How much do McLaren have left?
Discussion
Munter said:
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?
I agree, the rules have made reliability a lot better now than it was. I'd imagine a lot of that's down to the rev limit placed on the engines. In order to finish first, you must first finish?
Only Adrian Newey seems able to make at least one of his cars break every weekend.
As far as I'm aware the ticking over ability is down the the Mercedes engine shutting down a couple of cylinders at idle.
Munter - I've learned that it's pointless arguing the toss on public forums, so I won't bother. I agree with your basic simple philosophy of producing a reliable car, but not in the context of your earlier post i.e. designing suspension wishbones that can take huge bending loads from random contact is simply not relevant. Step on the middle of a Ferrari top wishbone and it will bend and break just like any other.
Munter said:
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.What Ferrari and Renault amongst others have done is got this balance down to a fine art. They know that component X can run for Y kilometers and then be binned/reworked. Someone like RedBull clearly haven't got that balance, whether it be because they have misjudged the working criteria, worked to too fine a safety margin or simply don't have sufficiently well developed bits.
You may get more cars to the finish if you build them tough, or have the fastest car on the track if your design is on the very edge but to win races and championships you have to balance both of these factors...
In my experience, most race stoppers in F1 are now related to hydraulic systems (ask Red Bull), engines (less with current regs), gearbox internals and electrical gremlins. Suspension failures (providing you don't smack into other cars or walls) are now thankfully rare, due to better understanding of load conditions, quality control and strict lifing.
uktrailmonster said:
In my experience, most race stoppers in F1 are now related to hydraulic systems (ask Red Bull), engines (less with current regs), gearbox internals and electrical gremlins. Suspension failures (providing you don't smack into other cars or walls) are now thankfully rare, due to better understanding of load conditions, quality control and strict lifing.
Yep, didn't mean to infer that RB's retirements this year were suspension related (in fact I can't recall many suspension failures in recent years that have happened without other damage - Liuzzi at the Nurburgring many have been one?). As you say, hydraulics & electronics seem to be where the failures are these days - quite often due to stuff getting too hot through pursuit of ultimate aero performance! 
Neither McLaren or Ferrari seem to have reliability problems at the moment.
That's not the issue.
The issue is speed. I guess either company would pay £20 Million for a half second a lap advantage right now.
Ferrari have slightly more power? So run more downforce which actually taxes the tyres less. There's the edge I think.
Brilliant stuff. We'll se.
That's not the issue.
The issue is speed. I guess either company would pay £20 Million for a half second a lap advantage right now.
Ferrari have slightly more power? So run more downforce which actually taxes the tyres less. There's the edge I think.
Brilliant stuff. We'll se.
uktrailmonster said:
In my experience, most race stoppers in F1 are now related to hydraulic systems (ask Red Bull), engines (less with current regs), gearbox internals and electrical gremlins. Suspension failures (providing you don't smack into other cars or walls) are now thankfully rare, due to better understanding of load conditions, quality control and strict lifing.
I don't think this is just a case of better data, better lifing, etc. Wishbones would now routinely be CFRP, as opposed to the metal wishbones that Hill ran (so they're not going to bend, but of course can still fail)By designing a suitable CFRP component it is possible to allow the component to accept significantly higher out-of-plane loads than was previously the case for a given weight in metal. Furthermore, advances in aerodynamic understanding have allowed (and in some cases encouraged) wishbone cross-sections to increase, aiding the carrying of out-of-plane loads.
It is notable that the amount of wheel-banging doesn't seem all that less these days, but it usually results in a new nose rather than a DNF due to bent suspension.
ph123 said:
Neither McLaren or Ferrari seem to have reliability problems at the moment.
That's not the issue.
The issue is speed. I guess either company would pay £20 Million for a half second a lap advantage right now.
Ferrari have slightly more power? So run more downforce which actually taxes the tyres less. There's the edge I think.
Brilliant stuff. We'll se.
