Mclaren MCL40

[Brahmal]

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.

[AR3-GP]

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.

[Brahmal]

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.

[AR3-GP]

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.

[SilviuAgo]

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:

[avada]

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]

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.