2019 Mclaren F1 Team - Renault

[Ground Effect]

The problem with hoping you gain from rain is that by being just half a lap out from your 'want' it can lose you a lot of time. Tyres will not last any longer, so pit, then 30 seconds later it rains.
Nice gap to following car, rain, car in front goes off and safety car. You lose your buffer etc. Fine for us to want rain to improve the spectacle, but it think it is not wise for the drivers to do a rain dance.

If qualifying or the race starts while it’s raining, then there’s a bit more of a known quantity

[Big Tea]

The problem with hoping you gain from rain is that by being just half a lap out from your 'want' it can lose you a lot of time. Tyres will not last any longer, so pit, then 30 seconds later it rains.
Nice gap to following car, rain, car in front goes off and safety car. You lose your buffer etc. Fine for us to want rain to improve the spectacle, but it think it is not wise for the drivers to do a rain dance.

If qualifying or the race starts while it’s raining, then there’s a bit more of a known quantity

Consistent rain, where the cars have run on wets, if in qualli or race, is a different thing. The order should not change much, other than through bad driving. Where some drivers make a difference is by staying on slicks longer or switching to them first, as button used to. I suspect (not enough data) Max will be the net gain from total rain, while he probably would gain from intermittent rain, I think Hamilton and Bottas would not be far off their game either. Possibly some of the lower placed cars would get an advantage too as it would not be so dependent on total power, just putting it down.

I like mid period unexpected rain, when it shakes things up

[BrunoH]

for sure there is a big gap chassis wise, but the engine is not up to par. i wold say its more or less 65/70pcent chassis, and the rest is engine. but its my opinion,

[ScottR267]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/113 ... 97761?s=21

Another new sponsor for the team, or have McLaren followed Ferrari and not having the exposure of BAT on the cars? Not seen any reports on the latter however.....

[Ground Effect]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/113 ... 97761?s=21

Another new sponsor for the team, or have McLaren followed Ferrari and not having the exposure of BAT on the cars? Not seen any reports on the latter however.....

I suspect it’s a one off like the 7-eleven branding in Australia, due to advertising restrictions.

[onewingedangel]

Suspect BAT are using their space to promote one of their local retailers. If you can't advertise your product, you may as well advertise where to buy them and build on your relationship with a retail partner.

[diffuser]

for sure there is a big gap chassis wise, but the engine is not up to par. i wold say its more or less 65/70pcent chassis, and the rest is engine. but its my opinion,

Well you're wrong.

[Maritimer]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/113 ... 97761?s=21

Another new sponsor for the team, or have McLaren followed Ferrari and not having the exposure of BAT on the cars? Not seen any reports on the latter however.....

I suspect it’s a one off like the 7-eleven branding in Australia, due to advertising restrictions.

Most likely this. I could be wrong but I dont believe they have 7-Elevens in Quebec, Couche-Tard is our domestic equivalent here in Canada. They own Circle K and a few other service station retailers.

[kfrantzios]

for sure there is a big gap chassis wise, but the engine is not up to par. i wold say its more or less 65/70pcent chassis, and the rest is engine. but its my opinion,

It's more like 90 % chassis 10 % engine. Plus in race mode all engines are within 3% in terms of power.

Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk

[diffuser]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/113 ... 97761?s=21

Another new sponsor for the team, or have McLaren followed Ferrari and not having the exposure of BAT on the cars? Not seen any reports on the latter however.....

Local 7-11. Doubt they will go on beyond Montreal.

[BrunoH]

for sure there is a big gap chassis wise, but the engine is not up to par. i wold say its more or less 65/70pcent chassis, and the rest is engine. but its my opinion,

Well you're wrong.

Well, im not in the engineering room to look at the data, even if they themselves dont know exact how much ( remember with honda? ) so i think its a good portion lacking of engine power that in turn forces a team like Mclaren to run less downforce, and that makes the chassis look worse than it is... its a vicious cycle.
Redbull with the honda engine is doing the same, but they seems to be able to generate more from the car than others and can get away with less wing. But i bet if they had the power mercedes has.. with the same wing angles, redbull wold be champions...

[Ground Effect]

for sure there is a big gap chassis wise, but the engine is not up to par. i wold say its more or less 65/70pcent chassis, and the rest is engine. but its my opinion,

Well you're wrong.

Well, im not in the engineering room to look at the data, even if they themselves dont know exact how much ( remember with honda? ) so i think its a good portion lacking of engine power that in turn forces a team like Mclaren to run less downforce, and that makes the chassis look worse than it is... its a vicious cycle.
Redbull with the honda engine is doing the same, but they seems to be able to generate more from the car than others and can get away with less wing. But i bet if they had the power mercedes has.. with the same wing angles, redbull wold be champions...

