McLaren MCL36

[SmallSoldier]

Also, interesting video from “The Race”, not only focusing on the vortices created by the McLaren floor, but explaining what the suspended part of the floor at the rear is probably doing.

They also talk about what the other big 3 teams are doing.

Maybe the biggest takeaway for me and the one that I fully agree with is that if McLaren has porpoising under control, they can focus on adding performance, while others are focusing on mitigating / eliminating the effect.

Pictures of vortex are nice but comparing them is useless if the pictures aren't taken with cars at same speed

for example in this picture the vortex of the Ferrari totally different form the one showed in the video and more similar to the McLaren one

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMd-T7QXMAk ... ame=medium

Thanks for the picture… I haven’t seeing it before… And it does indeed to put things in perspective (and questions the articles premises/conclusions a lot).

[billamend]

It is possible, but I would suggest a bit unlikely… Based on everything I’ve read so far, porpoising caught the teams by surprise, it wasn’t something that they designed around or that was part of the car calculations (simply because you wouldn’t see it in the CAD or Wind Tunnel models), so it would be unlikely for the team to have asked AMSP about it before hand.

That can't be true. It happened the same when we had venturi tunnels for the first time. Even Ross Brown mentioned that that could be a problem that teams need to face.

[SmallSoldier]

It is possible, but I would suggest a bit unlikely… Based on everything I’ve read so far, porpoising caught the teams by surprise, it wasn’t something that they designed around or that was part of the car calculations (simply because you wouldn’t see it in the CAD or Wind Tunnel models), so it would be unlikely for the team to have asked AMSP about it before hand.

That can't be true. It happened the same when we had venturi tunnels for the first time. Even Ross Brown mentioned that that could be a problem that teams need to face.

Maybe “unexpected” is the wrong word to use… Underestimated may be a better one… It’s what the likes of Binotto have said:

“Asked about the issue during a Thursday team bosses’ press conference, Binotto acknowledged: “I think that most of us at least underestimated the problem by where on track we are bouncing more than expected.” https://the-race.com/formula-1/teams-un ... m-ferrari/

In addition, McLaren did had a few issues with porpoising with some test parts inducing the effect, per James Key:

“We had a couple of test items which appeared to promote it a bit more,” he said. “But then removing them reduced it, so you can fix it aerodynamically as well.

In the same article he also mentions in regards to the designing a car that specifically address this phenomenon:

“But I'd be lying if I said it was by design. I think it's a phenomenon we're all going to get used to from track running with these cars. And hopefully we can iron it out as time goes on, and learn how to remove it as an issue.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... t/8540476/

So, in my opinion, with so many teams (big teams, like Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari) suffering from it, it makes me believe that it wasn’t something that they accounted for since you wouldn’t bring a car to the track that experience that behavior if you “expected” it… And you wouldn’t be making on track crude fixes for the issue

[billamend]

Maybe “unexpected” is the wrong word to use… Underestimated may be a better one… It’s what the likes of Binotto have said:

...

That's fair.

[F1_CoolFan]

Hello Everyone new to F1 Technical. My question is: Could it be that McLaren benefited from their association with Indycar in terms of figuring out that there could be porpoising?

It is possible, but I would suggest a bit unlikely… Based on everything I’ve read so far, porpoising caught the teams by surprise, it wasn’t something that they designed around or that was part of the car calculations (simply because you wouldn’t see it in the CAD or Wind Tunnel models), so it would be unlikely for the team to have asked AMSP about it before hand.

Furthermore, the chassis / aero of the Indycar’s isn’t build by the teams (nor designed), it is an spec class for which they buy a chassis from Dallara… Therefore, the most the team probably is capable of helping with is setup.

The one that could have a bit of a benefit is Haas, since Dallara makes their chassis (as well as Indy’s)

You'd be surprised how integrated the two teams are, I recently supported differential testing for AMSP with the chief gbox technician from America and an Engineer from the F1 side. Due to track testing restrictions in recent years, most Indy teams have resorted to rig testing to find any gains that they can and aid in car setup.

Knowing that Indy uses similar ground effect, albeit on a less exaggerated level, there is a lot to gain and any extra information will be beneficial in different ways.
Even though the chassis is supplied by Dallara, SP racing/AMSP would've done their own extensive testing in wind tunnels, private tests, CFD etc to get a better understanding. SP racing (before McLaren bought them) have years of data that could help the F1 team point in the right direction, even if it's mainly helps with setup.

Reason I do agree with is if you compare the sidepods on the MCL36 and Indycar, you can see some vague similarities in shape and inlet design/position. McLaren having a slimmer example, but both bulge out just after the inlets before tapering back in, obviously that's where it ends as Indy have almost a rear wheel cover/scoop.

[SmallSoldier]

Hello Everyone new to F1 Technical. My question is: Could it be that McLaren benefited from their association with Indycar in terms of figuring out that there could be porpoising?

It is possible, but I would suggest a bit unlikely… Based on everything I’ve read so far, porpoising caught the teams by surprise, it wasn’t something that they designed around or that was part of the car calculations (simply because you wouldn’t see it in the CAD or Wind Tunnel models), so it would be unlikely for the team to have asked AMSP about it before hand.

Furthermore, the chassis / aero of the Indycar’s isn’t build by the teams (nor designed), it is an spec class for which they buy a chassis from Dallara… Therefore, the most the team probably is capable of helping with is setup.

The one that could have a bit of a benefit is Haas, since Dallara makes their chassis (as well as Indy’s)

You'd be surprised how integrated the two teams are, I recently supported differential testing for AMSP with the chief gbox technician from America and an Engineer from the F1 side. Due to track testing restrictions in recent years, most Indy teams have resorted to rig testing to find any gains that they can and aid in car setup.

Knowing that Indy uses similar ground effect, albeit on a less exaggerated level, there is a lot to gain and any extra information will be beneficial in different ways.
Even though the chassis is supplied by Dallara, SP racing/AMSP would've done their own extensive testing in wind tunnels, private tests, CFD etc to get a better understanding. SP racing (before McLaren bought them) have years of data that could help the F1 team point in the right direction, even if it's mainly helps with setup.

Reason I do agree with is if you compare the sidepods on the MCL36 and Indycar, you can see some vague similarities in shape and inlet design/position. McLaren having a slimmer example, but both bulge out just after the inlets before tapering back in, obviously that's where it ends as Indy have almost a rear wheel cover/scoop.

I have no doubts that there is certain level of cooperation between both teams and I’m sure that knowledge will be shared between both, by I have my doubts that it has influenced the 2022 car for a few reasons (at least when it comes to porpoising):

A) Porpoising is actually not an issue in Indycar, I have been watching that series for several years now and it’s a term of phenomenon that until now I’ve never seeing or head the teams discuss.
B) Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the current generation of Indycars do not use Venturi Tunnels to create downforce as the current generation of F1 cars do, therefore not a lot to learn from that stand point.
C) The levels of downforce created are very different between both categories (maybe the reason why we don’t hear about porpoising issues from Indycar).
D) I actually disagree that the bodywork’s are similar of the McLaren’s may have been inspired by Indycar, not only does the Indy one has an undercut which McLaren clearly has avoided, the way it slims down and directs air behind it are very different too.

Like I said, I’m sure cooperation exists… Specially with several McLaren F1 team members joining the AMSP team, but I would be very surprised if the current car was influenced by it.

[the EDGE]

Some great shots of the car courtesy of LN4, the vortex generators on the cockpit sit quite forward & inboard, presumably to cut drag from the Halo fixings or manage the air around it

[continuum16]

It is possible, but I would suggest a bit unlikely… Based on everything I’ve read so far, porpoising caught the teams by surprise, it wasn’t something that they designed around or that was part of the car calculations (simply because you wouldn’t see it in the CAD or Wind Tunnel models), so it would be unlikely for the team to have asked AMSP about it before hand.

Furthermore, the chassis / aero of the Indycar’s isn’t build by the teams (nor designed), it is an spec class for which they buy a chassis from Dallara… Therefore, the most the team probably is capable of helping with is setup.

The one that could have a bit of a benefit is Haas, since Dallara makes their chassis (as well as Indy’s)

You'd be surprised how integrated the two teams are, I recently supported differential testing for AMSP with the chief gbox technician from America and an Engineer from the F1 side. Due to track testing restrictions in recent years, most Indy teams have resorted to rig testing to find any gains that they can and aid in car setup.

Knowing that Indy uses similar ground effect, albeit on a less exaggerated level, there is a lot to gain and any extra information will be beneficial in different ways.
Even though the chassis is supplied by Dallara, SP racing/AMSP would've done their own extensive testing in wind tunnels, private tests, CFD etc to get a better understanding. SP racing (before McLaren bought them) have years of data that could help the F1 team point in the right direction, even if it's mainly helps with setup.

