Mclaren MCL40

[AR3-GP]

The big difference between the FW and RW flap-opening geometries is the FW flap is hinged across its front edge, while the RW flap is hinged at two points rearward. That first slot-gap is critical for wing performance, and even a tiny discrepancy can result in the separation and stalling which pitched Max around twice. The FW flaps have inherently more support and stiffness along that front-edge slot-gap than the RBR or McLarena RW design does, so I think that will always be a fundamental flaw of this design that will require mitigation of some kind. OTOH the Ferrari wing physically comes to rest on the mainplane stub-stays so no worries there.

I will say that I'm a little disappointed in McLaren's effort here, as I was hoping they would come with another unique interpretation of this basic idea. Instead, like f1rules joked, this just appears to be a temu version of the RBR wing.

The Red Bull/Mclaren designs are also physically coming to rest on the snubbers. Just from the opposite direction and in the opposite sense. They may have a return spring in the system that provides a constant positive reinforcement against the snubber even in the absence of actuator power.

As long as the actuator moves the wing fully, it will be in position against the snubber. There's no "inaccuracy". The problem comes when you have a faulty actuator design (too much flexing, interference, stiction, etc), then you don't get what you want. It is certainly a challenging design, but so is building an engine and most things in Formula. You just do it, test it, and forget about it. The objective with most things in Formula 1 is always aerodynamics first and foremost. Pierre Wache explained it that there are aerodynamic reasons why they turn the wing this way. The CFD shows it has to do with the excellent pressure recovery (this should allow later braking and better margins as long as you don't have a hitch in the actuator like Red Bull did).

Maybe I'm missing something here but Mclaren has a very elegant actuator in my opinion. It's lighter/smaller than the Red Bull design, and probably also the Ferrari one. That's important when you have to put it so high up, it raises the center of gravity. Nothing temu about it from a mechanical point of view. Hats off to them for sorting it out since Austria. I think it's the best system that I've seen so far and there wing closes faster than FER/RBR.

[Brahmal]

As long as the actuator moves the wing fully, it will be in position against the snubber. There's no "inaccuracy". The problem comes when you have a faulty actuator design, then you don't get what you want. It is certainly a challenging design, but so is building an engine and most things in Formula. You just do it, test it, and forget about it. The objective with most things in Formula 1 is always aerodynamics first and foremost. The mechanicals can always be sorted. Pierre Wache explained it that there are aerodynamic reasons why they turn the wing this way, and the CFD shows it has to do with the excellent pressure recovery (this should allow later braking).

Oh of course, these are all solvable problems and the trade-off equation between these different designs will always be up for debate. Each team will judge those trade-offs a little differently and that's ok. My fundamental issue with the RBR/McLarena wing is that it is always fighting physics to stay closed and maintain that slot-gap no matter what mechanical trickery it uses, whereas the Ferrari wing works with the physics instead.

If I were faced with a similar conundrum in my own work, I would always opt for the solution that respects physics even if it requires added effort and complexity, so that's why my opinion leans in that direction.

[AR3-GP]

Oh of course, these are all solvable problems and the trade-off equation between these different designs will always be up for debate. Each team will judge those trade-offs a little differently and that's ok. My fundamental issue with the RBR/McLarena wing is that it is always fighting physics to stay closed and maintain that slot-gap no matter what mechanical trickery it uses, whereas the Ferrari wing works with the physics instead.

If I were faced with a similar conundrum in my own work, I would always opt for the solution that respects the physics even if it requires added effort and complexity, so that's why my opinion leans in that direction.

I can understand that but we have always seen in F1 that aerodynamics supersedes the mechanical considerations if you want to get the most aero performance. So it's no surprise to see that again here.

[Brahmal]

I can understand that but we have always seen in F1 that aerodynamics supersedes the mechanical considerations if you want to get the most aero performance. So it's no surprise to see that again here.

I'm assuming that the aero benefits of each solution are roughly equivalent, because there is no way for us to judge one way or the other. I also believe that development resources required is a factor in these teams' decision-making process, maybe not the primary one but there nonetheless.

Pierre Wache will sing the praises of his own solution in all aspects because of course he will! It is a fact that RBRs design is the only one that has failed in a race, and quite spectacularly too, so that is a point against him despite the very small sample size.

Edit: And I agree with you that McLaren's actuator design is very slick and interesting in its own right. I was more referring to the overall concept when expressing my mild disappointment.

[AR3-GP]

I'm assuming that the aero benefits of each solution are roughly equivalent, because there is no way for us to judge one way or the other.

They are not equivalent. It doesn't requirement measurements, CFD eyes, or a Phd to understand this. It's just simple physical principles, introductory physics level. I explained it in the Ferrari thread on May 9th:https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 7#p1342247

Later on I saw the CFD simulation which demonstrated the same thing: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 4#p1349254

It's not a question of the shapes and absolute aero numbers. It's a case of geometry and rotation direction that defines this characteristic. The Mclaren/RBR solution recovers pressure faster. Whatever mechanical issue they had (RBR) are mechanical issues, not ones based on aerodynamics. There's no point in pointing that out. Any mechanical part can be designed poorly.

