How much do McLaren have left?

[ph123]

I'm guessing, not much.
In these final few GPs, one has the feeling that Ferrari have the faster car. Certainly, if LH does a front tyre because he's running less downforce in an effort to keep super-quick on the straight, the indication is surely that Engineering is right on the ragged edge.
Anyone know?

[Munter]

The McLaren and the Ferrari have been suited to different tracks all season. I dont think anything has changed much on that front. Radical new aero for the next races might be interesting....

[NightDriver]

They have plenty left. Tyre failure was a tyre issue - the downforce being run is irrelevant.
In F1 engineering is always on the edge, however all risks are controlled and safety is no. 1.
I think Alonso finishing onle 27secs behind the leaders last weekend shows that mclaren are still well up there, Lewis was even closer until the tyre went...

[Paul671]

Lewis was on the hard compound tyres until his tyre blew, plus he was a few laps heavier on fuel. Had McLaren started him on the softs he would have been right there. IMO Mclaren still has the edge.

[thunderbelmont]

As Reece Bobby said. If you ain't first. You're last.

However, a Monza - expect the Williams to be further up - they are damn fast in a straight line, and Monza is about being fast!

And the BMW's.....

[coetzeeh]

Paul671 said:

Lewis was on the hard compound tyres until his tyre blew, plus he was a few laps heavier on fuel. Had McLaren started him on the softs he would have been right there. IMO Mclaren still has the edge.

The reason why the Mclarens were on the harder compound is because the macca's are not kind to tyres, unlike the Ferrari's.

Mclaren knew that if they ran the softs they would be in trouble after 12 or 13 laps - hence LH's blowout.

[Regional]

"only 27 seconds behind the leaders"

That is a lifetime in F1!

Some circuits will favour different cars as mentioned above and some drivers prefer one circuit over another.

I think it will run down to the last race.

[lord summerisle]

NightDriver said:

In F1 engineering is always on the edge, however all risks are controlled and safety is no. 1.

what was it Colin Chapman used to say?
a race car should cross the finish line and promptly drop to pieces, and further and it was over engineered.

[Munter]

lord summerisle said:

NightDriver said:

In F1 engineering is always on the edge, however all risks are controlled and safety is no. 1.

what was it Colin Chapman used to say?
a race car should cross the finish line and promptly drop to pieces, and further and it was over engineered.

A philosophy that cost Damon Hill badly when he and a certain Mr Schumacher came together and bent Hills wishbone. You also have to factor in reliability. And when you do that you'll find many pieces of the car could go on and on and on. Just look at the carbon fiber tubs they use now. If theres no advince in the design they'd use just 3 or 4 a season....

Now theres a difference between bodywork and suspention and drive train, but if you run too closely to "2 hours very fast and then broken" your going to be down in the middle of the championship table.

[rubystone]

Munter said:

A philosophy that cost Damon Hill badly when he and a certain Mr Schumacher came together and bent Hills wishbone.

But to be fair, the forces involved were horizontal, rather than vertical and a wishbone of any sort is not designed to act in that direction

[Munter]

rubystone said:

Munter said:

A philosophy that cost Damon Hill badly when he and a certain Mr Schumacher came together and bent Hills wishbone.

But to be fair, the forces involved were horizontal, rather than vertical and a wishbone of any sort is not designed to act in that direction

The question is why wasn't it designed to take those forces. It's easy to predict that at some point there will be contact of that kind. The answer I believe is to save weight and thus gain speed. By making that design choise that the wishbone only needed to withstand vertical forces they lost a race. I guess my point is if you design a car to the limit so is's junk after the last lap of a "clean" race you leave yourself open to failure when theres "dirty" races. And you just cant afford to do that now.

[uktrailmonster]

Munter said:

The question is why wasn't it designed to take those forces. It's easy to predict that at some point there will be contact of that kind. The answer I believe is to save weight and thus gain speed. By making that design choise that the wishbone only needed to withstand vertical forces they lost a race. I guess my point is if you design a car to the limit so is's junk after the last lap of a "clean" race you leave yourself open to failure when theres "dirty" races. And you just cant afford to do that now.

