Mclaren MCL40

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.
Brahmal
Brahmal
89
Joined: 19 Oct 2024, 05:07

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 20:37
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.
I didn't mean to imply that you were. Raw drag-reduction is still one factor among many even if it is primary; it may make sense to sacrifice some of it if this decision can bring additional benefits elsewhere to outweigh the loss.

User avatar
AR3-GP
632
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

Brahmal wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 20:50
AR3-GP wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 20:37
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.
I didn't mean to imply that you were. Raw drag-reduction is still one factor among many even if it is primary; it may make sense to sacrifice some of it if this decision can bring additional benefits elsewhere to outweigh the loss.
I would agree, but the rotation direction doesn't affect the drag reduction. A flipped over wing is a flipped over wing no matter if it was back rotated or forward rotated. So none of the teams are compromising the drag reduction through their choice of rotation direction.

The drag reduction effect would simply be related to the position/shape of the wing, the load it sheds when it's upside down, and how it may trigger additional drag reduction in the mainplane and the floor if it interacts with them. I cannot confidently say anything about who has done the best job there. That requires a wind tunnel.
Beware of T-Rex

Brahmal
Brahmal
89
Joined: 19 Oct 2024, 05:07

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 20:53
I would agree, but the rotation direction doesn't affect the drag reduction. A flipped over wing is a flipped over wing no matter if it was back rotated or forward rotated. So none of the teams are compromising the drag reduction through their choice of rotation direction.
I broadly agree with that but Ferrari probably does gain a small drag benefit simply from not having an actuator pod, so there is a bit of a connection. However if they had known that just stacking a bunch of winglets on their pod would be legal, they might have gone a different direction when formulating their original design.

User avatar
AR3-GP
632
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

Brahmal wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 21:07
AR3-GP wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 20:53
I would agree, but the rotation direction doesn't affect the drag reduction. A flipped over wing is a flipped over wing no matter if it was back rotated or forward rotated. So none of the teams are compromising the drag reduction through their choice of rotation direction.
I broadly agree with that but Ferrari probably does gain a small drag benefit simply from not having an actuator pod, so there is a bit of a connection. However if they had known that just stacking a bunch of winglets on their pod would be legal, they might have gone a different direction when formulating their original design.
Fair point. I also think that Ferrari got a baseline drag benefit from removing the pod in the middle.

I have a theory that Ferrari loses the most drag, but then I can't really prove it. Just a hunch that they have an interaction going on with the flick tail system that's bigger than any other car and the macarena effect might be more powerful because of that. Mclaren (and RBR) don't have such a developed flick tail, so in my head they are missing something, but again I can't prove any of this without a windtunnel.
Beware of T-Rex

User avatar
SilviuAgo
189
Joined: 15 Aug 2020, 16:08

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

SilviuAgo wrote:
23 Jul 2026, 20:12
UPDATE: as F1rules mentioned, this photo was wrong updated by Chris, and IS NOT the version for Hungaroring. So i deleted the post! Tks.
Coming back to the cooling solution, according to formula1.pitsops, McLaren ran two different engine cover specifications during Free Practice 1:

​Oscar Piastri's car (driven by Leo): Fitted with the new engine cover featuring a significantly larger rear cooling outlet.

​Lando Norris's car: Ran the standard/conventional configuration with smaller cooling outlets.

https://www.instagram.com/formula1.pits ... LivcFswPX/

And from The Race:

Image

avada
avada
0
Joined: 04 Jul 2026, 15:17

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

Brahmal wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 18:37
AR3-GP wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 17:35
You could say a lot of things are susceptible to failure if they are designed poorly. Brakes, steering, etc. Red Bull's issues are a red herring for this design. The front wings operate on the same principle where they have to counteract the aero load when they close. If the design is good, it's bulletproof.
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.
Maybe the RB-McLaren has better performance.

Emag
Emag
137
Joined: 11 Feb 2019, 14:56

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

I still believe the Ferrari solution is harder to get right and perhaps “over-engineered”. Whatever RedBull got wrong with their first iteration cannot be harder to fix than what Ferrari is doing.

McLaren going the same way seems to confirm that.
Developer of F1InsightsHub

Brahmal
Brahmal
89
Joined: 19 Oct 2024, 05:07

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

Emag wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 22:34
I still believe the Ferrari solution is harder to get right and perhaps “over-engineered”. Whatever RedBull got wrong with their first iteration cannot be harder to fix than what Ferrari is doing.

McLaren going the same way seems to confirm that.
The question for me: did RBR/McLaren have performance as the only consideration when taking this path, or was their choice influenced by other considerations as well like time and resources needed for development? Impossible to know and they won't tell us, but I think that that cost-cap and testing restrictions must influence these teams' design choices to a certain degree. OTOH Ferrari seems to have spared no expense on their solution, though it's unclear yet whether this was a wise choice.

User avatar
SilviuAgo
189
Joined: 15 Aug 2020, 16:08

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

Brahmal wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 23:33
Emag wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 22:34
I still believe the Ferrari solution is harder to get right and perhaps “over-engineered”. Whatever RedBull got wrong with their first iteration cannot be harder to fix than what Ferrari is doing.

McLaren going the same way seems to confirm that.
The question for me: did RBR/McLaren have performance as the only consideration when taking this path, or was their choice influenced by other considerations as well like time and resources needed for development? Impossible to know and they won't tell us, but I think that that cost-cap and testing restrictions must influence these teams' design choices to a certain degree. OTOH Ferrari seems to have spared no expense on their solution, though it's unclear yet whether this was a wise choice.
Maybe there is a little bit of each: time, budget, performance. Also imo Ferrari solution seems too much. And we do not know if the performance gain vs RB/McLaren solution make sense, but what I appreciate is that Ferrari engineers came first with this solution. Maybe also others thought about it but they brought it to the track and chapeau for that.

Image

User avatar
SilviuAgo
189
Joined: 15 Aug 2020, 16:08

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

MCL40 rear from Xavi (Hungaroring FP1).

Image

User avatar
SilviuAgo
189
Joined: 15 Aug 2020, 16:08

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

A very nice article on McLaren new RW rotating wing: https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mc ... /10841610/

McLaren debuted its own experimental version of the folding wing, retaining a central actuator but featuring a three-lever system with kinematics as complex in operation as it is ingenious. However, as with Ferrari, when the wing is deployed, the tips remain connected to the endplate to reduce turbulence.

Image

The curious aspect is that, while the Ferrari and Red Bull folding wings have nothing in common, neither the direction of rotation nor the methods by which the movement occurs, the solution developed by the Woking team seems to recall some principles of both, only to differentiate itself through its own choices, very refined and sophisticated in their application.

The Woking-based team's engineers chose not to integrate the actuator into the endplate, as is done on Ferrari's "Macarena." Instead, they opted to maintain a central control that, through a complex and ingenious lever system, allows the two flaps to rotate into the folded position.

Image

In short, rotation occurs when the wing flips backwards, like on the RB22, but interestingly, the Woking engineers chose not to also lift the outer edge when the wing opens. This reduces the turbulence that occurs when the outer corners are exposed, unlike the Red Bull, which uses a complex system of lateral pivots that also flip.

On the McLaren, however, the lateral pivots on which rotation occurs are more traditional: two free elements located at the ends of the upper flap, on which the mobile wings can rotate, accompanied by the movement of the hydraulic actuator. This choice allows the tips to be kept very close to the endplates, limiting the formation of turbulence that normally increases when the outer areas of the wing are exposed.

Even more interesting, however, is the operation of the central actuator chosen by McLaren. While Red Bull uses a sturdy metal structure that houses the control and connects directly to the pivot that, as it rotates, raises the wing, the engineers in Woking have adopted a completely different approach: three levers connected by pivots that allow them to tilt and rotate freely. A sophisticated solution, it allows for the desired movement with more complex kinematics.

When the movable wing is activated, the first lever ( in blue) is pushed by a small piston that extends from the actuator until it reaches an inclination of approximately 45°. The second lever, the white one, moves accordingly and extends to a nearly horizontal position . Finally, the third lever, in yellow, connected to the first movable flap from the bottom, rotates upward , forming almost a right angle with the second lever.

Image

In short, the last lever in yellow is the one that physically "lifts" the flaps and supports them , assuming a vertical position . With this solution, the pivot points are not attached to a fixed structure as in the case of Red Bull, which in fact had to build a "cage" to house the system, but the levers themselves act as load-bearing elements, likely saving some weight as well. A very complex, but also extremely ingenious system.

User avatar
pronopheus
2
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:02
Location: Austria

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

Any idea or pictures of the rest of the updates?

CjC
CjC
20
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 20:13

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

SilviuAgo wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 13:22
CjC wrote:
24 Jul 2026, 12:22
No cooling vents on top of the sidepod… is F1rules right?
Indeed. I updated the post accordingly. Sorry for the info, and I';ve sent the feedback also to the x user.

Mclaren brings 4 performance upgrades:

- Rear wing
- Floor body
- Front corner
- Rear corner

Circuit specific:
- Front corner

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HN_TUZ8WsAE ... name=large

Detail of the "Mclarena"actuator:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HN_N-NAWUAA ... name=large
@AlbertFabrega
Looks like we initially wasn’t looking at the updated car in these pictures like we realised yesterday afternoon.

Just seen the cooling vents on the car in FP3. The original poster was right
Just a fan's point of view*

*statement was relevant when the forum had a high level of intelligence. Now we are just equals.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
557
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

McLaren chose that layout of linkage because in the closed position the down-force from the middle of the rear flap has to go through that vertical linkage directly into the main plane. You won't get mid-span sagging of the rear flap. In other words, it's makes for stiffer flap in a small actuator package.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
AR3-GP
632
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Mclaren MCL40

Post

I haven't seen this engine cover before. This was on Fornaroli's car during FP1.
Image
Beware of T-Rex