- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
More details about McLaren's technical leadership changes are becoming public as it has now become clear that Toro Rosso's highly valued technical director, James Key, is set to join McLaren in the same role.
I don't think the "b-spec" car had a tighter cover. I thought it did but when I looked closely, it was the same.techman wrote: ↑16 Jun 2018, 05:03i dont know if you remember the b spec car that was brought to spain, had a much tighter engine cover. wondering if this made the overheating problem to come up again. spain was a gearbox failure, monaco another gearbox for alonso and canada overheated exhaust and vandorne had intermitent power loss. could be a overheating cause?You mean the browning of the paint on the PU cover?
Pretty sure they just had 2 failures with the transmission? 1 for each driver and ALO's was the the 7th race, the last race that transmission would have run? I think the transmission issue is minor. I really haven't been watching Vandorne too closely, often he's out of the points, ALO finished the first 6 races. Probably had the most Mileage (of the Renault cars at-least) at that point.
What part of "there was an article on AMuS in which they said Honda is able to keep up with the competition initially but once the MGU-H comes into play they lose out" did you miss?GhostF1 wrote: ↑16 Jun 2018, 03:38Lol Speculative. It also points to high downforce which at high speeds would be limiting top speed. How that bit of info from the telemetry allowed you to extrapolate it's the MGU-H and nothing else is beyond me.
in 2015 and 2017 there were more "off track" problems than "on track", mostly as a result of engine failures. people can argue about mclarens drag and all that, but without so many engine failures, and more time on track during testing/practices the partnership may have survived. thats all history now though.DarkSurferZA wrote: ↑16 Jun 2018, 14:28Is this the right time to say McLaren was just as much to blame as Honda for these last few seasons of crappy on track performance
Sent from my SM-T815 using Tapatalk
Interesting read, the quotes shared by @muramasa imply that McLaren is/was so fixed upon producing a balanced/drive-able car even if it means not-pushing-the-limit elsewhere. I can't suggest it is a philosophy influenced by Alonso, but, it is a philosophy that suits him well in preserving his reputation -- always driving above the car's potential (easy to do when the car doesn't demand much from the driver, especially, for a driver of Alonso's experience and talent).muramasa wrote: ↑14 Jun 2018, 21:32
> Brazil 2017 (November 2017)
FP2 speed trap [PU in FP mode] : 336kmph
Quali speed trap [PU in Quali mode]: 311kmph
Race: FA 8th, stuck behind Massa til checkered flag
Yusuke Hasegawa
"The car carries too much downforce. For sure you can gain overall laptime that way, but in the race condition you cannot overtake, also you are risking your defense. Mexico was good example, we were within DRS range of a car in front, hence we did not get passed easily, even by Hamilton. Also we were able to close the gap rapidly towards Kevin Magnussen. But with such heavy df setting, you cannot overtake on the straight even if being within DRS range. Not possible to overtake even if you are faster by 1sec/lap, I suppose."
"In the progress from spec 3.5 to 3.8, the PU contributed to the laptime gain of about 0.4sec/lap on average. The relative improvement in straight end speed is exactly where the time gain comes from, I reckon."
"Of course we discussed, many times. We proposed going lighter on downforce over and over. Sure it is McLaren who determine the setting, but even then we kept making the proposal. But we were not listened/accepted. The team prioritizes the one that should yield faster comprehensive lap time, also the amount of downforce affects the car stability. Let's say, even at/in such places/condition where the drivers of Vettel and Hamilton caliber are spinning, we never spin. Not that I'm criticizing the team, it's just that that's what the team's direction is, but it's the philosophy of "lead and finish" so to speak, so there is no problem that way as long as you can get pole position.."
An ANONYMOUS Honda engineer quoted
"I do not consider that's the best compromise point to be the fastest possible. This time, even Mercedes and Ferrari are spinning and going off track, right? On the other hand McLaren is solid and never goes off track. Then at one point on Friday we took off some df and Stoffel spun on T2, then it went like "see, it's undriveable this way as expected". Even top teams are pushing aggressively and shedding downforce to the limit like that, but McLaren is putting good downforce to make the car friendly for drivers."
"McLaren is a team that has such engineering policy traditionally. Fulfill and respond to drivers' demands/complaints no matter what, that's how their policy is like. As a result of that, you end up with "car that's cozy to drive", instead of "car that's tricky but fast". It's a team that cannot tell to drivers "this setting is faster and that's the best we can give, so the rest you do your best on track". "
f1fokuho brazil '17 (print)
https://sportiva.shueisha.co.jp/clm/mot ... /index.php
(translation by me)
> January/February 2018
Tim Goss
"So much of producing a great F1 car these days is giving the driver a car that they can exploit,"
"There is no point in giving them a car with very peaky performance."
"What we are trying to do is give the driver something that operates very well over a broad operating envelope."
"So our approach these days is very much about giving the driver something they can trust and work with, and peaky load is in our view not the way to produce a quick aerodynamic package for the driver, or vehicle dynamics change."
