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
west52keep64
51
Joined: 16 Sep 2021, 00:05

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

I doubt they would be finishing the parts like this with the car fully assembled. It's probably just something else on the workbench.

Those metal stays/supports seem much larger and beefier than what we've seen on front wings in the past. Check out the ones on last year's car:

Image

BlueCheetah66
32
Joined: 13 Jul 2021, 20:23

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

The more I look at that still of what might be the front wing the more confused I get because it doesn't actually look like the front wing and I cant think of what else it might be

User avatar
west52keep64
51
Joined: 16 Sep 2021, 00:05

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Another observation on those stays, they are completely fixed. Looking at last year's wing, they have a small pivot to allow the wing to be adjusted.

PhillipM
385
Joined: 16 May 2011, 15:18
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Still looks like the rear diffuser and brake winglets but it could be a red herring and just repairs to one of last years front wings with the outer tunnel I guess.

User avatar
west52keep64
51
Joined: 16 Sep 2021, 00:05

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

I went back to the video and it's a bit easier to make out some of the profiles with the movement of the engineers hand and the movement of the camera. This is what I was able to make out:

Image

User avatar
west52keep64
51
Joined: 16 Sep 2021, 00:05

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

I think this is actually the MCL35 (last year's car) bargeboard:

Image

bosyber
45
Joined: 15 Sep 2015, 22:41

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

west52keep64 wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 13:09
I think this is actually the MCL35 (last year's car) bargeboard:

https://i.imgur.com/knvpd2W.png
That's an interesting point, good call as there seems a close match there with those two solid metal fasteners doesn't it?!

User avatar
SiLo
130
Joined: 25 Jul 2010, 19:09

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
12 Jan 2022, 17:28
v3rify wrote:
12 Jan 2022, 16:59
SmallSoldier wrote:
12 Jan 2022, 16:52

A little front wing action?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202201 ... 8743e7.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
diffuser possibly?
Not allowed slots in the diffuser. Could be the floor edge wing, but I thought that was only 1 element.
Are they allow an extra plane above the diffuser edge? Could be that?
Felipe Baby!

SmallSoldier
473
Joined: 10 Mar 2019, 03:54

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

west52keep64 wrote:
13 Jan 2022, 13:09
I think this is actually the MCL35 (last year's car) bargeboard:

https://i.imgur.com/knvpd2W.png
Good catch… Quiet cheeky of McLaren to tease us with last year’s car :wtf:

Emag
68
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 14:56

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Something I am wondering now, which I guess applies to all cars of these new regs.

With bargeboards gone, isn't the front wing essentially more important now (particularly, the y250 generation)?

Yes, wheel covers will help with the tire wake a bit, but there's still a huge amount of dirty air from the wheel that needs to stay away from the floor and the diffuser.

With less bodywork in the middle of the car, could we see a return of inwash front wings? It seems easier to just pull the wake inside so that it can follow the natural path of the y250 vortex towards the outside of the car, than have the wake go outside and have it managed downstream (with less bodywork available).

User avatar
wogx
60
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 18:48

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Can we still talk about/name it the Y250 vortex, when the neutral centre section is gone?
This mandated neutral section on the front wing was to span 250mm to either side of the middle of the nose (that is 250mm in the Y-direction of the car coordinate system). This meant that the design freedom for the aerodynamicists began at Y = 250mm. The multi-element front wings started from here.
Kukułka zwyczajna, kukułka pospolita – nazwy ludowe: gżegżółka, zazula (Cuculus canorus) – gatunek średniego ptaka wędrownego z podrodziny kukułek (Cuculinae) w rodzinie kukułkowatych (Cuculidae). Jedyny w Europie Środkowej pasożyt lęgowy. Zamieszkuje strefę umiarkowaną.

Emag
68
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 14:56

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

wogx wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:31
Can we still talk about/name it the Y250 vortex, when the neutral centre section is gone?
This mandated neutral section on the front wing was to span 250mm to either side of the middle of the nose (that is 250mm in the Y-direction of the car coordinate system). This meant that the design freedom for the aerodynamicists began at Y = 250mm. The multi-element front wings started from here.
Force of habbit I guess, but you are right, it doesn't make sense to call it the y250 vortex.

What should we call it though? The vortex generated on the front wing to manage the tire wake seems a bit long. And the acronym vgftwm isn't any better :lol:

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

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Emag wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:43
wogx wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:31
Can we still talk about/name it the Y250 vortex, when the neutral centre section is gone?
This mandated neutral section on the front wing was to span 250mm to either side of the middle of the nose (that is 250mm in the Y-direction of the car coordinate system). This meant that the design freedom for the aerodynamicists began at Y = 250mm. The multi-element front wings started from here.
Force of habbit I guess, but you are right, it doesn't make sense to call it the y250 vortex.

What should we call it though? The vortex generated on the front wing to manage the tire wake seems a bit long. And the acronym vgftwm isn't any better :lol:
The intention of the front wing regs is to remove vortex generation; no sharp edges, wings must be joined to the nose, limits to variation of elements across their width.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Emag
68
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 14:56

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Stu wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:47
Emag wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:43
wogx wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:31
Can we still talk about/name it the Y250 vortex, when the neutral centre section is gone?

Force of habbit I guess, but you are right, it doesn't make sense to call it the y250 vortex.

What should we call it though? The vortex generated on the front wing to manage the tire wake seems a bit long. And the acronym vgftwm isn't any better :lol:
The intention of the front wing regs is to remove vortex generation; no sharp edges, wings must be joined to the nose, limits to variation of elements across their width.
I am not very informed on what's going on. Haven't had too much time to go that deep into it. Sorry for this then, you can delete the former post I guess.

Is there any general consensus on how the tire wake will be managed now that there are no bargeboards, and apparently no vortices?

To my inexperienced mind, it seems horrible to just let the dirty air from the tires unmanaged. Wouldn't it make a huge mess for the rear-end?

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

Re: McLaren MCL36 Speculation Thread

Post

Emag wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:52
Stu wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:47
Emag wrote:
17 Jan 2022, 16:43


Force of habbit I guess, but you are right, it doesn't make sense to call it the y250 vortex.

What should we call it though? The vortex generated on the front wing to manage the tire wake seems a bit long. And the acronym vgftwm isn't any better :lol:
The intention of the front wing regs is to remove vortex generation; no sharp edges, wings must be joined to the nose, limits to variation of elements across their width.
I am not very informed on what's going on. Haven't had too much time to go that deep into it. Sorry for this then, you can delete the former post I guess.

Is there any general consensus on how the tire wake will be managed now that there are no bargeboards, and apparently no vortices?

To my inexperienced mind, it seems horrible to just let the dirty air from the tires unmanaged. Wouldn't it make a huge mess for the rear-end?
That is (kind of) the point with the new rules, they want to stop the out-washing of turbulence. They do have the small fin above the front tyre and wheel covers. Brakes have to be ducted inside (towards the car) now as well.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Locked