2026 McLaren Mastercard F1 Team

[Emag]

Because the car is quite clearly very draggy. A trait they have carried over from the last two years, which unfortunately for them is a really big problem for this regulation set. Mercedes are forced, by regulation, to provide the same power unit to their customers as the one they use themselves. Any difference you see in deployment and top-end performance is all down to chassis efficiency. It doesn't matter how fast you are in the corners if you deplete the battery halfway down the straight.

Think of it this way. The battery power required to accelerate from 250 to 300 kmh (for example) is way way higher than 100 to 150 only because of drag. Drag "wastes" energy. If you are 5% more efficient, it makes a big difference in how much total power you have through the lap. It could easily be half a second if you can deploy for 1-2 seconds more throughout a lap.

I don't understand why you constantly criticize McLaren when they're not living up to your high expectations. The team is starting the season with the most significant changes in F1 history, and they have the fewest resources at their disposal. They clearly need time to optimize everything and catch up with the leaders. The worst thing is that you have a large following, but you don't feel responsible for your words.

My expectations were for them to be 4th at the start of the season, so these are not my expectations that are not being met. I have just countered some "hopium" comments here that were based on nothing tangible. I wouldn't say it's criticism, I was just trying to splash some sense of reality.

This is what I said on November of last year already by the way :

...
As for potential "strugglers", I could see McLaren suffering to be honest. At least initially. Going into a relatively complicated new regulation with the least amount of wind tunnel hours seems challenging. RedBull did just fine in 2022 though, so who knows. But even if they start out rough, I would expect them to get better during the season because they have great people and probably the most up to date infrastructure of the top teams at the moment. Maybe a 2024-like season for them wouldn't be too farfetched (as in start a bit slow and at some point in the season come out strong with an upgrade package).
...

The only criticism I have had for McLaren, if you could even call it that, is their car looking bland to my eyes. Something which you shouldn't put any stock into, because I am not an aerodynamicist.

[FittingMechanics]

Why do you think the concept is wrong aerowise? Both Mclaren seemed to have had problems unrelated to aero all tied to engine and battery deployment.

Because the car is quite clearly very draggy. A trait they have carried over from the last two years, which unfortunately for them is a really big problem for this regulation set. Mercedes are forced, by regulation, to provide the same power unit to their customers as the one they use themselves. Any difference you see in deployment and top-end performance is all down to chassis efficiency. It doesn't matter how fast you are in the corners if you deplete the battery halfway down the straight.

Think of it this way. The battery power required to accelerate from 250 to 300 kmh (for example) is way way higher than 100 to 150 only because of drag. Drag "wastes" energy. If you are 5% more efficient, it makes a big difference in how much total power you have through the lap. It could easily be half a second if you can deploy for 1-2 seconds more throughout a lap.

I'm not sure I agree with your view. Drag does waste energy but it does not mean you can deploy for more (as the power and energy is defined), it means you achieve lower speeds overall. If we really want to stretch things we could say that Mercedes by being less draggy can use less power from MGU-K (instead of 350, let's say 300 or 250) to achieve same top speed as McLaren. I am not sure if this is feasible or legal, but I'm pretty sure that it would be suboptimal use of energy (better to achieve terminal speed as soon as possible).

All energy usage is almost certainly done at exit of corners, I bet drag is not that big of a factor on corner exit. They have total of 11 seconds of usage per lap (slightly more for qualifying as you can enter with a full battery) which is not enough to waste it on straights fighting terminal drag.

What I think could be more influential is the fact that in high speed corners you often have to recover energy, so you are not really pushing highest apex speeds in those corners or braking late into them, you are instead of recharging which makes these corners less challenging. This used to be a strength of McLaren.

Overall, I think many people are jumping to conclusions with very limited data.

[_cerber1]

All Emag states is mostly factual. "Amazing" response.

I'm not questioning what he says, I'm just saying that the team has good reasons for its current problems. Stella made it abundantly clear that Mercedes has the advantage of a better understanding of its engine. The chassis issues could be due to a lack of time in the wind tunnel and the CFD. The team has been incredibly efficient for the last two years, but Emag needs results here and now.

[FittingMechanics]

I also am not convinced drag is that big of a problem with these cars, I would think opposite is true. These cars have straight line mode which will allow them to shed a lot of drag and they will never reach maximum speeds (350+) because it will be more beneficial to harvest this energy at end of straight. My expectation is for these cars to run lower top speeds than previous gen cars but they will reach these lower speeds sooner and then coast/super clip to recharge.

[Emag]

Why do you think the concept is wrong aerowise? Both Mclaren seemed to have had problems unrelated to aero all tied to engine and battery deployment.

Because the car is quite clearly very draggy. A trait they have carried over from the last two years, which unfortunately for them is a really big problem for this regulation set. Mercedes are forced, by regulation, to provide the same power unit to their customers as the one they use themselves. Any difference you see in deployment and top-end performance is all down to chassis efficiency. It doesn't matter how fast you are in the corners if you deplete the battery halfway down the straight.

Think of it this way. The battery power required to accelerate from 250 to 300 kmh (for example) is way way higher than 100 to 150 only because of drag. Drag "wastes" energy. If you are 5% more efficient, it makes a big difference in how much total power you have through the lap. It could easily be half a second if you can deploy for 1-2 seconds more throughout a lap.

I'm not sure I agree with your view. Drag does waste energy but it does not mean you can deploy for more (as the power and energy is defined), it means you achieve lower speeds overall. If we really want to stretch things we could say that Mercedes by being less draggy can use less power from MGU-K (instead of 350, let's say 300 or 250) to achieve same top speed as McLaren. I am not sure if this is feasible or legal, but I'm pretty sure that it would be suboptimal use of energy (better to achieve terminal speed as soon as possible).

All energy usage is almost certainly done at exit of corners, I bet drag is not that big of a factor on corner exit. They have total of 11 seconds of usage per lap (slightly more for qualifying as you can enter with a full battery) which is not enough to waste it on straights fighting terminal drag.

What I think could be more influential is the fact that in high speed corners you often have to recover energy, so you are not really pushing highest apex speeds in those corners or braking late into them, you are instead of recharging which makes these corners less challenging. This used to be a strength of McLaren.

Overall, I think many people are jumping to conclusions with very limited data.

It is not but it's not relevant to the problem either. Go and check again where the main losses start. First of all, you can see in the telemetry that McLaren has way shorter gear ratios than Mercedes. They get to 8th about 300 meters earlier in the main straight. But really, every single upshift is way earlier than Mercedes. Shorter gear ratios are usually a symptom of a draggier car, as A3GP said as well.

The main problem for McLaren starts right after the T8 kink at 290 kmh. That's where you have very little energy left to deploy.

If your car is very draggy beyond that point, for the same deployment amount, the draggier car only gets to 317 kmh before tapering off. Mercedes gets up to 327 kmh. The problem is that the taper is inevitable with these cars because you need to start charging for the next straight. The double whammy for McLaren is that they taper off even more harshly before T9 while also super clipping before the entry of T6.

So they're literally losing a tenth to the entry of T6. Then they lose 2 tenths to the entry of T9. And they lose 4-5 tenths in the straight itself.

I think it's fairly obvious what the problem is. If you have to charge more, but still can't match the other car on the straight, then that just means you need way more energy to maintain your top speed. Why do you need more energy? Well it can't be anything else other than drag can it.

[Darth-Piekus]

Stellla quotes from the McLaren post Q press release.
Quote

"Today’s Qualifying results in decent starting positions for tomorrow’s Grand Prix. Lando and Oscar did well in extracting what they could from the MCL40, resulting in a reasonable P5 and P6 result.

"The team executed the sessions well, and we qualified in line with our expectations at this stage of the season. Both drivers also performed consistently throughout, and on Lando’s side we believe he suffered a small loss of performance from the front wing damage caused by the debris on track.

"The main takeaway from today is that we need to do some work to generate more power and extract more performance from the power unit. Mercedes’ performance today shows there’s more to find, so we will work collaboratively with HPP to become more competitive. Tonight, we will review across the board and ensure we set ourselves up as well as possible for the first race of the season."

So Stella thinks the main problem over Mercedes is that they arent generating power as good as Mercedes. Nothing to do about drag.

[FittingMechanics]

It is not but it's not relevant to the problem either. Go and check again where the main losses start. First of all, you can see in the telemetry that McLaren has way shorter gear ratios than Mercedes. They get to 8th about 300 meters earlier in the main straight. But really, every single upshift is way earlier than Mercedes. Shorter gear ratios are usually a symptom of a draggier car, as A3GP said as well.

The main problem for McLaren starts right after the T8 kink at 290 kmh. That's where you have very little energy left to deploy.

