2018 McLaren F1 Team - Renault

[GoranF1]

The package introduced in BCN worked on Spanish GP, but after that took them completly in the wrong direction.
Why is that?

[mclaren111]

I say fire EB.

Yeah, I think the only thing you can fault EB for is believing PP.

Admittedly I am not an EB fan (far too arrogant for my liking), but he would have known about these issues if he had the correct procedures and processes in place & a bit of hands-on management.

Surely one of his core functions would be to ensure proper co-ordination and integration between the Aero & Chassis Departments.

My two cents worth.

[godlameroso]

Boullier is not an engineer, he's a manager. They fired the engineer that was supposed to coordinate the different departments.

[mclaren111]

Boullier is not an engineer, he's a manager. They fired the engineer that was supposed to coordinate the different departments.

Let's agree to disagree.

[godlameroso]

Boullier is not an engineer, he's a manager. They fired the engineer that was supposed to coordinate the different departments.

Let's agree to disagree.

On Boullier being an engineer?

[dren]

The package introduced in BCN worked on Spanish GP, but after that took them completly in the wrong direction.
Why is that?

Probably track characteristics.

[mwillems]

The package introduced in BCN worked on Spanish GP, but after that took them completly in the wrong direction.
Why is that?

Probably track characteristics.

Was OK at BCN and good at Monaco. Why is it now so terrible? Two very different tracks.

[Redragon]

The package introduced in BCN worked on Spanish GP, but after that took them completly in the wrong direction.
Why is that?

Probably track characteristics.

Was OK at BCN and good at Monaco. Why is it now so terrible? Two very different tracks.

I think because it haven't been totally implemented where as other teams had and evolve their car. That's why I refered to the factory oveloaded sisce September, I don't think they are capable of producing the parts necessary as fast as they would like because the workers are not giving more, hence the rummors of revolt, so either they are actually having correlation problems that it wasn't the case until last race or it is an excuse to the press to buy some time summer brake is near.

[mwillems]

Possibly, but even if they cut back on overtime they'd still be producing updates and moving forward. My own though is that they are prioritising finding and fixing the existing issue. But still, I personally don't feel this explains what is happening with the car in relation to Mclarens explanation. We have issues with low speed traction but both BCN and MON have low speed traction and we weren't bad.

Ultimately I'm trying to tie up Mclarens reasoning to what we can see on the track, and I don't see it. I might just not have enough knowledge to understand, but nobody here really seems to be able to tie up the question of Monaco and BCN good performance to the issue of low speed traction issues, they do not correlate. Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable and I'm not trying to say that the explanation definitely doesn't fit, but please, someone show me how?

[BrunoH]

good at monaco!?

[godlameroso]

The package introduced in BCN worked on Spanish GP, but after that took them completly in the wrong direction.
Why is that?

Probably track characteristics.

Was OK at BCN and good at Monaco. Why is it now so terrible? Two very different tracks.

Because the other teams upgraded their cars better than McLaren was able to, now they're behind until the next raft of upgrades come in.

[RonDennis]

Possibly, but even if they cut back on overtime they'd still be producing updates and moving forward. My own though is that they are prioritising finding and fixing the existing issue. But still, I personally don't feel this explains what is happening with the car in relation to Mclarens explanation. We have issues with low speed traction but both BCN and MON have low speed traction and we weren't bad.

Ultimately I'm trying to tie up Mclarens reasoning to what we can see on the track, and I don't see it. I might just not have enough knowledge to understand, but nobody here really seems to be able to tie up the question of Monaco and BCN good performance to the issue of low speed traction issues, they do not correlate. Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable and I'm not trying to say that the explanation definitely doesn't fit, but please, someone show me how?

That's because the straights aren't extremely long in Spain and Monaco, which means you can run more downforce to fix the low speed traction. On high speed tracks like Paul Richard and Canada you'll get heavily punished for running more downforce. Barcelona is also a track that they know as their back pocket, which makes their life a lot easier setup wise. But let's not forget they were 1,3 seconds slower then the Red Bull in Monaco, a track that takes only 1:10 to complete.

[rogazilla]

The thing is it’s not like they’ve stood relatively still in terms of chassis performance between MCL32 and MCL33. The MCL33 is a significantly poorer chassis than the 32. Their qualifying in Spain (a real car performance track) really showed that where they only managed to close the deficit to the top by 3 tenths (1.9 seconds in 2017 compared to 1.6 seconds in 2018 if I recall correctly) despite having a significantly better PU and 12 months of additional chassis development time.

I think they’ve done another 2013 but worse where they had a great car in 2012 and came up with a dog in 2013.

I think there are a few assumptions here:

1, The MCL33 is a significantly poorer chassis than the 32. Early on it is an evolution right? Before the nose, it is not that big of a departure AERO wise? This is all speculation but if we are making assumptions then we need to have some evidence. Most people point to the rear suspension because that's the biggest departure from 32, or the rear end for adaptation of the new engine. From the outside, how do we know 32 is significantly better if the PU was so bad.

2. "having a significantly better PU". Not a debate of honda/McLaren again from this please. Honda had reliability issue for I would argue 2/3 of the year. Last part of the season, when reliabilty was sorted, many suggest it is slightly behind on Renault. We have to make some assumptions and make logical deduction. If we believe MC32 was the best chassis and world beater to RBR, then the deficit in the last few races are down to the PU differences. OR if we believe that Honda is slightly down from Renault then the deficit is in the Chassis.

[RonDennis]

Possibly, but even if they cut back on overtime they'd still be producing updates and moving forward. My own though is that they are prioritising finding and fixing the existing issue. But still, I personally don't feel this explains what is happening with the car in relation to Mclarens explanation. We have issues with low speed traction but both BCN and MON have low speed traction and we weren't bad.

Ultimately I'm trying to tie up Mclarens reasoning to what we can see on the track, and I don't see it. I might just not have enough knowledge to understand, but nobody here really seems to be able to tie up the question of Monaco and BCN good performance to the issue of low speed traction issues, they do not correlate. Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable and I'm not trying to say that the explanation definitely doesn't fit, but please, someone show me how?

Marca already reported in May that McLaren was aware of correlation issues before the Chinese grand prix.

http://www.marca.com/motor/formula1/gp- ... b45e8.html

I'm also reading those tweets from the aerodynamicist, they really seem to have no idea when or if it's going to be fixed. He's only talking about hope and working hard, not really the words that give me confidence that this is a quick fix.

[mclaren111]

Boullier is not an engineer, he's a manager. They fired the engineer that was supposed to coordinate the different departments.

Let's agree to disagree.

On Boullier being an engineer?

No - I want him gone and you don't