"Even trimming a bit of downforce off the car and trimming to a lower wing level, we were still not going to get our car to the point where we have that raceability in a straight line,"
"So our approach has been to always go for the quickest laptime and our tactics coming to a race weekend were to qualify as well as we can, and then aim to defend that position based on laptime. In some races that was extremely difficult.
"Rather than put sticking plasters to try to cope with the fact that we had an underpowered engine, what we really wanted to do is develop the best car and assume the engine is going to come."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... r-1001974/
> February/March 2018
James Key
"I don't know what Renault have done this year but we had a good feel for where the Renault was last year and at least from the numbers you see, which you always have to treat carefully because they are from different dynos etcetera, it's not so far off,"
"Not nearly as far as was being suggested last year actually. It was probably pretty close to Renault towards the end of the season."
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... ult-battle
"We are designing the car based on the same amount/level of downforce and drag that is considered to make the car the fastest on simulation. As a matter of fact, Honda's power is not that far off from Renault."
"Last year, headlines of various kinds of articles appeared across media, but it turned out that such was not the reality at all. I don't know what McLaren was thinking, but as far as we are concerned, at this point there is no need to alter our original aero philosophy, also there is no way Honda's power was inferior as much as it has been widely claimed.
https://sportiva.shueisha.co.jp/clm/mot ... /index.php
(translation by me)
> Bahrain 2018
Eric Boullier
"The balance is fine, obviously there’s a lack of grip, that’s my conclusion for the poor performance, but they don’t report anything wrong."
http://classic.autosport.com/news/repor ... ostpopular
> China 2018
Eric Boullier
"The car is still very balanced,"
"If you listen to the drivers they are happy with the balance of the car. Whatever you try and setup the car reacts accordingly so a bit more understeer, less understeer, more oversteer, one tenth better here, one tenth slower here so I think we have a good understanding of the car.
"I think the car has no nastiness, if you want, in terms of the design. We just need to make the car faster around the corner and in the straight line."
http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/23241 ... ough-mcl33
> Canada 2018
Stoffel Vandoorne
"It's a bit bizarre. Yesterday we had a good rhythm and we didn't use the hypersofts in FP2.
"We thought there was a chance to get to Q3. From the start of qualifying we didn't have the performance to get there.
"There was nothing particularly wrong with the car. The balance was good. Nothing major to comment. We were just lacking pace."
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/136641
Fernando Alonso
“Yesterday we felt quite competitive – the car was feeling bright and we were fast - but unfortunately today we were uncompetitive."
“We felt it in FP3 and we confirmed it in qualifying. "
Eric Boullier
"The car has a weakness which we have pointed out, in low-speed corners with a lack of grip,"
"Here, you only have low-speed corners. We knew it coming in. To compensate for this lack of low-speed grip, we have to carry more wing, which means more drag. So the best compromise for our speed level is to run more drag."
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... anada.html
nicely analysed. yes mclaren without a direct comparision for honda, they always thought they had a top notch chassis.Interesting read, the quotes shared by @muramasa imply that McLaren is/was so fixed upon producing a balanced/drive-able car even if it means not-pushing-the-limit elsewhere. I can't suggest it is a philosophy influenced by Alonso, but, it is a philosophy that suits him well in preserving his reputation -- always driving above the car's potential (easy to do when the car doesn't demand much from the driver, especially, for a driver of Alonso's experience and talent).
Irrespective of whose fault it was, McLaren and Honda were clearly becoming incompatible. But, one thing is clear (to me, in my view), McLaren always (want to) consider themselves the best constructor in the business. It isn't much of a drawback when they were working with a top-of-the-line engine like Mercedes, when there is a lack of performance it is un-disputable and kept them honest. But, IMO, this mindset didn't help their time/relationship with Honda. Without other Honda customers to make direct comparisons, I suspect, they always believed their car was top-tier (the broad operating envelope philosophy, if true, might not have helped in making any reality check on the chassis performance). So, it is conceivable that they honestly believed, with Renault power unit they'll be able to match or perform at the same level as RedBull in 2018.
Considering the way 2018 has gone so far, they must have come to terms with the reality that their chassis is no better than any of the other mid-field teams' at the moment. Alonso's F1 career is in its last legs, if McLaren/Alonso believes 2018 is a write-off, I fear he might just preserve his reputation this season and start chasing the "triple crown" in 2019 with IndyCar. I only hope, he doesn't drag McLaren along with him to IndyCar series -- if ego didn't allow McLaren to accept that they've become a mid-field team, then, it'll only be easy to blame F1's engine formula and lack of performance-parity.
It would be disappointing if McLaren switches its attention to another series and limit their F1 resources/involvement. F1 may not be a fair sport, but in many ways, it is still the pinnacle of motor-sport and McLaren belongs in F1.
Lol you're right.. The fact it's an AMuS article makes it fact and not speculation.makecry wrote: ↑16 Jun 2018, 22:41What part of "there was an article on AMuS in which they said Honda is able to keep up with the competition initially but once the MGU-H comes into play they lose out" did you miss?