McLaren MP4-27 and MP4-26 compared

2012 F1 season

Here’s how the new McLaren MP4-27 compares with its predecessor.

Find more pictures of the McLaren MP4-27 here.

McLaren MP4-27 and MP4-26 side comparison

McLaren MP4-27 and MP4-26 side comparison

McLaren MP4-27 and MP4-26 comparison

McLaren MP4-27 and MP4-26 comparison

2012 F1 season


Browse all 2012 F1 season articles

Images ?? McLaren

Advert | Go Ad-free

116 comments on McLaren MP4-27 and MP4-26 compared

1 2 3
  1. it seems the mp4-25…

  2. MattB (@mattb) said on 1st February 2012, 11:53

    Silly question perhaps… where will the number go on the side of the rear wing? It has the “Button” livery, but no number…

  3. supernicebob (@supernicebob) said on 1st February 2012, 11:54

    Noticeable rank angle there I reckon.

  4. Elliot Horwood said on 1st February 2012, 11:55

    No Aigo sponser this year?
    Seems like there are no ‘major’ changes just changes that adhere to the new aerodynamic regulations – everything else seems to look the same apart from standard sidepods. See how the car performs on track.

    • Gabriel said on 1st February 2012, 12:22

      And no Jonny Walker sponsor on rear wing either…

      Didn’t Mclaren once run an orange Jonny Walker livery in testing before becoming a Silver arrow?

      I’m sure the sponsor spaces will be filled soon enough.

      • mayhemfunkster said on 1st February 2012, 12:32

        It was a historic McLaren Livery! – Bruce McLaren used to run his cars in orange prior to the sponsorship era.

      • I think the only reason they became a ‘silver arrow’ is because they stopped being sponsored by Marlbororo (orange and white) and instead by West (black packs of cigarettes) they have just dropped the amount of black livery in favour of more red for Vodafone.

  5. GQsm (@gqsm) said on 1st February 2012, 11:57

    I think new car has a nicer side profile.
    It’s a good looking car to me, wonder how many other cars won’t go with the horrid nose.

  6. mingmong said on 1st February 2012, 12:00

    I see they dropped the U shaped sidepods… I’m guessing the new exhaust regs may have had something to do with this… A few Newey idies have gone on to this… Rake, Mirrors & rear wing end-plates. Black rims look much better.

    • John H (@john-h) said on 1st February 2012, 12:15

      I’m pretty sure McLaren were the first to run the rear wing end plates in 2010. There is also no way to judge the rake unles we know what they’ve set the suspension levels at.

      Black rims do indeed look much better. It’s also a shorter wheelbase when you compare the tyres meaning it potentially should suit Lewis’s pointy driving style. Hope so.

      • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 1st February 2012, 13:27

        @john-h wheelbase does have an effect on handling responsiveness; but on the scale of an F1 car they’re pretty much negligible. There still won’t be much difference between the longest/shortest wheelbase cars even in the Loews hairpin.

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 1st February 2012, 12:46

      What do you mean on the rear wing end plates? Do you mean the vanes? If so they were a Toyota innovation (see the TF109) and were adopted by McLaren in 2011.

  7. McLarenFanJamm (@mclarenfanjamm) said on 1st February 2012, 12:01

    Yeah… I like the new car better. There are a few noticeable changes like the exhaust exits and the nose curves downwards more sharply. Proving that there is an alternative to Caterham’s interpretation of the rules.

  8. mingmong said on 1st February 2012, 12:02

    What do you guys think of the new pirelli markings?

  9. sam3110 (@sam3110) said on 1st February 2012, 12:02

    The engine cover looks a lot more simple, wonder if the cooling has been changed dramatically underneath?

  10. damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st February 2012, 12:03

    So, so much better. Doesn’t look as long and clumsy as its two predecessors. Looks refined and compact which makes me see it as nimble and agile.

    The livery needs updating, but other than that, the car is gorgeous.

  11. necrodethmortem (@necrodethmortem) said on 1st February 2012, 12:07

    Looks like they did something about the rear-view mirrors as well.

    • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 1st February 2012, 13:43

      @necrodethmortem looks like they copied the RB7 mirrors to a T actually! Which I found confusing, seeing as McLaren have been running practically the same mirrors they used on the -26 since… Oh I don’t even remember since when.

      • The Last Pope (@the-last-pope) said on 1st February 2012, 17:01

        @raymondu999 Don’t forget both Lewis and Jensen conplained about the mirrors vibration in the MP4-26. It makes sense that a vertical mirror mounting will suffer less from vibration under high G than a diagonal & horizontal design

        • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 1st February 2012, 18:54

          @the-last-pope I don’t get the connection. The mirrors vibrate not due to lateral acceleration, but due to the turbulent air that is produced by the mirror stalk and housing itself.

          • The Last Pope (@the-last-pope) said on 1st February 2012, 20:40

            @raymondu999 thinking about that you are right about why the mirrors vibrate, but I still see that at high speed there is constant bumps that create an up and down force added to the vibration caused by air. A vertical stalk will be imune to all vertical forces where a horizontal stalk would be very suscepable to it. It also seems to me that it is better to have horizontal vibration as the mirror surface is wider than it is high.

          • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 2nd February 2012, 6:44

            @the-last-pope The problem has never been about the mirror moving up/down and left/right in the housing – it’s back and forth…. which is caused as it gets sucked by the turbulent air behind the housing.

  12. Mike (@mike) said on 1st February 2012, 12:09

    I really don’t understand how you guys all like it…

    It looks so bulky and clumsy. The nose doesn’t suit the car at all, And the side pods and engine cover… they kind of balloon out.

    It’s horrifying. Of the two so far the Caterham is way ahead :/

    • McLarenFanJamm (@mclarenfanjamm) said on 1st February 2012, 12:19

      Each to their own @mike

      • Mike (@mike) said on 1st February 2012, 12:22

        It’s nice that this site lets me speak strongly against the grain as I can see most others like it a lot.

        • McLarenFanJamm (@mclarenfanjamm) said on 1st February 2012, 12:27

          The only thing I’m not keen on is the chrome, and that’s because I’m bored of it. Would prefer a white/red livery like the 80’s.

          • Mike (@mike) said on 1st February 2012, 12:31

            Yeah, that’d be sweet.

            I’m starting to believe that something is going on with the side pods, there is no advantage to be had in larger side pods (I believe) but I can’t work it out yet.

            Why would they be so large?

            (I rant when I think)

          • Mike (@mike) said on 1st February 2012, 12:37

            I mean, the bottom of the side pods are cut in a lot, but I’m not sure it would necessitate the top be that wide.

          • McLarenFanJamm (@mclarenfanjamm) said on 1st February 2012, 12:39

            They are wide, but very shallow and slope quite steeply behind, there must be some performance advantage there.

            Also, there’s an aerial comparison pic above now which shows how compact the rear end is compared to last year.

          • Mike (@mike) said on 1st February 2012, 12:48

            That’s true.

            Maybe my mind is just playing tricks on me.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st February 2012, 13:37

            I think it’s a visual trick caused by the chrome.

    • Mike (@mike) said on 1st February 2012, 12:19

      I think they are doing something shifty with the exhausts to be honest.

    • Nick.UK (@) said on 1st February 2012, 12:42

      When I saw it, I thought it looked a but… chubby! haha. I do still like it though :)

    • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 1st February 2012, 13:13

      You’re certainly not alone, @Mike! I’ve seen plenty of people bemoaning its livery and saying it looks bulky, but personally, I quite like it. The sidepods are trim much better looking than those on the MP4-26, and the nose looks rather nice on it.

      I think it looks sort of like the MP4-25, but without the ugly shark-fin engine cover. Plus it doesn’t looks as long and clumsy to me. It seems to have a shorter wheel-base, which is a welcome sight for me as I hated the look of the 2010 cars at first. This seems much more compact and nimble. I hope it’s quick so we can have a good season!

    • dkpioe said on 2nd February 2012, 4:21

      yeh, will be interesting to see if not having the dropped front wing will be a negative for mclaren… lets see what ferrari and redbull produce.
      the car looks nearly identical to last years car, but websites like planet-f1.com are going on about how ‘beautiful’ it is. they didnt say that last year. makes me laugh. i think the thing that will keep mclaren within reach of redbull will once again be the mercedes engine and mercedes kers.

  13. Glenn (@glenn) said on 1st February 2012, 12:10

    an extended Snowplow? and that DRS wing is small at a very step angle.

    • No one seems to talk much about it, but this is the third consecutive year McLaren has a tongue-like structure beneath the nose, a sort of a double nose (which I understand is for channeling the air flow around the nose area and towards the side pods better). Correct me, anyone, is I’m wrong.

  14. Eggry (@eggry) said on 1st February 2012, 12:12

    Parts of MP4-25, Parts of MP4-26. Only exhaust looks interesting.

  15. andae23 (@andae23) said on 1st February 2012, 12:14

    Is it possible McLaren tries to hide their exhaust-system and therefore put that ugly wart on the side ???

1 2 3

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.