This is where the rank stupidity of homologated engines comes in. How will this situation change? You can't just "dial out" a power disadvantage using aero!That's not the issue.
The issue is speed. I guess either company would pay £20 Million for a half second a lap advantage right now.
Ferrari have slightly more power? So run more downforce which actually taxes the tyres less. There's the edge I think.
Brilliant stuff. We'll se.
skwdenyer said:
I don't think this is just a case of better data, better lifing, etc. Wishbones would now routinely be CFRP, as opposed to the metal wishbones that Hill ran (so they're not going to bend, but of course can still fail)
By designing a suitable CFRP component it is possible to allow the component to accept significantly higher out-of-plane loads than was previously the case for a given weight in metal. Furthermore, advances in aerodynamic understanding have allowed (and in some cases encouraged) wishbone cross-sections to increase, aiding the carrying of out-of-plane loads.
Although composite wishbones are used routinely (have been for many years) it's only in the last few years that teams have developed good enough design and quality control to prevent them from failing under normal operating conditions - never mind wheel banging! Until quite recently some teams substituted carbon for steel front lowers at high stress circuits like Monza. Although cross sections have increased, the outer aerodynamic skin is often a non load bearing carbon shroud. Teams are divided in this respect, some use fully stressed carbon composites, some use carbon / metallic compostites. By designing a suitable CFRP component it is possible to allow the component to accept significantly higher out-of-plane loads than was previously the case for a given weight in metal. Furthermore, advances in aerodynamic understanding have allowed (and in some cases encouraged) wishbone cross-sections to increase, aiding the carrying of out-of-plane loads.
uktrailmonster said:
Although composite wishbones are used routinely (have been for many years) it's only in the last few years that teams have developed good enough design and quality control to prevent them from failing under normal operating conditions - never mind wheel banging! Until quite recently some teams substituted carbon for steel front lowers at high stress circuits like Monza. Although cross sections have increased, the outer aerodynamic skin is often a non load bearing carbon shroud. Teams are divided in this respect, some use fully stressed carbon composites, some use carbon / metallic compostites.
Hmm. If that is really the case then I should have been offering my services to them 10 years ago, when I was working with designs for carefully-lifed, impact- and fatigue-resistant, lightweight carbon components for aircraft engines. IMHO it isn't very difficult to do that now, and pretty easy to do the QC and associated NDT to ensure good correlation with theory and numerical analysis (although the numerical analysis hasn't always worked well if you accept the FE software vendor's default element types...).Unlike F1 cars, the conditions found in the average aircraft engine are rather "nastier", the weight restrictions just as critical, but the regulatory and PR constraints are such that, to coin a phrase, "failure is not an option".
skwdenyer said:
Unlike F1 cars, the conditions found in the average aircraft engine are rather "nastier", the weight restrictions just as critical, but the regulatory and PR constraints are such that, to coin a phrase, "failure is not an option".
You clearly haven't worked in F1 then. Load conditions on a race track are very unpredictable and cannot be simulated accurately. It's only from gathering years of track data using fully strain gauged suspension components on all kinds of circuits that teams have built up enough knowledge to design for the relevant load cases. Shock loads and vibration are horrendous in F1, much worse than those faced by the aircraft industry. Plus QC in F1 has only just started to match that of the aircraft industry, due largely to time constraints.uktrailmonster said:
skwdenyer said:
Unlike F1 cars, the conditions found in the average aircraft engine are rather "nastier", the weight restrictions just as critical, but the regulatory and PR constraints are such that, to coin a phrase, "failure is not an option".
