2025 McLaren F1 Team

[mwillems]

Supposedly McLaren have run the same wing throughout 2025 so far.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mcla ... clampdown/

Lando reckons their rear wing is too compliant so they ‘need to push more’ with the flexing.

Some analysis on RW vs Australia, tks to Formula Data Analysis:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmeO05PaAAA ... =4096x4096

Similar choices across the grid (medium-load wings). Each car's inherent drag and downforce will be more evident!
Ferrari is using a rear wing much more similar to McLaren's (instead of a more loaded one as in Australia)

Mclarens rear wing outline looks so similar there's little in it, and some of the difference might even be angles. I'm not convinced this is a different wing, but others have better eyes than me.

[CjC]

The way I read that Instagram post from data analysis is that Mclaren have the same wing and Ferrari have move to a similar wing level for this race having ran higher downforce in Australia.

[geogate]

Its not exposing cheating, its a change. If it was aimed to slow down mclaren, why wouldnt they say so.
As was speculated by some at the time, the very fact that they only gave a few days notice was kinda implying all the teams would easily be able to meet the new standard.
Maybe it was literally just to "shut up" certain parties?

[SB15]

Some rear wing footage.

What’s so interesting is that the Mercedes rear-wing also compresses like this as well.

Suspension will always compress under load

You would assume that, but It’s not just the suspension.
The whole wing is moving under load.

How the McLaren and Mercedes engineers manage to do this I have no idea why, but it’s very clever.

[mwillems]

What’s so interesting is that the Mercedes rear-wing also compresses like this as well.

Suspension will always compress under load

You would assume that, but It’s not just the suspension.
The whole wing is moving under load.

How the McLaren and Mercedes engineers manage to do this I have no idea why, but it’s very clever.

He's joking that the wing is on suspension because it's is the whole assembly that is flexible

It's easy to miss, but it leans back and also the whole thing "squats" down.

[onewingedangel]

It's a different logo on on the wing, though. I don't see Avenga on the partners list.

OKX probably prohibited in China, so subletting to a partner/client similar to how BAT sublet to various convenience store chains and duty free providers when they can't promote tobacco products.

[mwillems]

It's a different logo on on the wing, though. I don't see Avenga on the partners list.

OKX probably prohibited in China, so subletting to a partner/client similar to how BAT sublet to various convenience store chains and duty free providers when they can't promote tobacco products.

They aren't related companies I don't think, but it's a good point about China. I suspect then that this is a one off, as I don't think they relate to any of our advertised partners, that I can see, though maybe I'm missing something.

[CjC]

According to paddock speculation McLaren are supposedly one of the team the new test is aimed at…

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-f ... hinese-gp/

You never know, the Mclaren wing might be able to pass the new static load test with flying colours like Lando suggests but the wing still moves the most out on track

[Farnborough]

Suspension will always compress under load

You would assume that, but It’s not just the suspension.
The whole wing is moving under load.

How the McLaren and Mercedes engineers manage to do this I have no idea why, but it’s very clever.

He's joking that the wing is on suspension because it's is the whole assembly that is flexible

It's easy to miss, but it leans back and also the whole thing "squats" down.

Its absolutely routine in structures and materials.

As example, an A 380 airbus has wing tips moving up by 4 mtrs, yes that's four whole meters, under takeoff loading.

Most things do, but not recognised. Ever seen a Chinook helicopter blade that nearly touches the ground at stationary with front rotor, to bend significantly upwards as lift comes onto that blade structure.

These all types of that materials science topic.

Not to mention bridges

[SilviuAgo]

I know that what George is saying looks funny now but God damn I hope he's right

[mwillems]

You would assume that, but It’s not just the suspension.
The whole wing is moving under load.

How the McLaren and Mercedes engineers manage to do this I have no idea why, but it’s very clever.

He's joking that the wing is on suspension because it's is the whole assembly that is flexible

It's easy to miss, but it leans back and also the whole thing "squats" down.

Its absolutely routine in structures and materials.

As example, an A 380 airbus has wing tips moving up by 4 mtrs, yes that's four whole meters, under takeoff loading.

Most things do, but not recognised. Ever seen a Chinook helicopter blade that nearly touches the ground at stationary with front rotor, to bend significantly upwards as lift comes onto that blade structure.

These all types of that materials science topic.

Not to mention bridges

Yep absolutely true, and a nice example of the helicopter rotors. If you want a more extreme example, skyscrapers and earthquakes! Whatch some of the Japanese quake footage, it's fascinating.