No, it's just not practical to design a double wishbone suspension of this type to withstand out of plane loads. Wishbones are aerodynamic tension/compression elements only and simply cannot cope with bending loads. Making them twice as heavy would not help significantly in this respect. You have to accept as a driver in F1 (and every other open wheel formula) that if you come into contact with another car, there's a very good chance your race is over! Saloon cars can survive more contact because the bodywork generally takes most of the impact loads.

Edited by uktrailmonster on Thursday 30th August 12:49

[D_Mike]

there was a nice martin brundle quote on this issue:

"when michael schumacher came into F1 Ferrari saw the opportunity to beef up the front suspension so he could bash everyone else off the road"

I think that is essentially true... they certainly build their cars tougher than they used to.

[Munter]

uktrailmonster said:

No, it's just not practical to design a double wishbone suspension of this type to withstand out of plane loads. Wishbones are aerodynamic tension/compression elements only and simply cannot cope with bending loads. Making them twice as heavy would not help significantly in this respect. You have to accept as a driver in F1 (and every other open wheel formula) that if you come into contact with another car, there's a very good chance your race is over! Saloon cars can survive more contact because the bodywork generally takes most of the impact loads.

You seem to imply that simply making things heavier would increase their strength.... All I'm saying is makeing a car more reliable increases your chance of finishing with many parts that can happily go and do another race.

To say that something 'is' and cannot be improved shows very little imagination. If they want them stronger they can make them, but it might have to be at the sacrifice of aero/weight etc. And they are now significantly stronger than they were.

[uktrailmonster]

If only it was that simple.... Do you have any idea how much stress analysis, rig testing and track testing F1 suspension components go through? Brundle's comment is complete BS too. Ferrari do not make their cars stronger so they can hit other cars. Their reliability has been phenomenal over the last decade, but it's nothing to do with making "beefed up" suspension.

Edited by uktrailmonster on Thursday 30th August 14:53

[D_Mike]

it was a bit of a joke that he slipped in whilst talking about how the cars nowadays can stand up to way more abuse than the ones that he drove.

[10 Pence Short]

I think we'll see McLaren bang on the pace in Monza. They're bloody quick down the straights and pretty handy in slow corners.

[Munter]

uktrailmonster said:

If only it was that simple.... Do you have any idea how much stress analysis, rig testing and track testing F1 suspension components go through?

Whoa there neddy! I never said it was easy or simple thats your assumption. I'm just pointing out that making a machine that will be a broken wreck after the race isn't the way forward and that if you change your specification to build in reliability/toughness it'll be more likely to finish a hell of a lot more races.

uktrailmonster said:

Brundle's comment is complete BS too. Ferrari do not make their cars stronger so they can hit other cars.

Well yeah but lets not go down the road of which commentator actually says anything of any worth....

uktrailmonster said:

Their reliability has been phenomenal over the last decade, but it's nothing to do with making "beefed up" suspension.

I disagree. Their reliability is all about making "beefed up" or in other words "better" components all over the car. Including but not restricted to suspension.

[10 Pence Short]

It's a strange mixture of philosophies between McLaren and Ferrari.

Ferrari with Schumacher made the car reliable then made it faster. Ron Dennis has been quoted numerous times saying he'd rather have a fast car that was unreliable than a slow one that always got to the finish, albeit behind the leaders.

[Munter]

10 Pence Short said:

It's a strange mixture of philosophies between McLaren and Ferrari.

Ferrari with Schumacher made the car reliable then made it faster. Ron Dennis has been quoted numerous times saying he'd rather have a fast car that was unreliable than a slow one that always got to the finish, albeit behind the leaders.

I think thats changed now though. With the 2 race rule for engines those things have become fantastically strong. HOW long did Lewis leave it ticking over in the gravel when they all slid off! And they'll do it at the end of the pit lane in qualifying... Plus I think McLaren realised they were loosing a championship a few years ago because they kept having reliability problems.

In order to finish first, you must first finish?