McLaren’s technical innovations have put the MP4/23 ahead of the pack
The McLarem-Mercedes MP4/23 has become the car to beat
McLaren have made a clear step forward in performance in the last two races and Ferrari have struggled to compete.
What has made McLaren so competitive all of a sudden? Like every other team they constantly develop their car through the season but three particular changes seem to have made a significant different: a new front wing, an unusual sidepod development, and a clever traction system that’s got everyone talking.
Front wing
Close-up of detail on the McLaren front wing
McLaren revised its front wing at Magny-Cours and again at Silverstone. With up to six different elements – four on the main plane, two on the ‘bridge’ – it is among the most complex.
At Magny-Cours the team added two vertical sections underneath the wing next to each endplate and flattened the profile of the endplates as well.
At Silverstone McLaren split the lower front part of the wing and changed how it connects to the nose. According to F1.com: “This new configuration increases downforce but more importantly diminishes the front end’s sensitivity to load variations, thus improving the stability of its aero balance.”
Sidepods
Heikki Kovalainen tested the asymmetrical sidepods on the McLaren at Hockenheim but did not race them
One of the more unusual looking developments of the past two races has been an asymmetric side pod layout. When viewed from the front you can clearly see Hamilton’s right-hand sidepod opens far wider than the one on his left.
He ran with this configuration during the German Grand Prix although Kovalainen did not. Kovalainen did test the layout on Friday, however. It was also used at Silverstone.
The sidepod with the smaller aperture can be used when the engine requires less cooling. It is more effective in directing the air flow around the car.
Traction shift
One of the most interesting and potentially controversial developments on the MP4/23 is a new system to improve traction. The steering wheel has an extra two paddles next to the gear shifts which allow the drivers to optimise the engine torque for each corner.
Mark Hughes in the Daily Telegraph explains how it works:
The lower two allow different engine torque settings to be chosen. Using two fingers at the same time allows the car always to have the most favourable engine torque setting for each gear, thus giving the driver a tool for limiting wheelspin out of slow corners without then suffering a reduction in power in the higher gears, where wheelspin is not an issue.
We saw earlier in the season McLaren in general and Lewis Hamilton in particular suffering with tyre wear. After the British Grand Prix Heikki Kovalainen admitted he had not done as well as Hamilton in managing his tyres. Was that because Hamilton had got up to speed on the new system more quickly?
The developments is interesting for all sorts of other reasons. Will rival teams copy it or try to protest it? (Most likely they’ll try the first and resort to the second if they can’t do it).
If it is protested, might the FIA decide it goes against the spirit of the rule banning traction control?
What’s next?
In German Grand Prix testing at the Hockenheimring the team tried a ‘shark fin’ extended rear engine cover as Red Bull, Williams, Renault and Force Infia have been using.
That may make an appearance at the Hungaroring along with other mechanical and aerodynamic revisions the team is expected to test at Jerez this week.
Ron Dennis expects the team to be strong at the Hungaroring:
I can’t see that we’ll be any less strong in Hungary. And the car will look a bit different there, so we’ll see.
DG said on 22nd July 2008, 8:28
And another technical question, I thought next year the cars are not allowed to be so aerodynamic – I am expecting them all to look like GP2 cars, or even Formula Renault cars, so why is Ferrari meddling in wind tunnels?
Nirupam said on 22nd July 2008, 8:43
Well, I absolutely agree with Jean @ 29, that without this innovation most probably it would not have been possible for MCL to win back to back GPs even after taking into account the astonishing driving of Lewis.
Did MCL place this into KOVI’s car also? He certainly looked very much off the pace compared to HAM
Jonesracing82 said on 22nd July 2008, 9:13
the traction thing has me worried also, even driver operated i dont at all like it! but i bet thats Ferrari’s courtroom battle for this year!
each year they r in a title battle they resort to the courtroom to get a ruling which favours them, we are still waiting one this year!
’03 = michelin tyres
’06 = mass damper
’07 spy scandal
’08 illegal TC?
watch this space!
Sebastian said on 22nd July 2008, 10:24
So, how long do you guys reckon’ It’ll take for Ferrari to adopt it or for FIA to ban it?
PaulD said on 22nd July 2008, 10:29
98 – Third break pedal
99 (I think) – cooled fuel
The third break pedal was in about 6 teams cars but because Ferrari couldn’t get it to work it got banned.
Nirupam said on 22nd July 2008, 10:40
Forget Ferraris.. Personamy methinks MCL should not have used this traction shift part, though driver operated. Something like Renault did in 2006 adding that mass damper which FIA forced them to remove. Though it needs to be investigated how much does it actually help a driver while making sharp turns. As I said earlier, the point is whether the TS was present in KOVI’s car or not. KOVI was almost half a second slower than his team mate, and if both cars were similar, then was KOVI not aware at all about the development? ;)
Max Bernie said on 22nd July 2008, 10:52
Well now when they have permit from FIA to develop their car again. Remember FIA conspiracy and deal made after espionage scandal.
Just added comment on another story before reading this.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/10/20/alonso-is-not-the-victim-of-a-mclaren-conspiracy/#comment-180875
HKL said on 22nd July 2008, 11:37
Hm, raises more questions than answers. On the face it,
Scenario 1
It’s a simple system which exploits an ambiguity in the rulebook. McLaren have divided one paddle into two, but driver input is effectively done by a single movement. In favour of such an interpretation is, a) designers do not want to make the driver environment more complicated, and b) the fact that other teams have not done the same, not because they couldn’t concieve of the idea but because there is a consensus about the rule (that gearshift and torque-control must not be made with a single driver input) – in other words a situation similar to BAR’s “imaginative” interpretation of how a car should be weighed a few years back.
Scenario 2
It’s an ingenious new system which not only would force FIA to either accept it or to change the rulebook, but which also takes practice and niftyness to handle. In favour of such an interpretation is the immense gap in performance between LH and HK (assuming of course HK is using the same system.)
Craig said on 22nd July 2008, 12:30
Very, very interesting indeed!
I cuoldn’t believe just how quick the car had seemed to get all of a sudden – couldn’t work out how a few aero tweaks could have had such an effect.
But if this traction stuff is real then it would appear to be the real cause of the improvements. Perhaps Heikki didn’t run with this setup to hedge their bets in case constructors points were deducted?
While it may not actually go against the rules, I think it’s similar to the engine map scenario where drivers can still get away cleanly off the grid.
If they want an engine with 750bhp then they should have 750bhp over every single metre of the track – the best drivers would handle it and the rest wouldn’t. Isn’t that why they banned TC in the first place?
Will be interesting to see how this develops – no doubt it will be banned soon enough, and then the conspiracy theorists can bring up the FIArrari stuff that appears every year!
Oliver said on 22nd July 2008, 13:10
Engine maps are also used to prevent excessive stresses on the engines during a race. The fact that the supposed innovation requires constant driver input would imply an increased work load for a driver, as such its possible that not all drivers will be able to make use of such a fascility.
I am also of the view that this in no way mimics traction control. Traction control was an active vehicle stability mechanism, whereas this system is just a passive, driver induced engine power restrictor..supposedly. Not a bid deal if u ask me.
Jean said on 22nd July 2008, 13:18
Nirupam @ 36 I like the way you think . It’s also been a mystery howcome suddenly Heikki is so much slower in the race than Lewis. We know Lewis is good , but the car lately has made him seem even better. Craig @ 39 I hope the issue is straightened soon enough , maybe before the Hungarian GP – sure many will again say it’s Ferrari with sour grapes etc. , but think back to the “bendy floor” Melbourne ’07 , Ferrari had a small advantage , and Ron made sure it was wipped away from them there and then.
Oliver said on 22nd July 2008, 13:21
*Big
Nirupam said on 22nd July 2008, 13:49
One thing I would like to add, no matter what FIA is going to do with this latest invention, hats off to the engineers, they continue to be able to force FIA to rethink about their rules :)
Fergus Gallas said on 22nd July 2008, 14:09
Oliver
I think that it is not safe to say that this TS “in no way mimics traction control”, we don’t “really” know how it works. We are just aware that it does exists and it looks like an advantage. This is the way i understand this, and as Nirupam said – hats off to the engineers.
Polak said on 22nd July 2008, 16:02
Traction Control worked by controlling engine power and the differential. It worked instantly being controlled by electronics.
Now the driver has the same tools as TC but he has to set it up before each relevant corner. I think they have differential settings on the steering wheel and now they can control the engine power. How is this not TC? Its all the aspects of last year, but with the electronics taken out.
Now if they tune this to specific problematic corners during testing it will be very affective.