Dipesh1995 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2018, 18:001.rogazilla wrote: ↑25 Jun 2018, 14:26I think there are a few assumptions here:Dipesh1995 wrote: ↑24 Jun 2018, 23:59
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.
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.From logic. I’ve compared Spain 2018 to Spain 2017. It’s a fact that the Honda PU was still a mess at this point and thus it’s power deficit to the Mercedes was significantly greater than the deficit the Renault PU had in Spain 2018. Therefore, to only gain 3 tenths on the competition really points to an underperforming chassis. Comparing Canada 2018 to Canada 2017 only reinforces this where they only gained 8 tenths from their quali time set in 2017 and the majority of that was from the faster tyres. As for the aerodynamics, yes they may not be a large change from 2017 apart from nose in terms of external aerodynamics but Brown said that they had some different aero parts on the car last year which aren’t on the car this year, one example of this is the absence of the aero detail behind the bargeboards on this year’s car. It’s details such as this that can make all the difference. Why they’ve removed such detail, I don’t know but looking at the competition especially the top cars, all of them have detail around this region that McLaren don’t. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the internal aero will have changed significantly to accommodate the cooling requirements of the new PU which will have had an impact on overall aero performance.From the outside, how do we know 32 is significantly better if the PU was so bad
2. Like I said, I compared to Spain 2017 to Spain 2018. In Spain 2017, McLaren were running a PU which was significantly inferior to the Mercedes compared to the race-winning PU they are running right now. For clarification, I’m not saying the MCL32 was a world beater; imo, it was the fourth best last year but the MCL33 is nowhere near fourth best in qualifying and lately, not in the race either which is why I’m saying they’ve gone backwards.
That is total nonsense logic! How can MCL32 be better than MCL33 if MCL33 is faster on any track they have run!? And by far! MCL33 is better than MCL32 and thats only reason why there is 33 and team has chosen it.