If your car is very draggy beyond that point, for the same deployment amount, the draggier car only gets to 317 kmh before tapering off. Mercedes gets up to 327 kmh. The problem is that the taper is inevitable with these cars because you need to start charging for the next straight. The double whammy for McLaren is that they taper off even more harshly before T9 while also super clipping before the entry of T6.

So they're literally losing a tenth to the entry of T6. Then they lose 2 tenths to the entry of T9. And they lose 4-5 tenths in the straight itself.

I think it's fairly obvious what the problem is. If you have to charge more, but still can't match the other car on the straight, then that just means you need way more energy to maintain your top speed. Why do you need more energy? Well it can't be anything else other than drag can it.

You are saying these cars are not maximizing their recharge/use capabilities. I believe everyone uses the maximum (which is why FIA reduced the limit for AUS). McLaren does not have to charge more, it charges the same amount as Mercedes (maximum). It also uses the same amount of energy. They get less laptime out of that energy, probably due to drag you mentioned but also likely because their apex speeds are lower so you start from a lower point.

When you compare Lando lap with George, Lando has lower apex speed in T6 and then carries that lower speed to T9 where he again is unable to match. T6-T9 section looks similar deployment/power wise but just slower because of starting speed and potentially drag. But T10-T11 is much worse for Lando.

Oscar seems opposite, he is much worse than Russell in T6-T9 and then decent in T10-T11. Looks like they weren't sure what deployment map is the best.

Gearing wise is also incredible to see, McLaren looks to reach 8th gear faster (shorter final gear) but doesn't use second gear anywhere on the track. Russell on the other hand uses second gear in T3 and T13. Oscar on other hand seems to use the second gear in the same corners like Russell but reaches 8th gear like Lando quicker than Russell. To me this screams that the team didn't figure out the best way to approach this, Lando probably could have been P3 without the broken wing and with more laps over the weekend.

Thank you for your great website. It's fascinating to use to analyze this complex formula.

[mwillems]

There are ten pages of discussion on gear ratio between myself, ar3 gp and a couple of others, from 2 or 3 weeks ago.

It was fairly well written into the stars that the ratios were set because the car was not projected to reach the speeds others thought their car would make.

[bauc]

I expected for us to be 3rd or 4th team, that is fine, we had less time and CAD allowance do develop so all good for now. But this new cars, what a shame....all of the drivers do the lift and coast 100 meters before the braking zone, its ridiculous and it is counter intuitive, this new cars are insult to the F1 world and to motorsport in general, what a disaster.

[AR3-GP]

I'm really keen to see how Mclaren develops the car from here. They have one of the best windtunnels on the grid, one of the smartest team principals (Stella), and their correlation has been perfect for 2 years. There is a lot of potential here to fix things. Lets see. There is still a fight for 2nd in the WCC which will be far more interesting than the one for 1st.

[mwillems]

I expected for us to be 3rd or 4th team, that is fine, we had less time and CAD allowance do develop so all good for now. But this new cars, what a shame....all of the drivers do the lift and coast 100 meters before the braking zone, its ridiculous and it is counter intuitive, this new cars are insult to the F1 world and to motorsport in general, what a disaster.

With a working front wing, we had every chance of fighting for 2nd faster car. A tough fight though, but still, nothing to be disheartened about. Others brought updates are testing, so are a half step ahead.

We can have a good season still.

[SilviuAgo]

I expected for us to be 3rd or 4th team, that is fine, we had less time and CAD allowance do develop so all good for now. But this new cars, what a shame....all of the drivers do the lift and coast 100 meters before the braking zone, its ridiculous and it is counter intuitive, this new cars are insult to the F1 world and to motorsport in general, what a disaster.

So true!!

[SilviuAgo]

Full quote of Lando, here:

[AR3-GP]

In Q3, Norris ran over a piece of debris shed by Antonelli, who was sent out on track with cooling devices still attached to the Mercedes. And according to the Briton, the fact he had to focus on his dashboard meant he didn't see the debris until it was too late.

"I'm looking at my steering wheel," he explained. "It's why I don't see the debris, because I have to look at the speed I'm going to get at the end of the straight and know if I need a brake 30 metres earlier, 10 metres later. That's also the problem.

"You have to look at the steering wheel every three seconds to see what's going to happen, otherwise you're going to end up off the track."

pitiful regulations.

[SilviuAgo]

Arrogance has a new name: GR