Waiting for the presentation of AlphaTauri scheduled for Monday, the all-new McLaren in its brand new 2022 guise will be making headlines over the weekend. There MCL36 in fact it not only fits poles apart from Aston Martin in terms of design philosophy, but it represents the first single-seater to officially certify the return of the pull-rod suspension to the front. However, the Woking team went further, with Technical Director James Key underlining how the team has taken risks, proposing unexpected solutions with the new regulations. With the restructuring of the team carried out by Zak Brown and Andreas Seidl, in recent years McLaren has distinguished itself for a renewed vivacity of the technical department, able not only to quickly replicate the most effective solutions of the competition, but also proposing original concepts, such as the peculiar diffuser of the 2021 single-seater. All this can only fuel great expectations for the 2022 car, now awaited for the most severe judgment of all: the track.
The MCL36 as mentioned is the first to show off the pull-rod suspension scheme at the front, departing from the dominant push-rod geometry in the last technical cycle and re-proposed so far by Haas and Aston Martin. From the front tie rod suspension a series of differences derive from the AMR22 presented the previous day, starting from the steering arm, which is not aligned with the upper triangle, but with the lower elements.
It is precisely in the arms constituting the triangles of the suspension that McLaren is profoundly distinguished from Aston Martin. The upper and lower elements are both oriented upwards from the side of the car body, contrary to the downward trend of the counterparts on the AMR22. The triangles of the MCL36 also appear markedly less convergent, outlining a completely different study of kinematics. Firstly, the greater parallelism between the elements means that a parallelogram rather than a trapezoid geometry is approximated more closely, the latter more evident on the AMR22. Apparently at Woking they therefore preferred to sacrifice camber recovery, i.e. the realignment of the tire to the ground when cornering, which is useful to ensure maximum grip, opting to favor aerodynamics. To this we must add how the different orientation of the arms between the MCL36 and the AMR22 delineates two completely different heights of the roll center, an imaginary point whose position influences the amplitude of the oscillations of the car body under the thrust of lateral accelerations, the which in turn affect the load generation.
However, there are further considerations: the McLaren pull-rod scheme, in addition to allowing the spring-shock absorber assembly to be housed at the bottom thus lowering the center of gravity, consists of a tie rod inclined downwards going from the wheel assembly to the frame. Its orientation helps to divert the flows close to the body downwards, the same ones that once reached the center of the car are channeled into the Venturi channels on the sides of the bottom for the generation of load. It cannot be excluded that Aston Martin, on the other hand, whose push-rod has an inclination mirrored to the McLaren tie rod, preferred to seek the same effect with a downward trend of the two triangles, not being able to count on that of the shaft. Finally, it should be noted that on the AMR22 the upper triangle is anchored to the frame maintaining a fair margin of height with respect to the upper limit of the nose, while on the MCL36 the upper arms reach up to the “roof” of the body.
If the push-rod pattern of recent years has been replaced with a pull-rod geometry at the front, the reverse happened at the latter. As often happens, the images released are not very clear and James Key himself admitted that some details have been graphically retouched so as not to reveal the cards in advance, but the first impression is that the MCL36 is fitted with a strut suspension at the rear. The abandonment of the pull-rod makes it possible to free up space in the lower area, expanding the section of passage of the flows towards the rear, which in the new regulations is structured in a completely different way than in the past. The push-rod shaft, however, is not particularly inclined, suggesting that it is subjected to strong stresses which required a larger sizing. Finally, the lower triangle does not seem to have been set back to replicate the Mercedes solution for the two-year period 2020-2021, but it is appropriate to wait for better images to draw more accurate conclusions.
The front and rear suspension schemes have been studied in symbiosis with the external aerodynamic garment, influencing and collaborating with it to achieve maximum efficiency. As always, the front wing constitutes the component that sets the trend of the flows destined to invest the entire car body and it can immediately be seen how the approach is different from that proposed by Aston Martin. The different perspective of the images available risks distorting the differences, but it can still be seen that the AMR22 maintains a higher profile in the central part, to favor the channeling of air into the underbody for the generation of load from the flat bottom, still present. albeit downsized compared to 2021. McLaren, on the other hand, offers a lower aileronwhich by staying closer to the ground works in better conditions, theoretically guaranteeing a greater local aerodynamic load on the front axle.
Moving to the center of the car, the two design philosophies continue to diverge. From the front view of the Aston Martin, heavily flared down bellies were visible, while the top had been extended to deflect the noxious turbulence generated by the front wheels outwardly. McLaren has instead reversed the trend compared to recent seasons, proposing bellies that from the front view appear wide for their entire height, exploiting the extension of the body at the bottom to remove turbulence also in the lower part. Consequently, even the radiator outlets have a different design, less squared and more elongated on the MCL36.
From the aerial view it is possible to appreciate how different the structure of the flows that surround the bodywork is, following paths at the antipodes towards the rear. On the McLaren the sidepods with fairing of the bellies close immediately, both in height and in width, outlining a rear axle that is progressively streamlined. Such an approach is consistent with the choice of installing a push-rod suspension at the rear, as both solutions help to remove aerodynamic obstacles and increase the air flow towards the diffuser. The narrowing of the body, however, involves a less effective exploitation of the cooling grids, although absent in the presentation phase, thus requiring the opening of a wider tail vent to evacuate the hot air from the engine compartment.
Finally, at the rear there is the rear wing supported by a single support pylon. From the bonnet, however, the central bulge again shines through, also visible on the AMR22 and due to the voluminous plenum of the Mercedes power unit. Unlike Aston Martin though, the McLaren bodywork appears even more roundedsuggesting the desire to make the engine breathe better or the coexistence of a greater quantity of radiant masses centralized at the head of the engine.
In conclusion, McLaren and Aston Martin have countless differences, which cannot be judged individually. The different concepts of the front wing, the pull-rod and / or push-rod suspension for the two axles and the configuration of the bellies have no advantages and disadvantages per se, but it will all depend on how the car will work as a whole. Meanwhile, it is pleasant to see how the new regulations have given rise to greater variety on the grid, waiting for the competition to discover their cards.
#McLaren #Revolution #Suspension #Inverted #FormulaPassionit