surface. So not quite the effect you are describing. They are just relying on the pressure gradient not being so strong as to cause the sidepod flow to detach when it goes around the front of the sidepod.

[vorticism]

What's the best guess we have on the function of these channels?
They are the only team sacrificing tunnel entrance space to pull air from the bib into their sidepods. I remember AeroGandalf speculated that they could perhaps be part of McLaren's tire wake management solution, however by his idea, there would have to be a slot/flap at the side near the leading edge of the floor to help with that, and there is none in the actual car.

I feel like this channel at the leading edge of the floor might be a big part of their aero philosophy as it works closely with that shape of sidepod. If they ever decide to move away from this idea, I would assume the sidepod shape will change with it.

But they clearly saw some benefit in sacrificing underfloor performance for this idea (which may or may not be the right call), but I am just not sure what exactly it's doing.

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

It's almost like that was their way to get a fifth strake. Also this makes the venturi inlet much smaller. That entire T-tray area now gets deflected up instead of going under the floor like in the other cars.

[SmallSoldier]

Just curious to know how difficult would it be for McLaren to change concept at this point in the season? for example if they wanted to go for an undercut in the sidepods, could that be something they could realistically change or to many fundamental components that would need to be move like radiator layout etc. Think there is at least some scope for changing the way sidepods would aid airflow to the rear of the car if that isn't working as intended and not creating the high pressure airflow they want at the moment.

For the record I do believe they are somewhat compromised by there brake setup atm, so they have some time in hand there for sure. But as the team said that could be the 3rd-4th race in before they get on top of those issue's clearly not easy manufacturing the part's they need for the brakes or they have decided to adopt a new philosophy from another team there.

This is not a matter of having an undercut or not having an undercut. You can put an undercut on that car and it will probably work the same, if not worse. I understand, you look at the other cars, you look at McLaren and the first difference you see is the lack of undercut. But Mercedes doesn't even have sidepods yet they qualified a full second ahead. F*cking Aston Martin has the biggest undercut of them all and they are tied for the slowest car on the grid ...

Eye aero is bullsh*t and pointless. You can't know how good a concept performs just by looking at it. So no, their issues aren't magically going to disappear just by opening up a path below their sidepods.

Aston martin are losing 0.75 seconds from porpoising solutions, and are working on revamping their car. And btw using your eyes to analyze a cars aero is all we can do, do you have their wind tunnel and CFD data? NO. You can figure out the core concept of a car by seeing it just with your eyes, the details are different.

You “can” use your eyes to analyze aero… You most probably won’t be right, unless you are an experience aerodynamicist… Most of us fans, do not have the knowledge, experience and understanding to visually determine why a concept would or wouldn’t work… The example this season with Ferrari is a classic, where everyone underestimate them by saying that it was bulky and therefore draggy, while Mercedes was the slimmest and therefore with very low drag… It appears that is the complete opposite.

It’s too early to say if the MCL36 concept is bad, is it just a matter of setup? Is it possible that because of how constrained they have to be for parts they didn’t had the right combination of Rear Wing / Front Wing that would suit Bahrain? Is the size of the Tunnel Inlets the problem? Is it the sidepods? Is it the new suspension layout?… We just don’t know at this point and without knowing what or where is the deficit, we can’t bluntly say that is “the concept”.

It is clear that something isn’t working as expected and it seems that even the team is trying to find those answers… Unluckily, we can only wait and see what they come up with, but I don’t think it will be soon.

[hakan439]

If they have such aero deficit, how did they did ok in Barcelona where it is regarded as an aero track. AFAIK car did not seem to be underfuelled back then!

[SmallSoldier]

Oh it's definitely channeling air on top of the floor towards the front of the sidepods. I'll find some other angles to show it in a minute.

Theres a post a few pages back where there was flowvis on this area of the car and the corner of the sidepod, basically they are using the high pressure air and the coanda effect to "wrap" that air around the sidepod instead of guiding it with an undercut, no CFD eyes but the flowvis says all the airflow in that area is nicely attatched.

That's the one I was going to link, so I guess there's no need to duplicate stuff on the thread. They have definitely taken air that would have otherwise gone under the floor and pulling it on top. And as far as I am aware, they are the only one doing it. Hard to judge this idea with all the issues they are having. Perhaps once they start bringing updates to the thing we will start seeing whether they will build around it, or just ditch this idea entirely.

Would be a shame if the latter happens. It's clearly an innovation on part of McLaren and it would be nice to see them validate and build upon this idea instead of abandoning it.

We have to be careful though when measuring the intake size of the tunnels… Yes, Mclaren’s driven air from the T-Tray to the bottom of the sidepods, but other teams use that same space for the T-Tray itself (for example RBR) with a very wide one compared to McLaren, to the point that the effective inlet area could be the same (no, I haven’t measured them unluckily… Haven’t found pictures good enough to give it a try).

[SmallSoldier]

If they have such aero deficit, how did they did ok in Barcelona where it is regarded as an aero track. AFAIK car did not seem to be underfuelled back then!

I’m not sure if we are veering a bit into off-topic territory since now we are starting to discuss pace… But my (probably very wrong theory) is that McLaren doesn’t yet have a set of different configurations (front / rear wings) for different layout requirements and the one for Barcelona (high downforce) suited that track and if they used the same one for Bahrain, it compromised them… Let’s not forget also the difference in track temperature, which will influence the tire temperatures and whether they are in the right window or not… Those two could explain the difference in performance.

Mods: If Off-Topic, please feel free to delete

[A.J.O]

Any chance Jeddah's brake requirements will allow Mclaren to run the Barcelona brake duct spec?

I seem to remember them going on at Barcelona about how everything was correlating nicely. It would be very nice to see them be able to run in the intended configuration. It would give us fans a real idea of how far off the rails they really are.