McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Locked
User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

timbo wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:45
So the driveshaft will be practically lying on the tunnel top?
Pretty close. The diff has to be between 250 and 260mm from the car floor, and between 60mm fore or aft of the rear axle line. The drive shaft can then be shrouded by the fairing for one of the suspension members. This member can be up to 150mm long (other susp arms may only be 100mm long) with the thickness ratio of 3.5:1 (so ~42mm thick).

Using the max height and moving the diff forward frees a bit more space above the tunnel, but adds an angle to the drive shaft.
Last edited by jjn9128 on 09 Jan 2022, 23:04, edited 2 times in total.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Zynerji
111
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:53
timbo wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:45
So the driveshaft will be practically lying on the tunnel top?
Pretty close. The diff has to be between 250 and 260mm from the car floor, and between 60mm fore or aft of the rear axle line. The drive shaft can then be shrouded by the fairing for one of the suspension members. This member can be up to 150mm long (other susp arms may only be 100mm long) with the thickness ratio of 3.5:1 (so ~42mm thick).

Using the max height and moving the diff forward frees a bit more space above the tunnel, but adds an angle to the drive shaft.
The angle lowers power transmission efficiency? By generating more heat? Can that effect be harnessed?

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2019, 10:05
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 21:00
jjn9128 wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:53
timbo wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:45
So the driveshaft will be practically lying on the tunnel top?
Pretty close. The diff has to be between 250 and 260mm from the car floor, and between 60mm fore or aft of the rear axle line. The drive shaft can then be shrouded by the fairing for one of the suspension members. This member can be up to 150mm long (other susp arms may only be 100mm long) with the thickness ratio of 3.5:1 (so ~42mm thick).

Using the max height and moving the diff forward frees a bit more space above the tunnel, but adds an angle to the drive shaft.
The angle lowers power transmission efficiency? By generating more heat? Can that effect be harnessed?
It might have saved Leclerc’s gearbox in Monaco…
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
Zynerji
111
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

By offsetting the load path to the gearbox...

Interesting. 🤔

User avatar
aleks_ader
90
Joined: 28 Jul 2011, 08:40

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Zynerji wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 21:00
jjn9128 wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:53
timbo wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:45
So the driveshaft will be practically lying on the tunnel top?
Pretty close. The diff has to be between 250 and 260mm from the car floor, and between 60mm fore or aft of the rear axle line. The drive shaft can then be shrouded by the fairing for one of the suspension members. This member can be up to 150mm long (other susp arms may only be 100mm long) with the thickness ratio of 3.5:1 (so ~42mm thick).

Using the max height and moving the diff forward frees a bit more space above the tunnel, but adds an angle to the drive shaft.
The angle lowers power transmission efficiency? By generating more heat? Can that effect be harnessed?
Harnessed? What u mean? Loss is cause of bearing friction and then formed into heat. That is lost for ever. Williams experiment with high shaft AoA in 2012ish combined with very low gearbox ended poorly. So yeah i guess if there would be a serious gain is hard to guess. Firstly i dont have rules measurement and proportions at hand to judge more precisely. But I would guess beam wing is still there to correct any negative effect from shaft and other elements. So yeah any play with extra geometry positions could be "engineered" around problem at hand.
"And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you're no longer a racing driver..." Ayrton Senna

User avatar
Zynerji
111
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

aleks_ader wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 01:29
Zynerji wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 21:00
jjn9128 wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 20:53


Pretty close. The diff has to be between 250 and 260mm from the car floor, and between 60mm fore or aft of the rear axle line. The drive shaft can then be shrouded by the fairing for one of the suspension members. This member can be up to 150mm long (other susp arms may only be 100mm long) with the thickness ratio of 3.5:1 (so ~42mm thick).

Using the max height and moving the diff forward frees a bit more space above the tunnel, but adds an angle to the drive shaft.
The angle lowers power transmission efficiency? By generating more heat? Can that effect be harnessed?
Harnessed? What u mean? Loss is cause of bearing friction and then formed into heat. That is lost for ever. Williams experiment with high shaft AoA in 2012ish combined with very low gearbox ended poorly. So yeah i guess if there would be a serious gain is hard to guess. Firstly i dont have rules measurement and proportions at hand to judge more precisely. But I would guess beam wing is still there to correct any negative effect from shaft and other elements. So yeah any play with extra geometry positions could be "engineered" around problem at hand.
High angle driveshafts with flexture u joints that lower at speed could be a way of getting heat back into the rim after the brake duct changes! 🤣

User avatar
Blackout
1562
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 04:12

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 17:27
Stu wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 16:05
Which makes going to pull rods awkward. I’ve thought of another drawback. The teams are all using pushrod offset to control low speed weight distribution; limited for this year, but there will still be a benefit to using pushrods.
Tunnel sizes may now put an end to pull rods at the rear too.
I don't think the tunnel height is a limiting factor (very much WIP)
https://db3pap006files.storage.live.com ... pmode=none
Merc-style inverted rear lower wishbones will be hard to implement then (or less useful, because they would pass very close to the tunnel?).. (but their extremely high pull rods will remain useful)
Image

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2019, 10:05
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Blackout wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 16:56
jjn9128 wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 17:27
Stu wrote:
08 Jan 2022, 16:05
Which makes going to pull rods awkward. I’ve thought of another drawback. The teams are all using pushrod offset to control low speed weight distribution; limited for this year, but there will still be a benefit to using pushrods.
Tunnel sizes may now put an end to pull rods at the rear too.
I don't think the tunnel height is a limiting factor (very much WIP)
https://db3pap006files.storage.live.com ... pmode=none
Merc-style inverted rear lower wishbones will be hard to implement then (or less useful, because they would pass very close to the tunnel?).. (but their extremely high pull rods will remain useful)
https://i.imgur.com/l9CkFmQ.jpg
Interaction between the wishbones and beam wing could result in interesting development opportunities.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
_cerber1
238
Joined: 18 Jan 2019, 21:50
Location: From Russia with love

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

By @ChrisPaulDesig1
Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2019, 10:05
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Not entirely sure the front wing is legal?
(Fairly sure that jjn9128 will correct me if I’m wrong there!!)

Nice render though.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
F1Krof
94
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 21:17

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Wroom wroom

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 20:43
Not entirely sure the front wing is legal?
(Fairly sure that jjn9128 will correct me if I’m wrong there!!)

Nice render though.
Not much of the detail stuff on there is legal no. The raised nose, the S-duct is illegal, the wheel arches are wrong, the dive plane on the FWEP is too short, looks like there's a J-vane under the nose?!, the suspension arms have to join the upright above 40mm below the axle line so certainly the front suspension lower wishbones look too low, and it looks like the upper wishbone knuckles are outside the face of the drums on the front and rear wheels, slots ahead of the rear tyre are illegal, the beam wing looks wrong, and the rear impact structure is far too short... otherwise very nice.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

CMSMJ1
Moderator
Joined: 25 Sep 2007, 10:51
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 22:24
Stu wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 20:43
Not entirely sure the front wing is legal?
(Fairly sure that jjn9128 will correct me if I’m wrong there!!)

Nice render though.
Not much of the detail stuff on there is legal no. The raised nose, the S-duct is illegal, the wheel arches are wrong, the dive plane on the FWEP is too short, looks like there's a J-vane under the nose?!, the suspension arms have to join the upright above 40mm below the axle line so certainly the front suspension lower wishbones look too low, and it looks like the upper wishbone knuckles are outside the face of the drums on the front and rear wheels, slots ahead of the rear tyre are illegal, the beam wing looks wrong, and the rear impact structure is far too short... otherwise very nice.
Sure is purdy though eh :)
IMPERATOR REX ANGLORUM

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2019, 10:05
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

CMSMJ1 wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 22:42
jjn9128 wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 22:24
Stu wrote:
09 Jan 2022, 20:43
Not entirely sure the front wing is legal?
(Fairly sure that jjn9128 will correct me if I’m wrong there!!)

Nice render though.
Not much of the detail stuff on there is legal no. The raised nose, the S-duct is illegal, the wheel arches are wrong, the dive plane on the FWEP is too short, looks like there's a J-vane under the nose?!, the suspension arms have to join the upright above 40mm below the axle line so certainly the front suspension lower wishbones look too low, and it looks like the upper wishbone knuckles are outside the face of the drums on the front and rear wheels, slots ahead of the rear tyre are illegal, the beam wing looks wrong, and the rear impact structure is far too short... otherwise very nice.
Sure is purdy though eh :)
Oh yeah!!! 😂😂
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

That is one very very sexy render!

However, the horizontal slots in the tunnel are A/ illegal (IIRC) and B/ would likely hurt the performance of the tunnels.
"In downforce we trust"

Locked