Not everyone spots quite how the Mclaren rear wing "bends it's knees and leans back" and its the squatting seems to be commonly confused with the issue that the FIA are trying to address, at least directly.

The slot gap is the only thing directly in question although Waches initial complaint may have been about more than that, the FIA only have one fixation.

[mwillems]

I know that what George is saying looks funny now but God damn I hope he's right

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gmd2nLVXMAA ... name=large

It's more front limited so if everyone's theories are correct, we are going to kick ass at this track.

But it is quite exciting because it has some nice configurations that will help expose some of the strengths and weaker facets of the car. Can't wait.

[Farnborough]

He's joking that the wing is on suspension because it's is the whole assembly that is flexible

It's easy to miss, but it leans back and also the whole thing "squats" down.

Its absolutely routine in structures and materials.

As example, an A 380 airbus has wing tips moving up by 4 mtrs, yes that's four whole meters, under takeoff loading.

Most things do, but not recognised. Ever seen a Chinook helicopter blade that nearly touches the ground at stationary with front rotor, to bend significantly upwards as lift comes onto that blade structure.

These all types of that materials science topic.

Not to mention bridges

Yep absolutely true, and a nice example of the helicopter rotors. If you want a more extreme example, skyscrapers and earthquakes! Whatch some of the Japanese quake footage, it's fascinating.

Not everyone spots quite how the Mclaren rear wing "bends it's knees and leans back" and its the squatting seems to be commonly confused with the issue that the FIA are trying to address, at least directly.

The slot gap is the only thing directly in question although Waches initial complaint may have been about more than that, the FIA only have one fixation.

If I was of a betting personality, rather than "bending" in the strictest sense, it looks more like the rear of the side support for rear wing being ostensibly straight, has the front facing (leading) edge of that structure static with "bent knees" that part coming up past the brake duct and inside the tyre face. With wind resistance on the planes pulling the structure backwards, then relatively it's not that complex to "extend" and straighten those knees to allow the assembly to "roll" backwards. Those knees acting as tension spring to facilitate.

That would likely be impervious to the FIA loading vertically, and look to resist the pullback test at level set that I understand is used.

[mwillems]

Its absolutely routine in structures and materials.

As example, an A 380 airbus has wing tips moving up by 4 mtrs, yes that's four whole meters, under takeoff loading.

Most things do, but not recognised. Ever seen a Chinook helicopter blade that nearly touches the ground at stationary with front rotor, to bend significantly upwards as lift comes onto that blade structure.

These all types of that materials science topic.

Not to mention bridges

Yep absolutely true, and a nice example of the helicopter rotors. If you want a more extreme example, skyscrapers and earthquakes! Whatch some of the Japanese quake footage, it's fascinating.

Not everyone spots quite how the Mclaren rear wing "bends it's knees and leans back" and its the squatting seems to be commonly confused with the issue that the FIA are trying to address, at least directly.

The slot gap is the only thing directly in question although Waches initial complaint may have been about more than that, the FIA only have one fixation.

If I was of a betting personality, rather than "bending" in the strictest sense, it looks more like the rear of the side support for rear wing being ostensibly straight, has the front facing (leading) edge of that structure static with "bent knees" that part coming up past the brake duct and inside the tyre face. With wind resistance on the planes pulling the structure backwards, then relatively it's not that complex to "extend" and straighten those knees to allow the assembly to "roll" backwards. Those knees acting as tension spring to facilitate.

That would likely be impervious to the FIA loading vertically, and look to resist the pullback test at level set that I understand is used.

Yeah I agree, I think lol If you mean the Wing pylons are bending and the upper part of the wing leans. And it's why I use the word"Directly". Testing the loads on the bigger weight bearing areas of the wing in line with the way fluid dynamics would apply forces i.e. not directly down would be a fair bit harder than looking for "relative movement" elsewhere when applying a small force on the trailing edge. At least to my untrained mind.

But I think the FIA know that preventing the slot gap from opening by x% can only affect the overall bend and lean of the rear structure by x/10%, for guesswork's sake.

I'm honestly not even sure what the problem is, everything looks within reason. Feels just like politicking.

[Farnborough]

Yes, one of the problem they face in static testing is to apply the load.

Realistically and to quantify absolute change, they'd need to mount it on a rig and blow it in a wind tunnel.

Heavier loads applied statically risk taking it to "destructive " testing. I can't see a way round that.

I do like watching the different technical teams take on the challenge, then to see how that thought process comes out into materials and performance.