I don’t think McLaren were forced to run less downforce, it’s a concept and philosophy they’ve gone with. They’ve gone with a low drag concept this year, I believe based on what they suffered last year. I believe the plan is to efficiently add downforce as they develop the car.

[diffuser]

for sure there is a big gap chassis wise, but the engine is not up to par. i wold say its more or less 65/70pcent chassis, and the rest is engine. but its my opinion,

Well you're wrong.

Well, im not in the engineering room to look at the data, even if they themselves dont know exact how much ( remember with honda? ) so i think its a good portion lacking of engine power that in turn forces a team like Mclaren to run less downforce, and that makes the chassis look worse than it is... its a vicious cycle.
Redbull with the honda engine is doing the same, but they seems to be able to generate more from the car than others and can get away with less wing. But i bet if they had the power mercedes has.. with the same wing angles, redbull wold be champions...

You don't have to be in the engineering room. Just look at the Monaco Gap. Like I said before, every team has atleast 20% more power than they can use there. They all run as much DF as they can cause, well, they have more power than they can use. That Qualifying Gap is all Chassis and tires. It says it all. Merc has hands down the best Chassis this year. With that GAP, doesn't matter what PU they used, they'd still be behind. Big change from last year where RBR would have been 1 & 2 in Monaco if it wasn't for the "Max" issue.

[Andres125sx]

Well you're wrong.

Well, im not in the engineering room to look at the data, even if they themselves dont know exact how much ( remember with honda? ) so i think its a good portion lacking of engine power that in turn forces a team like Mclaren to run less downforce, and that makes the chassis look worse than it is... its a vicious cycle.
Redbull with the honda engine is doing the same, but they seems to be able to generate more from the car than others and can get away with less wing. But i bet if they had the power mercedes has.. with the same wing angles, redbull wold be champions...

You don't have to be in the engineering room. Just look at the Monaco Gap. Like I said before, every team has atleast 20% more power than they can use there. They all run as much DF as they can cause, well, they have more power than they can use. That Qualifying Gap is all Chassis and tires. It says it all. Merc has hands down the best Chassis this year. With that GAP, doesn't matter what PU they used, they'd still be behind. Big change from last year where RBR would have been 1 & 2 in Monaco if it wasn't for the "Max" issue.

Wow what a bold statement for someone who think he knows everything and anyone disagreing is wrong

If my memory serves me, Monaco is around 30% full throttle, the lowest on the calendar, but that´s far from meaning they have more power than they can use. It actually means in one third of the track they could use more power. Fact.

But even in the rest of the track, PUs can make a difference too, even if not at full throttle. Driveability is another important factor, how drivers can apply the power to the tarmac. Some weeks ago Sainz said for the TV Honda PU is very good when they´re traction limited, but it´s lacking when they engage 5th gear and above. That means in Monaco Honda is probably a better PU than Renault, even if it´s providing less power (and that´s not sure).

Power is just one parameter in a PU, not the only one


Edit: and they do NOT use as much DF as possible because they can´t use the available power, they use as much DF as possible because the only drawback with DF is the added drag lowering top speed, but on a track like Monaco with no long straights, drag is not a big penalty because the average speed is very low, while DF is providing more speed trhough the corners wich basically means around most of the track, so it´s worth adding as much DF as possible

[SmallSoldier]

Well, im not in the engineering room to look at the data, even if they themselves dont know exact how much ( remember with honda? ) so i think its a good portion lacking of engine power that in turn forces a team like Mclaren to run less downforce, and that makes the chassis look worse than it is... its a vicious cycle.
Redbull with the honda engine is doing the same, but they seems to be able to generate more from the car than others and can get away with less wing. But i bet if they had the power mercedes has.. with the same wing angles, redbull wold be champions...

You don't have to be in the engineering room. Just look at the Monaco Gap. Like I said before, every team has atleast 20% more power than they can use there. They all run as much DF as they can cause, well, they have more power than they can use. That Qualifying Gap is all Chassis and tires. It says it all. Merc has hands down the best Chassis this year. With that GAP, doesn't matter what PU they used, they'd still be behind. Big change from last year where RBR would have been 1 & 2 in Monaco if it wasn't for the "Max" issue.

Wow what a bold statement for someone who think he knows everything and anyone disagreing is wrong

If my memory serves me, Monaco is around 30% full throttle, the lowest on the calendar, but that´s far from meaning they have more power than they can use. It actually means in one third of the track they could use more power. Fact.

But even in the rest of the track, PUs can make a difference too, even if not at full throttle. Driveability is another important factor, how drivers can apply the power to the tarmac. Some weeks ago Sainz said for the TV Honda PU is very good when they´re traction limited, but it´s lacking when they engage 5th gear and above. That means in Monaco Honda is probably a better PU than Renault, even if it´s providing less power (and that´s not sure).

Power is just one parameter in a PU, not the only one

How would Sainz know if the Honda PU is very good if he has never driven a car with one in it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk