Over the course of last year the designers in the McLaren Technology Centre were able to improve the car’s pace significantly, primarily through an upgrade package at the Austrian Grand Prix.

That built on the foundations laid down in the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, where the car didn’t take a step forward but changed philosophy. In doing so, it opened development avenues for the team to exploit, a trend that has continued.

Throughout the second half of 2023, McLaren was on a strong upward trajectory in terms of development rate. That has continued through the off-season and the MCL38 is a car that stands on the shoulders of its predecessor.

But while that has seen the 2024 inherit the strengths of the MCL60, it has carried over its weaknesses, too.

One of the party pieces of last year’s McLaren was its performance in high-speed corners. It was a car that instilled confidence and proved among the best on the grid.

Hence, at circuits such as Suzuka where those traits are favourable, especially through the first split, McLaren showed well.

However, the same circuit highlighted weaknesses, with low-speed performance wanting, even against some of its less competitive rivals.

In pre-season testing this year, some of those traits were again evident.

Through the opening complex in Bahrain the car was lazy in changing direction compared to those it would expect to race. Through the slow-speed corners, the understeer was plain to see.

Clearly, the baseline performance this year is better than it was a year ago, that is an indisputable fact played out in the outcome of the opening two races of the year.

But it’s also clear to see in data from qualifying sessions from Bahrain and Saudi Arabia from the past two years, where speed traces highlight the gains McLaren has made. Equally, it paints a picture of its weaknesses.

When that information is laid against what Oscar Piastri, Lando Norris, and most notably team boss Andrea Stella have said, we can create a complete picture of the car’s early season performance.

“I think this track is interesting because there’s a variety of corners,” explained Stella in Saudi Arabia.

“You have a low-speed section [in] corner one and two, [followed by a] high-speed section, then you have a couple of long u-turn corners at the two extremities of the track, corner 13 and the last one.

“We do see, even now in qualifying, some sections like the highspeed corners seven, eight, nine, we are very strong, we gain time pretty much on everyone. But then, the two long corners, we lost time.

“This is not a surprise and is one of the reasons why we are not higher on the grid.”

Stella’s observation is correct; through the Turns 7-9 complex in Jeddah, the MCL38 was on par with the Red Bull RB20. Piastri was much quicker than George Russell through that section, Mercedes being McLaren’s nearest direct rival.

However, McLaren was severely impacted by a lack of top speed, which suggests a car high on drag – or lacked efficiency, to use F1 jargon.

Piastri’s gains through the first section were all handed back at the end of Jeddah’s long straights: the run to Turn 13, through to Turn 22, the final corner, and then the sprint to the finish line.

“The other area in which we seem to be losing some time is the sections where DRS is deployed,” Stella noted.

“Actually, our top speed was competitive, away from DRS deployed, but then especially compared to Red Bull we lose time [with] DRS on.”

The low-speed deficit is less pronounced, though is visible when analysing data. There’s a link to the team’s top speed deficit, too.

On his best qualifying lap in Saudi Arabia, Piastri was slower than Russell in a straight line and earlier on the brakes.

Indeed, there’s a curious shape to the braking phase for Piastri where the speed bleeds off – almost like the battery is clipping – before dropping sharply as one would usually associate with a brake trace.

Russell’s data is more in line with that traditional shape of a rising but flattening curve dropping sharply as the brakes are applied.

Through the corner, speeds are largely similar, and if anything the McLaren appears to do a better job on exit than the Mercedes.

However, that early braking phase appears costly. That it is only evident in hard braking zones suggests it has something to do with car balance on corner entry, perhaps a technique developed to offset the mid-corner understeer.

It’s not track-specific, either, with Piastri using the same technique into Turn 4 in Bahrain and to a lesser extent Turn 11.

Curiously there, Piastri lost time in Russell in the downhill run to Turn 8, a complex the McLaren should have excelled at, though the squad is known to have a difficult relationship with the Bahrain International Circuit.

LIke Jeddah, a lack of top speed was painfully apparent.

Given McLaren uses an identical Mercedes power unit to the factory team, the differences must be put down to set-up (downforce levels) or efficiency (aerodynamic design).

The implication is the latter as, had McLaren been carrying more wing, a more pronounced difference would be expected in other areas – better minimum speed through high or medium speed corners, for instance, but it’s reflected in the data.

We can go so far as to hypothesise that the MCL38 has been carrying similar levels of downforce to Red Bull Racing as Piastri’s minimum speed in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia was almost identical to the championship leader.

In Bahrain, Piastri’s minimum was even above Verstappen in some instances, suggesting it was perhaps carrying too much wing, and certainly too much drag.

But it also poses a question about the low-speed concerns the team has been pushing. The deficit in low speed appears to be more related to the entry phase of the corner; the initial braking phase, as minimum speed and acceleration are a match for rival teams.

The evidence points to an issue on corner entry which sees the McLaren have to slow earlier to get through the corner.

Even in slow speed corners, the grip derived from a car’s aerodynamics is the overriding factor, and there is a crossover between the car’s needs at highspeed to what’s needed at low-speed.

At highspeed, there is little yaw in the car and the defining force is focused on the nose of the car. But at lower speeds, there becomes a point when the aero load shifts and begins to attack the car from the side relative to its direction of travel, with the front wheels playing a significant factor in the airflow over the car.

“In low speed the car it’s always compared to the trajectory kind of always points outwards,” Stella explained.

“So, the car sees like wind coming [from an angle]… when you are in low speed, you have this yaw from inside.

“But in a nice big corner the car points [more head on], compared to the trajectory.

“Even simply dependent on the on the speed, you need to have aerodynamics that is robust to wind coming in relative from [the front], or we coming from [an angle], just simply as a function of the speed.

“This is, in a very simple way, like it’s a geometrical consideration in relation to the vehicle dynamics.

“There’s another element, which is the ride heights,” he added.

“In low speed, the car is high [from the ground]. In highspeed, very, very close to the ground.

“So I would say these yaw aspects, and the right heights, are the two most fundamental elements of differentiating why cars can be good in high speed or low speed.”

The weakness at McLaren therefore appears twofold; a lack of aerodynamic efficiency and the way the aero balance shifts from high to low speed.

Until that package arrives, look for McLaren to largely mirror to pace it demonstrated at the back end of 2023; a podium contender on occasion and a top midfield runner on others.