Reason I do agree with is if you compare the sidepods on the MCL36 and Indycar, you can see some vague similarities in shape and inlet design/position. McLaren having a slimmer example, but both bulge out just after the inlets before tapering back in, obviously that's where it ends as Indy have almost a rear wheel cover/scoop.

I have no doubts that there is certain level of cooperation between both teams and I’m sure that knowledge will be shared between both, by I have my doubts that it has influenced the 2022 car for a few reasons (at least when it comes to porpoising):

A) Porpoising is actually not an issue in Indycar, I have been watching that series for several years now and it’s a term of phenomenon that until now I’ve never seeing or head the teams discuss.
B) Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the current generation of Indycars do not use Venturi Tunnels to create downforce as the current generation of F1 cars do, therefore not a lot to learn from that stand point.
C) The levels of downforce created are very different between both categories (maybe the reason why we don’t hear about porpoising issues from Indycar).
D) I actually disagree that the bodywork’s are similar of the McLaren’s may have been inspired by Indycar, not only does the Indy one has an undercut which McLaren clearly has avoided, the way it slims down and directs air behind it are very different too.

Like I said, I’m sure cooperation exists… Specially with several McLaren F1 team members joining the AMSP team, but I would be very surprised if the current car was influenced by it.

I agree that there is probably some level of cooperation between the F1 team and AMSP, albeit it is probably quite limited for now, for reasons you have alluded to. Obviously Indycar is essentially a spec series, but I do find it interesting that the main area of development concerns damping and suspension setup.

With some of the extremely bumpy street tracks Indycar races on, I would not be surprised if there was a little bit of crossover there, albeit probably not a ton. Maybe they have a good handle on dealing with extreme suspension travel and mitigating the negative impacts of oscillation? Sort of thinking out loud here. It's worth noting that the mass of F1 cars and Indycars have converged a lot more as of late, which probably wouldn't hurt.

[DarkAlman]

Also, interesting video from “The Race”, not only focusing on the vortices created by the McLaren floor, but explaining what the suspended part of the floor at the rear is probably doing.

They also talk about what the other big 3 teams are doing.

Maybe the biggest takeaway for me and the one that I fully agree with is that if McLaren has porpoising under control, they can focus on adding performance, while others are focusing on mitigating / eliminating the effect.

I dub this the McVortex

Seeing that vortex coming off the floor seems to explain why they are unusual with having no undercut on the front of the side pod. They are ramming brute force air into that area to seal the floor with the vortex. Have a virtual skirt is worth far more than the extra airflow around the sidepod and to the rear it seems.

At a glance it looks like their front floor might be slightly higher than allowed to expose the back part of three of the strakes to possibly redirect some air from the floor to do vortex generation, but hard to tell with so few pictures and lack of detail



James Key may have just pulled a page out of book of Colin Chapman with this one.

Looking forward to seeing more detail on it next week!

[mclaren111]

I dub this the McVortex

Seeing that vortex coming off the floor seems to explain why they are unusual with having no undercut on the front of the side pod. They are ramming brute force air into that area to seal the floor with the vortex. Have a virtual skirt is worth far more than the extra airflow around the sidepod and to the rear it seems.

At a glance it looks like their front floor might be slightly higher than allowed to expose the back part of three of the strakes to possibly redirect some air from the floor to do vortex generation, but hard to tell with so few pictures and lack of detail

https://i.imgur.com/w61DByD.png

James Key may have just pulled a page out of book of Colin Chapman with this one.

Looking forward to seeing more detail on it next week!



Alpine has it too...

[mclaren111]

Nice close-up of FW... Would be nice if we can slim down the front tip of the nose...

[bucker]

Watch from 3:16 tea tray on McLaren's car. Looks like it changes height at specific speed.

[Stu]

Watch from 3:16 tea tray on McLaren's car. Looks like it changes height at specific speed.

That looks like a combination of ride height change, camera angle and a bump in the track causing it to appear to ‘bump’ into the track.

[SmallSoldier]

Great picture of the rear of the car, you can clearly see all suspension elements and how/when the Tunnel ramps up



Vía Butch_on_Racing

[SmallSoldier]

Another pic of the rear suspension elements: