This inevitably sparked some interest in what it was on the MCL36 that seemed to work so well to avoid the problem that was plaguing everyone.

Much of the attention has focused on the car’s floor pan, which features a more developed edge surface and “edge wing” than some of its counterparts.

The design seen on the McLaren MCL36 takes advantage of the “edge wing” which is not only allowed by the regulations, but is a design feature of which we have already seen a variation, as it has been fitted to the car of F1 exhibition which was presented at Silverstone last year (inset).

The floor concept could play a vital role in helping to better control the airflow under the car, so that there is no stalling as the car approaches the ground.

Granted, McLaren’s interpretation is much bolder (highlighted by the dotted line) but you’d expect as much, with teams able to use their design ingenuity to exploit this region for performance.

The “edge wing”, as it is called in the regulations, must also meet specific dimensional requirements, whether it is a single closed section (i.e. without slots or holes ) and must respect the tolerances imposed on it in terms of proximity to the ground itself.

While McLaren seems to have been singled out, there’s another team with a fairly similar solution, although it may not have been noticed due to its camo livery: Alfa Romeo had a floorboard and dashboard spoiler. similar and perhaps even more aggressive than that seen on the MCL36.

Alfa Romeo C42 floor edge

Comparing the two, the edge wing seen on the C42 is much longer and twists upwards at the front of the assembly. It also opens the way for a floor discontinuity so that the rearmost section can be subjected to a different load profile.

McLaren’s design scrutiny has been reinforced by the porpoising problem that everyone is dealing with. And while McLaren was still susceptible to its effects, it seemed to have more control over the phenomenon throughout the test than its rivals.

Teams quickly discovered that by using DRS they could lessen the adverse effects created by porpoising, as DRS takes the weight off the rear of the car, making it more difficult to vacuum soil close enough to the track to be overwhelmed.

Of course, this does not entirely solve the problem. It only attenuates it and only in the sections of the track where DRS can be used.

You also have to consider that the teams were learning on the job, because the 2022 batch of cars is not only different from an aerodynamic point of view, there are all kinds of changes that affect the behavior of the car associated with its performance. mechanical.

This is particularly relevant when considering how the cars are set up compared to their predecessors, as teams seek to run the cars as low as possible in order to build a better relationship, aerodynamically, with the track surface. and the tunnels under the floor and diffuser.

As a result, the cars are also much stiffer, so the ride height remains more consistent. However, where this is more of a problem for teams is that they are no longer able to use inertors or hydraulics, both of which were tools that previously helped with suspension compliance. and dampen oscillations.

One suspension mode that has been impacted by these changes is “lift”, with the tire’s vertical compression and decompression under load being one of the factors to consider, along with the response of the lift dampers.

Without the suspension tricks that teams have relied on in the past, they have to find other ways to compensate, which might not be helped by the need to run in a more conservative version for testing to hide their pace by compared to their rivals.

The problem could also be exacerbated by teams familiarizing themselves with the new 18-inch rims and Pirelli tyres, whose tires have a much shorter sidewall than their predecessor. This will not only have an overall impact on damping, but also on the oscillations created when the tire deforms under load.

It will also create a different, perhaps sharper, tire jet profile than what teams are used to. The tire sidewall deformation can be seen in the video posted to the official F1 Twitter feed, which also shows the wider porpoising phenomenon, as the car climbs and descends.

Tire spray was already a hot topic under previous regulations, as the search for aerodynamic solutions to mitigate its effect on the diffuser was a constant source of development. Fully enclosed strakes, fins, cutouts, slots and holes mounted on or in the floor in front of the rear wheel were all seen as means of achieving this.

The majority of these solutions have however been banned for 2022, and so solutions like those seen on the McLaren and Alfa Romeo will become one of the battlegrounds of F1 development, as teams look for ways to increase the performance.

Some have also suggested McLaren’s floorpan could flex openly on the outside edge so it doesn’t necessarily need to run so close to the ground to achieve the same net result.

Although this may be desirable, the floor is still subject to load and deformation tests and the FIA ​​has already suggested that it will monitor this closely and can and introduce more rigorous testing if it feels the need.

To round things out, here’s a look at some of the solutions seen elsewhere on the grid, to see how they might also deal with the ground and edge wing, while also considering who might come up with something very different in the second test.

How the opposition positions itself

Ferrari F1-75 floor detail

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

Ferrari fitted a new floor to the F1-75 on the final day of the first pre-season test, which featured a cutout and a small tongue-shaped protrusion. This should represent a stepping stone in its development towards a more complex variant which will be fitted to the car during the second test.

Nicholas Latifi, Williams FW44

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

Williams had a more refined version of the floorboard edge treatment on the FW44 in the first test, with not only the cutout in a Ferrari-like location, but also a long triangular edge wing mounted in front of it, which apparently throws off an aerodynamic structure different, in terms of direction, to some of the other solutions we’ve seen.

Pierre Gasly, Alpha Tauri AT03

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

AlphaTauri opted for a shorter edge wing placed much further upstream.

Detail of the Red Bull Racing RB18 sidepods

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

There was no detached edge wing on the Red Bull RB18 in the first test, with the team opting for a more simplistic approach, including two slots that allow a center panel to be twisted on the edge of the ground relative to front and front sections. at the back of it.

Stiffened floor Mercedes W13

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

To improve the stiffness of the floor on the outer edge, Mercedes installed a metal bracket on the final day of testing, hoping to reduce floor flex and minimize any porpoising that might have resulted.

Aston Martin AMR22 floor detail

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

Aston Martin might not have the most complex floor edge, but they were eager to study the relationship between that and the track based on ride height, as they used sensors on the edge of the floor to watch over him.

Haas VF-22 rear detail

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The arched floorboard edge of the Haas VF22 features a cutout in a position similar to that seen on the Ferrari.

Alpine A522 side detail

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

No edge wing for Alpine in the first test but its floorpan had some interesting geometric choices, including a sharply rolled edge in the midsection.