Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
jsf said:
all I can suggest Dr Z is you read up on how you optimise a racecar for ultimate lap time, then you may understand what you are saying is nonsense, you don't need another car to use as reference to set your own up.
This is very basic stuff for a race engineer, where you are always trying to find the correct balance between drag and downforce against the available power, once you have that worked out then you work on chassis balance for the desired level of downforce you are going to run.
If as you and others are arguing that they are being compromised by the lack of power and having to trim the downforce available to them, it would be interesting to look at the performance at Monaco. However, to my untrained eye there wasn't a big Monaco specific aero package on the car as such (correct if wrong), which begs the question; why weren't they trying to put every little bit of downforce they have on the car at Monaco when they could have scored some good points?This is very basic stuff for a race engineer, where you are always trying to find the correct balance between drag and downforce against the available power, once you have that worked out then you work on chassis balance for the desired level of downforce you are going to run.
Presumably, it will then be argued that even at Monaco they were having to compromise and trim out.
I'm not that convinced that chucking a load more downforce (which is no free lunch) is going to solve some of the performance deficit, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if they make it work either with Honda or Merc.
After all, I'd love to see McLaren back at the front.
Dr Z said:
jsf said:
all I can suggest Dr Z is you read up on how you optimise a racecar for ultimate lap time, then you may understand what you are saying is nonsense, you don't need another car to use as reference to set your own up.
This is very basic stuff for a race engineer, where you are always trying to find the correct balance between drag and downforce against the available power, once you have that worked out then you work on chassis balance for the desired level of downforce you are going to run.
If as you and others are arguing that they are being compromised by the lack of power and having to trim the downforce available to them, it would be interesting to look at the performance at Monaco. However, to my untrained eye there wasn't a big Monaco specific aero package on the car as such (correct if wrong), which begs the question; why weren't they trying to put every little bit of downforce they have on the car at Monaco when they could have scored some good points?This is very basic stuff for a race engineer, where you are always trying to find the correct balance between drag and downforce against the available power, once you have that worked out then you work on chassis balance for the desired level of downforce you are going to run.
Presumably, it will then be argued that even at Monaco they were having to compromise and trim out.
I'm not that convinced that chucking a load more downforce (which is no free lunch) is going to solve some of the performance deficit, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if they make it work either with Honda or Merc.
After all, I'd love to see McLaren back at the front.
More power = lower lap times because the compromise result is better.
if you were running a car with 200BHP, you would run less drag and downforce than one running 400BHP to maximise the performance.
Look back to the era when we had the turbo and NA cars racing together, the turbo cars ran huge wings compared to the NA cars, both type of cars were optimised to attain their best performance based on the power they had available.
The way I've always understood it was if you had a power advantage then you were able to run more wing, wing equals downforce and also drag but with the power advantage you could overcome that but its finding that balance.
From what were led to believe the McLaren chassis isn't a dog, might not be on par with Merc or Ferrari but its up there with Williams, redbull and force india, so because McLaren are lacking so much straight line speed is it safe to assume it's a power unit thing rather than them running too much wing, after all running too much will make them look good in the corners(which they are), or is the power unit that bad that they're having to trim the wing to the very limit of what they can get away with, if that is the case I think they're doing a pretty good job in the corners with less downforce than the others, imagine if they could run a bit more if only they had more power to overcome the drag, I think they'd be top 5 and certainly not being lapped
From what were led to believe the McLaren chassis isn't a dog, might not be on par with Merc or Ferrari but its up there with Williams, redbull and force india, so because McLaren are lacking so much straight line speed is it safe to assume it's a power unit thing rather than them running too much wing, after all running too much will make them look good in the corners(which they are), or is the power unit that bad that they're having to trim the wing to the very limit of what they can get away with, if that is the case I think they're doing a pretty good job in the corners with less downforce than the others, imagine if they could run a bit more if only they had more power to overcome the drag, I think they'd be top 5 and certainly not being lapped
What, and poke him with the soft cushions?
Went through a few quali laps and recorded minimum speeds through some corners. Also some max speeds.
Monaco;
Montreal;
All speeds in km/h. Top=Max speed before next corner entry
The McLaren and Toro Rosso are very close in top speed in both the biggest acceleration zones at Monaco. However, given that the RB shares the same PU with TR, the RB is topping out higher, and quicker than both TR and McLaren in the majority of the corners. I can hear the Toro Rosso boys crying, if only that Renault PU could produce a bit more power, we could wack more wing on and be quicker than the Red Bull in the corners. Six tenths off mate. It's not so simple.