[f1rules]

well well, i was mislead. The flooredge is new. It was just not on Piastrias car when shown in the pit with the flipflop wing. Offcourse they wanted to keep two new items separated when testing. Well here the new floor edge is. And theyve adopted an oldie but goodie(solution), from the past. They made a cut in the floor probably to strenghten a vortex or simply create one to help seal the floor. Ill try and find more pics. Would be interesting to get an inlet pic and a diffuser pic to see what changed

[AR3-GP]

well well, i was mislead. The flooredge is new. It was just not on Piastrias car when shown in the pit with the flipflop wing. Offcourse they wanted to keep two new items separated when testing

Yes Piastri said he will get the new parts tomorrow.

[f1rules]

ah ok thanks, didnt hear

[michl420]

Did McLaren conclude that speed of deployment and closure was more important than size of the opening?

Size of opening doesn’t matter at all. It’s visual trickery for your brain. All DRS does is reduce the drag of the actuated flap as much as it can. You can do this by flattening it, or as it’s now possible, by flipping it upside down.

Drag reduction eventually is dictated by the final resting position of the actuated flap and the gap it makes with the rest of the rear wing makes no difference at all.

The maximum amount of drag you can reduce via DRS is equal to the drag of the actuated flap and it depends on that flap’s surface area.

I have no aerodynamic backround, but I would mean that Red bull must have think about the more simple solution from Mclaren but gone for some reasons to their version. On the other side Mclaren have seen Red Bull but does it the opposite way.

[AR3-GP]

I have no aerodynamic backround, but I would mean that Red bull must have think about the more simple solution from Mclaren but gone for some reasons to their version. On the other side Mclaren have seen Red Bull but does it the opposite way.

What we can assume is that Mclaren had the benefit of studying the Ferrari design since Bahrain, and the Red Bull one since Miami. So they have had the time to consider the pros and cons in every area of RBR and Ferrari as well as what works aerodynamically for their own car, because that matters more than copying.

[f1rules]

the only thing i want add. I dont know which solution is better. BUT there is no doubt the rb is much easier to copy then the very nicely designed ferrari version, that integration in the endplate is a work of art

[Brahmal]

It's not a question of the shapes and absolute aero numbers. It's a case of geometry and rotation direction that defines this characteristic. The Mclaren/RBR solution recovers pressure faster.

Again there are many trade-offs with each of these designs, of which pressure recovery is just one factor albeit an important one. I don't think any of us know enough about the full picture to pass judgement on which overall concept is better or worse, even the teams clearly disagree and have different priorities from each other. The only way we'll be able to pass a final judgment is if in a year or two the field has clearly converged on one concept over the other, assuming the FIA doesn't ban the whole idea. Or perhaps the optimal solution hasn't yet been conceived, and we will continue to see experimentation in this area.

We seem to be getting into these debates together quite a lot recently, and I really appreciate the rigor with which you approach these questions. This is good mental exercise for me and helps my sharpness, and I'm glad we can discuss these things respectfully.

[AR3-GP]

It's not a question of the shapes and absolute aero numbers. It's a case of geometry and rotation direction that defines this characteristic. The Mclaren/RBR solution recovers pressure faster.

Again there are many trade-offs with each of these designs, of which pressure recovery is just one factor albeit an important one. I don't think any of us know enough about the full picture to pass judgement on which overall concept is better or worse, even the teams clearly disagree and have different priorities from each other. The only way we'll be able to pass a final judgment is if in a year or two the field has clearly converged on one concept over the other, assuming the FIA doesn't ban the whole idea. Or perhaps the optimal solution hasn't yet been conceived, and we will continue to see experimentation in this area.

We seem to be getting into these debates together quite a lot recently, and I really appreciate the rigor with which you approach these questions. This is good mental exercise for me and helps my sharpness, and I'm glad we can discuss these things respectfully.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I am not saying that Mclaren/RB have a "better concept" than the Ferrari wing. Pressure recovery isn't the primary purpose of these wings. It's drag reduction. For that, it would be impossible to know without a windtunnel.

Fwiw, it really is 3 unique wings. None of them are exactly the same, so it doesn't make sense to group RBR/MCL broadly speaking, when they only share the rotation direction. Neither would it make sense to group MCL/FER broadly since they only share the smaller slot gap.

RBR: Backrotation, large slot gap
MCL: Backrotation, small slot gap
FER: Forwardrotation, small slot gap.

Each team probably found the best balance of compromises that works for their specific aero package. The pressure recovery is just one thing for which the rotation direction gives a certain benefit or disadvantage.

[SilviuAgo]

ah ok thanks, didnt hear

Here some words from Randeep. Maybe with tomorrow upgrades on the car Oscar will be on par with Lando.

Randy Singh - McLaren F1, Senior Director, Racing:

"Overall, it has been an intense day for the McLaren Mastercard Team. The most positive takeaway from our running is that every new component we brought to the track performed as we expected. The drivers all did a fantastic job in what were very difficult conditions on track, especially with the wind, and we gathered a lot of useful data. Lando ran the new package all day, with Oscar running the old specification floor in his only session to facilitate our comparative work. Leonardo Fornaroli also played a big part in that during FP1, and his diligent work has been really valuable for our programme and future development. We have a solid foundation and feel we have taken a good step in the right direction.

"We remain realistic about our position. The gap to the front has been significant in recent races, and we always knew we weren’t going to close that in one go. However, the signs are encouraging, and this progress gives us confidence that our development path is the correct one. We are reasonably positive and look forward to seeing where we stand in Qualifying on Saturday."

[f1rules]

Thanks