McLaren MCL33

[diffuser]

Looking at this wing area on the Ferrari etc, it seems to me the air is being directed to the undercut instead of the floor. It seems to be shaped in such a way that the air would naturally travel upwards instead of downwards.

Undercut ?

[mwillems]

Looking at this wing area on the Ferrari etc, it seems to me the air is being directed to the undercut instead of the floor. It seems to be shaped in such a way that the air would naturally travel upwards instead of downwards.

Undercut ?

The underside of the sidepods, I would imagine.

[godlameroso]

Looking at this wing area on the Ferrari etc, it seems to me the air is being directed to the undercut instead of the floor. It seems to be shaped in such a way that the air would naturally travel upwards instead of downwards.

Undercut ?

He's right to an extent, except not all air will go over the floor leading edge, some of the flow will go under as well. This is the reason they raised the floor leading edge on the Haas. There's a sweet spot of raising the height of the leading edge of the floor and the upwash of the bargeboards where a certain amount of airflow goes to the floor and mixes with airflow conditioned by the device directly behind the bargeboard, and a certain amount of air is corralled to travel over the floor. If you're not in the sweet spot you'll have stagnation downstream, but if you get it right you have helicity preserving the integrity of the vorticity so to speak. In other words the vortecies are knotted together or braided together in a helix. This boosts the integrity of the vortecies, and it's having this type of flow near the diffuser that creates such a powerful seal from tire squirt.

The added bonus is you get a huge suction peak at the middle of the car boosting overall downforce even more, this is why this area is so important, it's literally like having a third wing on the car, it's why the Red Bull can get away with running such thin rear wings and still have more grip than everyone else. It's not only a third wing, it's lower than both the diffuser and the front wing, it's the most ground effect wing on the whole car, and to not exploit it is just baffling to me.

[PlatinumZealot]

I would call this the second main FW philosophy change in the turbo era. After Merc's pronounced outboard vortex tunnel approach. A reduction of the volume below the wing, an expansion of the volume above it, and a footplate-less endplate. McLaren trialed something like this a year or two back.

It will be cool to see the entirety of the FW main elements next year, when the cascades are gone. Obscured for nine years!

It is a pretty clever design if we use the following logic:

The Front wing creates downforce and conditions air stream for use for the rest of the car. It creates y250 vortices and other vortices to help "seal" the floor and to reduce tyre wake. If your bargboards is designed so well that it can properly seal the floor without help from the front wing then that is one front wing function that can be removed. And hence your front wing is less affected by following other cars!

How will the bargeboards seal the floor without the front wing? The whole point of the y250 vortex and outer one generated from cascades and endplates is to stop the tyre wake to get into the diffuser.

Was just for illustration. There are degrees to it of course.

[M840TR]

Just a few observations I've made regards to the packaging of the car.

The MCL33 has a lot of vacant space at the top. We previously thought this might be to leave more air for the rear wing. While this could be true, another likely explanation is their aim was to have a lower COG.



The RB14 in comparison has quite a few different intercoolers at the top which indicates focus on energizing the diffuser with the narrow packaging on the sides.



If you read about Newey's work he's usually tended to sacrifice COG for aero like with the March 881 and in 2014 with the RB10 when most teams Including Mclaren had the phallic nose. Now this isn't to say that it's the main problem hindering the team since there are many; but only an observation.

[M840TR]

From Silverstone. Good look at the inner workings of the right front brake and hub.

[Jolle]

Just a few observations I've made regards to the packaging of the car.

The MCL33 has a lot of vacant space at the top. We previously thought this might be to leave more air for the rear wing. While this could be true, another likely explanation is their aim was to have a lower COG.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgzMnRCWsAAAcbk.jpg

The RB14 in comparison has quite a few different intercoolers at the top which indicates focus on energizing the diffuser with the narrow packaging on the sides.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detail.jpg

If you read about Newey's work he's usually tended to sacrifice COG for aero like with the March 881 and in 2014 with the RB10 when most teams Including Mclaren had the phallic nose. Now this isn't to say that it's the main problem hindering the team since there are many; but only an observation.

Most likely that, in early layout design, they worked with a front mounted charger. Then the intake tubing/filter sits more or less in that vacant area.

I presume you begin your design with a rough layout of the components and then tweak until you get it to fit. This also might explain the overheating in testing, there should have been more room where the intake tube is now, maybe even an extra vent to cool the turbine or an extra cooler. This is the area that is most effected by the PU swap.

[diffuser]

Just a few observations I've made regards to the packaging of the car.