The more downforce dependent Sector 1 performance of McLaren (more like Fred) at Montreal is surprising if they are indeed running lower downforce than they'd like due to the power deficit. 0.468s off the best sector time there, with only Merc, Ferrari and RB cars ahead. I can well believe that the power deficit contributes to a little more than half of that time. The low speed performance of the car is not top drawer though, and that's a real marker of a top chassis.
I'll go back to reading the basics.
Monaco;
| Overall Lap time | 1:13.249 | 1:13.162 | 1:12.496 |
| Driver | Stoffel | Carlos | Max |
| Top Speed (DRS) | 285 | 287 | 292 |
| St. Devote | 108 | 112 | 109 |
| Massanet | 160 | 159 | 155 |
| Casino | 135 | 135 | 136 |
| Mirabeau Haute | 77 | 72 | 76 |
| Hairpin | 43 | 42 | 46 |
| Mirabeau Bas | 79 | 80 | 83 |
| Portier | 79 | 80 | 79 |
| Tunnel Top speed (no DRS) | 285 | 286 | 291 |
| Nouvelle Chicane | 64 | 63 | 66 |
| Tabac | 162 | 159 | 165 |
| T15 | 118 | 118 | 121 |
| Rascasse | 58 | 56 | 62 |
| Anthony Noghes | 80 | 80 | 81 |
Montreal;
| Lap time | 1:13.669 | 1:11:459 |
| Driver | Fred | Hammy |
| Top (DRS) | 302 | 314 |
| T2 | 76 | 81 |
| Top | 249 | 264 |
| T3/4 | 140 | 139 |
| T6/7 | 99 | 100 |
| Top | 294 | 306 |
| T8/9 | 114 | 117 |
| Top (no DRS) | 291 | 302 |
| T10 | 55 | 60 |
| Top (DRS) | 319 | 330 |
| T13/14 | 130 | 136 |
All speeds in km/h. Top=Max speed before next corner entry
The McLaren and Toro Rosso are very close in top speed in both the biggest acceleration zones at Monaco. However, given that the RB shares the same PU with TR, the RB is topping out higher, and quicker than both TR and McLaren in the majority of the corners. I can hear the Toro Rosso boys crying, if only that Renault PU could produce a bit more power, we could wack more wing on and be quicker than the Red Bull in the corners. Six tenths off mate. It's not so simple.
The more downforce dependent Sector 1 performance of McLaren (more like Fred) at Montreal is surprising if they are indeed running lower downforce than they'd like due to the power deficit. 0.468s off the best sector time there, with only Merc, Ferrari and RB cars ahead. I can well believe that the power deficit contributes to a little more than half of that time. The low speed performance of the car is not top drawer though, and that's a real marker of a top chassis.
I'll go back to reading the basics.
CraigyMc said:
budgie smuggler said:
Sorry if I've missed this but do we know what the actual failure was on Sunday? All they said at the time was that it was an ICE problem but it sounded very broken in the onboard.
Crankshaft exited through the floor.Dr Z said:
The more downforce dependent Sector 1 performance of McLaren (more like Fred) at Montreal is surprising if they are indeed running lower downforce than they'd like due to the power deficit. 0.468s off the best sector time there, with only Merc, Ferrari and RB cars ahead. I can well believe that the power deficit contributes to a little more than half of that time. The low speed performance of the car is not top drawer though, and that's a real marker of a top chassis.
I'll go back to reading the basics.
I suggest you do because you just don't get it.I'll go back to reading the basics.
If you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
Mike Gascoyne reckons McLaren have already decided to split from Honda
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10914414/f1...
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10914414/f1...
jsf said:
I suggest you do because you just don't get it.
If you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
Clearly, you do get it. Fancy helping Toro Rosso out with their sIf you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
t aero? And Haas while we're at it.Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
Dr Z said:
Clearly, you do get it. Fancy helping Toro Rosso out with their st aero? And Haas while we're at it.
Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
I concur. This is generally a constructive and interesting thread.t aero? And Haas while we're at it.Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
@JSF - re-read your posts and see if they come across as you intend to - you can get to the same point without being so terse.
Dr Z said:
jsf said:
I suggest you do because you just don't get it.
If you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
Clearly, you do get it. Fancy helping Toro Rosso out with their sIf you have had to trim off the drag at high speed due to lack of power, you suffer more at low speed because you are generating less downforce and rely more on the mechanical grip compared to your rivals.
Downforce/drag is a function of the square of speed, so to gain any sensible speed from the car, with a big power deficit, you have to reduce the drag significantly, this shows itself up in the low speed aero assistance.
t aero? And Haas while we're at it.Suggest you lose the need to belittle. It's boring and not for a constructive discussion.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff