This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
Genuine question: How could a team get bad correlation? If McLaren have been using the same wind tunnel for years how does the correlation go from good to bad?
Even the best aero tunnel/CFD package cannot simulate the full transients effects happening on the track.
It was not my understanding that their issue last year was a correlation issue.
They just didn't pickup in CDF and the wind tunnel the side pods were too close to the front tires.
The problem was occurring during high yaw angle (and slight roll) where they were experiencing unexpected flow separation which ties exactly to the ability to accurately model transient effects (transient flow effects during yaw/roll/pitch).
Even the best aero tunnel/CFD package cannot simulate the full transients effects happening on the track.
It was not my understanding that their issue last year was a correlation issue.
They just didn't pickup in CDF and the wind tunnel the side pods were too close to the front tires.
The problem was occurring during high yaw angle (and slight roll) where they were experiencing unexpected flow separation which ties exactly to the ability to accurately model transient effects (transient flow effects during yaw/roll/pitch).
tomayto, tomahto
It all comes down to what "didn't see it" means. Was it there and they missed it or it wasn't there in the data? I would agree if it wasn't in the data then it was a corelation issue.
It all comes down to what "didn't see it" means. Was it there and they missed it or it wasn't there in the data? I would agree if it wasn't in the data then it was a corelation issue.
That we don't know, I think.
Exactly. I mean McLaren obviously didn't design their car with a fundamental flaw in mind. They modelled and simulated it, tested it in a wind tunnel and though everything was fine. Only on track they saw it wasn't, and for several months they could not figure out what it was. To me that is definition of a correlation issue.
It's possible their development on that car during the year was not affected by correlation (new wings, etc) but the basis of the car had a flaw, and that flaw surely was because something in their model/testing was wrong.
McLaren announces partnership with Schimdt Peterson Racing in IndyCar. I am quite excited about this. I love the look of the racetracks in IndyCar and having a McLaren to root for will be great.
It was not my understanding that their issue last year was a correlation issue.
They just didn't pickup in CDF and the wind tunnel the side pods were too close to the front tires.
The problem was occurring during high yaw angle (and slight roll) where they were experiencing unexpected flow separation which ties exactly to the ability to accurately model transient effects (transient flow effects during yaw/roll/pitch).
tomayto, tomahto
It all comes down to what "didn't see it" means. Was it there and they missed it or it wasn't there in the data? I would agree if it wasn't in the data then it was a corelation issue.
That we don't know, I think.
To be honest, I would be amazed if they missed it, I believe it wasn't there, hence the back to back aero tests with the full Kiel probes they did on track during FP1/FP2
FittingMechanics wrote:McLaren announces partnership with Schimdt Peterson Racing in IndyCar. I am quite excited about this. I love the look of the racetracks in IndyCar and having a McLaren to root for will be great.
FittingMechanics wrote:McLaren announces partnership with Schimdt Peterson Racing in IndyCar. I am quite excited about this. I love the look of the racetracks in IndyCar and having a McLaren to root for will be great.
I may finally have a reason to follow Indy Car
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yeah, I think it will be fun. Tracks all look really nice, very different to F1 tracks. Plenty of grass runoffs and walls. Should be fun to watch. Hopefully McLaren can be competitive.
Sky did a behind the scenes in MTC in Woking. There is a view of the "command center", it looks like something NASA uses. No wonder the unpredictability in the races is down. One aspect I'd like for F1 to reduce is that "off the grid" support that the drivers get, it would put a bigger load on a couple of guys on pit wall which would lead to more mistakes and more interesting races. It would also reduce costs.
Sky did a behind the scenes in MTC in Woking. There is a view of the "command center", it looks like something NASA uses. No wonder the unpredictability in the races is down. One aspect I'd like for F1 to reduce is that "off the grid" support that the drivers get, it would put a bigger load on a couple of guys on pit wall which would lead to more mistakes and more interesting races. It would also reduce costs.
I agree completly with you, same goes with the Simulation racing between two days (sat --> sun) some are doing to find a better setup for the car.
IMO if a driver can't get his car setup in 2 pratice days, it's his fault but due to these simulator the driver can focus on quali, where a Sim-driver finds the best race setup..... i know it is black & white but i can't explain it differently
Sky did a behind the scenes in MTC in Woking. There is a view of the "command center", it looks like something NASA uses. No wonder the unpredictability in the races is down. One aspect I'd like for F1 to reduce is that "off the grid" support that the drivers get, it would put a bigger load on a couple of guys on pit wall which would lead to more mistakes and more interesting races. It would also reduce costs.
I agree completly with you, same goes with the Simulation racing between two days (sat --> sun) some are doing to find a better setup for the car.
IMO if a driver can't get his car setup in 2 pratice days, it's his fault but due to these simulator the driver can focus on quali, where a Sim-driver finds the best race setup..... i know it is black & white but i can't explain it differently
Qualy and race setup are often the same. They work to find the 'ideal' setup. Only if the car starts from the back (due to penalties etc) can they stretch the parc fermé rules.
Sky did a behind the scenes in MTC in Woking. There is a view of the "command center", it looks like something NASA uses. No wonder the unpredictability in the races is down. One aspect I'd like for F1 to reduce is that "off the grid" support that the drivers get, it would put a bigger load on a couple of guys on pit wall which would lead to more mistakes and more interesting races. It would also reduce costs.
I agree completly with you, same goes with the Simulation racing between two days (sat --> sun) some are doing to find a better setup for the car.
IMO if a driver can't get his car setup in 2 pratice days, it's his fault but due to these simulator the driver can focus on quali, where a Sim-driver finds the best race setup..... i know it is black & white but i can't explain it differently
Qualy and race setup are often the same. They work to find the 'ideal' setup. Only if the car starts from the back (due to penalties etc) can they stretch the parc fermé rules.
are they?
as far as i know they are different due to tyre deg
I agree completly with you, same goes with the Simulation racing between two days (sat --> sun) some are doing to find a better setup for the car.
IMO if a driver can't get his car setup in 2 pratice days, it's his fault but due to these simulator the driver can focus on quali, where a Sim-driver finds the best race setup..... i know it is black & white but i can't explain it differently
Qualy and race setup are often the same. They work to find the 'ideal' setup. Only if the car starts from the back (due to penalties etc) can they stretch the parc fermé rules.
are they?
as far as i know they are different due to tyre deg
Cars are in pac fermé after quali. Any setup change can't be significant; only minor.
Qualy and race setup are often the same. They work to find the 'ideal' setup. Only if the car starts from the back (due to penalties etc) can they stretch the parc fermé rules.
are they?
as far as i know they are different due to tyre deg
Cars are in pac fermé after quali. Any setup change can't be significant; only minor.
the find the setups on Friday and Saturday, and are allowed to change the wingangles (to add more or less downforce)
but aren't allowed to change parts without taking a penalty....
I think Renault is going to have to step up their game and focus more on their collab with Mclaren. They're tumbling down the pecking order, and they'd risk losing Mclaren to Mercedes by 2022 tops. If they're smart, they aquire Williams again. Mclaren wouldn't be bothered as Williams wouldn't be a risk for them anyway.
On the other hand, Racing Point could be interesting aswell, but would prove much more to make Mclaren unhappy.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
