Mclaren MCL40

[De Wet]

Any pictures of the new diffuser from behind ?

[Owen.C93]

I always thought having a shorter car it is easier to reach the min weight limit. But with a rear axle more forward it needs more ballast at the front to have the regulated weight distribution. So maybe it is harder.

Not sure what you mean. The regs set a minimum axle weight. You can have any weight distrubtion you like, so long as one axle isn't under weight.

The sum of the weight on the two axis gives you the total weight of the car. The weight distribution gives you how the total weight is distributed between the two axes. So no, you cannot have any weight distribution you like.

You can. There isnt a weight distrubution rule, only a minimum axle weight. So you wouldn't have to add ballast to the front because of anything you do on the rear.

C4.1 Minimum mass
During the Sprint Qualifying and Qualifying sessions, The Minimum Mass is 726kg plus the Nominal
Tyre Mass. In all other sessions, the Minimum Mass is 724kg plus the Nominal Tyre Mass

C4.2 Mass distribution
At all times during the Qualifying and Sprint Qualifying Sessions, with the car resting on a horizontal
plane:
i. the mass measured at the front axle must not be less than the Minimum Mass specified in
Article C4.1 factored by 0.44.
ii. the mass measured at the rear axle must not be less than the Minimum Mass specified in
Article C4.1 factored by 0.54

[matteosc]

Not sure what you mean. The regs set a minimum axle weight. You can have any weight distrubtion you like, so long as one axle isn't under weight.

The sum of the weight on the two axis gives you the total weight of the car. The weight distribution gives you how the total weight is distributed between the two axes. So no, you cannot have any weight distribution you like.

You can. There isnt a weight distrubution rule, only a minimum axle weight. So you wouldn't have to add ballast to the front because of anything you do on the rear.

C4.1 Minimum mass
During the Sprint Qualifying and Qualifying sessions, The Minimum Mass is 726kg plus the Nominal
Tyre Mass. In all other sessions, the Minimum Mass is 724kg plus the Nominal Tyre Mass

C4.2 Mass distribution
At all times during the Qualifying and Sprint Qualifying Sessions, with the car resting on a horizontal
plane:
i. the mass measured at the front axle must not be less than the Minimum Mass specified in
Article C4.1 factored by 0.44.
ii. the mass measured at the rear axle must not be less than the Minimum Mass specified in
Article C4.1 factored by 0.54

The weight distribution is the minimum axle weight, if you want to stick to the minimum weight of the car. Of course you can use a different distribution if you want your car to be havier, but I seriously doubt anyone would want to do that. To be fair there is some room in the weight distribution that still allows you to keep the car at a minimum weight, but you cannot just pick any distribution you like without having to increase the overall weight.

[michl420]

I always thought having a shorter car it is easier to reach the min weight limit. But with a rear axle more forward it needs more ballast at the front to have the regulated weight distribution. So maybe it is harder.

Not sure what you mean. The regs set a minimum axle weight. You can have any weight distrubtion you like, so long as one axle isn't under weight.

You are right. I had this wrong in my head.

[Stu]

Mclaren have this bulges by the mounting points on the chassis. By the suspension I can understand it (big forces). But by the mounting for the barge board it is odd.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHTfLpNXsAA ... ame=medium

I would hazard a guess that with it being year one of these regs some of these solutions are a sticking plaster rather than a fix, this attachment method in the linked photo of the bargeboard mount does look very ‘adapt and overcome’, the strut is an add-on (AFAICS), not being part of the original design. Probably a ‘we’ll add a strut there because it has an aero function’?

[SilviuAgo]

[SilviuAgo]

Another angle of the MCL40 front suspension in Miami, tks to @Xavier Gàzquez

[De Wet]

Big change in the brake outlet area - this is the old version...

[SilviuAgo]

Not something very often seen: details from MCL40 rear wing, specifically the actuator for opening the rear flap.


@xavigazquez

And some news that McLaren may use "the macarena wing":
https://www.motorsportweek.com/2026/05/ ... wing-hint/
McLaren CEO Zak Brown has indicated that the Woking-based squad may be the next Formula 1 team to adopt the radical ‘Macarena’ wing, the third team to do so.

[SilviuAgo]

Sidepods comparison. Now we understand why Andrea Stella mentioned RedBull.



"If you see the sidepod concept that Red Bull introduced, that's quite different to the sidepod concept that for instance Mercedes, Ferrari have adopted," McLaren team principal Andrea Stella said when asked by The Race about the early technical trends and points of interest revealed by Miami's upgrade packages.
This is a reference to the Red Bull sidepod design itself not necessarily being the innovative part.

Waterslides were prominent on several cars in the ground-effect era, and the shape of the new RB22 bears some resemblance to the 2022 Alpine - as well as Red Bull's own work in 2024.

But it has now been able to take everything a step further because of a clever exploitation at the rear of the sidepod - or technically the floor, for this is where the legality concession comes in.
What has intrigued rivals is a sharp fence at the rear corner of the sidepod where it meets the floor, rather than a smooth curved transition.

This helps extend the outside of the sidepod further back, further outboard on the floor - which as Stella noted, completes a clearly unique overall design in this area.

And the shape here is not something other teams thought was possible.

[Vappy]

I can see it in my mind the person who came up with that idea, started the shape of the sidepod, entertaining just a silly idea that it could end up looking like what it does now, and then they started doing the next bit, and thought "wait.. this is adding up (legally)", and then they did the last bit tapering and joining to the floor, and had a good ol' chuckle that it worked.

[Waz]

I can see it in my mind the person who came up with that idea, started the shape of the sidepod, entertaining just a silly idea that it could end up looking like what it does now, and then they started doing the next bit, and thought "wait.. this is adding up (legally)", and then they did the last bit tapering and joining to the floor, and had a good ol' chuckle that it worked.

That's a cute story on another platform. The legality of the part is so complex that nobody is randomly designing it.

It's only legal because of how the parts join, away from the aero surface.

[AR3-GP]

@NobleF1

[Vappy]

I can see it in my mind the person who came up with that idea, started the shape of the sidepod, entertaining just a silly idea that it could end up looking like what it does now, and then they started doing the next bit, and thought "wait.. this is adding up (legally)", and then they did the last bit tapering and joining to the floor, and had a good ol' chuckle that it worked.

That's a cute story on another platform. The legality of the part is so complex that nobody is randomly designing it.

It's only legal because of how the parts join, away from the aero surface.

You took what I said a little too seriously, and I don't disagree with what you've said.

[Darth-Piekus]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HI2kqa4XsAA ... name=large
@NobleF1

What should we supposed to see here?