The MCL33 has a lot of vacant space at the top. We previously thought this might be to leave more air for the rear wing. While this could be true, another likely explanation is their aim was to have a lower COG.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgzMnRCWsAAAcbk.jpg

The RB14 in comparison has quite a few different intercoolers at the top which indicates focus on energizing the diffuser with the narrow packaging on the sides.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detail.jpg

If you read about Newey's work he's usually tended to sacrifice COG for aero like with the March 881 and in 2014 with the RB10 when most teams Including Mclaren had the phallic nose. Now this isn't to say that it's the main problem hindering the team since there are many; but only an observation.

we've talked about this just a week or so ago. It probably cause Honda PU had so much up there. They didn't have time to redesign stuff to go up there. We will see next year.

It will ALSO be interesting to see what RBR's packaging will look like next year. Will there be a compromise ?

[M840TR]

Just a few observations I've made regards to the packaging of the car.

The MCL33 has a lot of vacant space at the top. We previously thought this might be to leave more air for the rear wing. While this could be true, another likely explanation is their aim was to have a lower COG.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgzMnRCWsAAAcbk.jpg

The RB14 in comparison has quite a few different intercoolers at the top which indicates focus on energizing the diffuser with the narrow packaging on the sides.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detail.jpg

If you read about Newey's work he's usually tended to sacrifice COG for aero like with the March 881 and in 2014 with the RB10 when most teams Including Mclaren had the phallic nose. Now this isn't to say that it's the main problem hindering the team since there are many; but only an observation.

we've talked about this just a week or so ago. It probably cause Honda PU had so much up there. They didn't have time to redesign stuff to go up there. We will see next year.

It will ALSO be interesting to see what RBR's packaging will look like next year. Will there be a compromise ?

The MCL32 was also pretty much the same with a few obvious differences due to the Honda PU. It had not many additional coolers like the Redbull.
It's visible here how the main intake is shorter due to the turbo compressor being at front.



The other two ducts emerge from this intake below and lead to a heat exchanger mounted on the transmission.




The Honda PU seems to need a lot of cooling so there will probably be a few compromises on both sides.

[M840TR]

Just a few observations I've made regards to the packaging of the car.

The MCL33 has a lot of vacant space at the top. We previously thought this might be to leave more air for the rear wing. While this could be true, another likely explanation is their aim was to have a lower COG.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgzMnRCWsAAAcbk.jpg

The RB14 in comparison has quite a few different intercoolers at the top which indicates focus on energizing the diffuser with the narrow packaging on the sides.

https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... detail.jpg

If you read about Newey's work he's usually tended to sacrifice COG for aero like with the March 881 and in 2014 with the RB10 when most teams Including Mclaren had the phallic nose. Now this isn't to say that it's the main problem hindering the team since there are many; but only an observation.

Most likely that, in early layout design, they worked with a front mounted charger. Then the intake tubing/filter sits more or less in that vacant area.

I presume you begin your design with a rough layout of the components and then tweak until you get it to fit. This also might explain the overheating in testing, there should have been more room where the intake tube is now, maybe even an extra vent to cool the turbine or an extra cooler. This is the area that is most effected by the PU swap.

Which charger? The turbo?
The exhaust overheating was the problem so no need for additional weight as it was fixed by a few holes.

[diffuser]

Remember 2017 honda was crowded up top but the 2016 was a lot more crowded..

[M840TR]

Remember 2017 honda was crowded up top but the 2016 was a lot more crowded..

But the Mcl32 isn't that crowded on top relative to others. I can understand 2016 because the cars were smaller however this indicates to a clear development direction by the design department.

[Vanja #66]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... 56233/?s=1

Oh dear...

Did we have the best chassis last year? No, definitely not.

“Did we have probably a better chassis? I think because of all the different variables it would be hard to definitively say yes or no, but we know we have less downforce this year than last year.”

[trinidefender]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... 56233/?s=1

Oh dear...

Did we have the best chassis last year? No, definitely not.

“Did we have probably a better chassis? I think because of all the different variables it would be hard to definitively say yes or no, but we know we have less downforce this year than last year.”

I'm going to guess that the addition of the halo and the loss of the T wing are the main cause of this.

[dren]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... 56233/?s=1

Oh dear...

Did we have the best chassis last year? No, definitely not.

“Did we have probably a better chassis? I think because of all the different variables it would be hard to definitively say yes or no, but we know we have less downforce this year than last year.”

I'm going to guess that the addition of the halo and the loss of the T wing are the main cause of this.

They need more ellipse shaped bits.