McLaren MCL39

[tok-tokkie]

If I remember well that kind of geometry is anti anti-dive.
Different aero management/interaction that is for sure, AFAIK and based on many analyses made by You and some other guys on www.newsf1.it

As far as I know, over 100% anti dive leads to jacking, ie hopping under braking. It's more than bad

However, this would be a very different geometry, as you can see on this illustration, not really what McLaren is doing I think

https://livetodai.com/uploads/default/o ... 1e6d0.jpeg

These diagrams show that by lowering the rear arm of the upper wishbone they are REDUCING the ant-dive. Exactly the opposite of what the commentators are writing.

[Andi76]

If I remember well that kind of geometry is anti anti-dive.
Different aero management/interaction that is for sure, AFAIK and based on many analyses made by You and some other guys on www.newsf1.it

As far as I know, over 100% anti dive leads to jacking, ie hopping under braking. It's more than bad

However, this would be a very different geometry, as you can see on this illustration, not really what McLaren is doing I think

https://livetodai.com/uploads/default/o ... 1e6d0.jpeg

These diagrams show that by lowering the rear arm of the upper wishbone they are REDUCING the ant-dive. Exactly the opposite of what the commentators are writing.

This is exactly what I and a few others have been trying to make clear to people for a long time. Just as the anti-dive value is ultimately influenced by other things... it's just complete nonsense what is being spread in the media that a low rear leg of the upper wishbone inevitably increases means "more" anti-dive. I also can't understand how people like Gary Anderson, who should actually know something like this, cheer such things on.

But anyway - what McLaren is actually doing here in my opinion, are two things - aerodynamic optimization and better driver feel/confidence. At the limit, especially in duels and under braking, Lando often didn't look good against Verstappen and Max usually came out on top. One reason for this could be a high anti-dive value, which impaired the feeling and feedback to the driver. One solution would be a lower anti-dive value with simultaneous optimization of the aerodynamics.

[f1rules]

Remembering back when the anti dive was re introduced some years ago (again)
There was articles explaining exactly what you mention here. Its a fine line. If you overdo it, the drivers will loose feel for the car

[BassVirolla]

As far as I know, over 100% anti dive leads to jacking, ie hopping under braking. It's more than bad

However, this would be a very different geometry, as you can see on this illustration, not really what McLaren is doing I think

https://livetodai.com/uploads/default/o ... 1e6d0.jpeg

These diagrams show that by lowering the rear arm of the upper wishbone they are REDUCING the ant-dive. Exactly the opposite of what the commentators are writing.

This is exactly what I and a few others have been trying to make clear to people for a long time. Just as the anti-dive value is ultimately influenced by other things... it's just complete nonsense what is being spread in the media that a low rear leg of the upper wishbone inevitably increases means "more" anti-dive. I also can't understand how people like Gary Anderson, who should actually know something like this, cheer such things on.

But anyway - what McLaren is actually doing here in my opinion, are two things - aerodynamic optimization and better driver feel/confidence. At the limit, especially in duels and under braking, Lando often didn't look good against Verstappen and Max usually came out on top. One reason for this could be a high anti-dive value, which impaired the feeling and feedback to the driver. One solution would be a lower anti-dive value with simultaneous optimization of the aerodynamics.

Some posters in this forum called me off for saying this same thing.

I'm happy to know that I'm not such a fool.

Even more, I think that in a front limited era, could be of some help increase the weight transfer under braking, and get the front wing near the ground in order to increase front downforce in corner entry.

[Vanja #66]

[Emag]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjHXX0AA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjHvWsAA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjIBW8AE ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7HLkwWoAA ... name=large

As always, thank you for the detailed analysis. That hump is really interesting indeed, hadn’t noticed it before.

Could it be an underfloor redesign?

Looking forward to (potential) high quality images taken from the diffuser in testing to maybe deduce some changes.

[Vanja #66]

Could it be an underfloor redesign?

Almost certainly. It could be more pronounced now because the surrounding geometry sits lower, but this area where the vortex is developing has to be kept a bit higher...

[trinidefender]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjHXX0AA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjHvWsAA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjIBW8AE ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7HLkwWoAA ... name=large

Which other teams run double kick diffusers?

[Vanja #66]

Which other teams run double kick diffusers?

I think McLaren was the last of Top 5 to adopt this kind of geometry, back in Mexico last year

[michl420]

I think there is a cover over the floor by the inlet and the edge wing (or a show floor).

[trinidefender]

Which other teams run double kick diffusers?

I think McLaren was the last of Top 5 to adopt this kind of geometry, back in Mexico last year

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gg9ejvBWYAA ... name=large

As far as I can see the double kick was there in the old design as well just that the initial kick was made larger.

Would you agree?

[Vanja #66]

As far as I can see the double kick was there in the old design as well just that the initial kick was made larger.

Would you agree?

On the outside we only see the local portion of the floor and Red Bull has previously used this area for a local pocket on the floor. Based on the actual photos of MCL38 post-miami underside, it was never a 2-kick solution, but the ramp has a certain upward curvature - it's not completely flat

[ltitus8900]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjHXX0AA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjHvWsAA ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7GjIBW8AE ... name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gj7HLkwWoAA ... name=large

This Mclaren is very Newey like to me. I might do a bad job of explaining what I mean but whatever. I like how the suspension aero is used together with the bodywork to help support the flows as it transitions to the beginning of the floor and how the bodywork of the chassis mirrors that of the aero ahead of it preserve a very powerful flow structure downstream. I also love how there is a relatively straight angle all the way back to the end of the sidepods. If they are able to get the flows to behave like they want it to, they should be able to work the floor quite nicely indeed.

I am happy that they kept the diffusor transition far back as well. They should have a beautifully balanced car if everything works as it should.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Which other teams run double kick diffusers?

I think McLaren was the last of Top 5 to adopt this kind of geometry, back in Mexico last year

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gg9ejvBWYAA ... name=large

As far as I can see the double kick was there in the old design as well just that the initial kick was made larger.

Would you agree?

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the "double kick" diffuser?

[gcdugas]

Everyone seems to be fixated on the aero effect of the top rear wishbone being so low but what is really in play is that the engineers have put a ton of anti-dive geometry. This will affect the tunnels far more than the aero effect of the lowered mounting point.