You clearly haven't worked in F1 then. Load conditions on a race track are very unpredictable and cannot be simulated accurately. It's only from gathering years of track data using fully strain gauged suspension components on all kinds of circuits that teams have built up enough knowledge to design for the relevant load cases. Shock loads and vibration are horrendous in F1, much worse than those faced by the aircraft industry. Plus QC in F1 has only just started to match that of the aircraft industry, due largely to time constraints.It is also worth remembering that a lof of aircraft engine component design is to do with abnormal loading conditions. For instance, fan blades have to cope with FOD (foreign object damage - gravel, bird or even rabbit strikes). The rest of the engine has to be able to cope with a multiple blade-off event following such FOD resulting in massive out-of-balance loads, associated vibration, and so on. Therefore a great deal of time is spent designing components to withstand (for a long time) static and dynamic loading conditions which may in reality never be experienced and which are completely unpredicatble and hard (if not impossible) to model properly.
As to the data side of things, of course, just as in the aircraft engine business, experience (and the data that goes along with it) are invaluable. However it is also true to say that, even 10 years ago, suspension failures due to non-impact conditions were already pretty rare. It follows that the teams had at least sufficient data even then to make sensible predictions as to the strength required of their suspension components. Given that data (or even just "this steel one works; make it in CFRP"
, my point was that it was quite possible technically to do that with excellent QC.As to the time constraints, I do understand that. However since I know that the aircraft engine manufacturer in my past undertook composite work (notably machining of tubs) for at least one top-tier F1 team, the knowledge and input was available a decade ago to do this.
Anyhow, all of this is slighly moot. Were I to be designing an F1 car I believe I would try to ensure that the vehicle could withstand some impact loading. I believe that would be easier to achieve with CFRP, a mature and "time-served" set of technologies. And I believe it would provide a competitive advantage - as the old saying goes "to finish first, first you must finish".
skwdenyer said:
However it is also true to say that, even 10 years ago, suspension failures due to non-impact conditions were already pretty rare. It follows that the teams had at least sufficient data even then to make sensible predictions as to the strength required of their suspension components. Given that data (or even just "this steel one works; make it in CFRP", my point was that it was quite possible technically to do that with excellent QC.
Anyhow, all of this is slighly moot. Were I to be designing an F1 car I believe I would try to ensure that the vehicle could withstand some impact loading. I believe that would be easier to achieve with CFRP, a mature and "time-served" set of technologies. And I believe it would provide a competitive advantage - as the old saying goes "to finish first, first you must finish".
Suspension failures were not particularly rare 10 years ago. I speak from personal experience here. Most unexpected failures were due to failure of bonded joints and, in rarer cases, underestimatation of the load conditions. Thankfully, things have improved greatly over the last decade and such failures are now very rare. But I don't think it's the technology that's moved forward, it's more that the teams have developed better QC and rig testing procedures. As you say, it was technically possible 10 years ago, but F1 teams were/are more "hairy arsed" than most people imagine., my point was that it was quite possible technically to do that with excellent QC.Anyhow, all of this is slighly moot. Were I to be designing an F1 car I believe I would try to ensure that the vehicle could withstand some impact loading. I believe that would be easier to achieve with CFRP, a mature and "time-served" set of technologies. And I believe it would provide a competitive advantage - as the old saying goes "to finish first, first you must finish".
If you were designing an F1 car today, you would be under enormous pressure to produce the lightest, stiffest, most aerodynamic structure imaginable in a ridiculously short time scale. It's easy to design a car 3 seconds off the pace, but the competition at the front of the grid is pretty intense. If you think you could do better, get in there and make yourself a fortune.
uktrailmonster said:
If you were designing an F1 car today, you would be under enormous pressure to produce the lightest, stiffest, most aerodynamic structure imaginable in a ridiculously short time scale. It's easy to design a car 3 seconds off the pace, but the competition at the front of the grid is pretty intense. If you think you could do better, get in there and make yourself a fortune.
Fair point and I certainly wasn't saying I could do that. Hindsight is very interesting, and I definitely found it illuminating to think of what I was doing 10 years ago vs what the F1 teams were doing.However my skills in that field haven't moved on in 10 years as I've been working on other projects, whereas of course theres have been!
Also in fairness is there really "a fortune" to be made as an engineer / designer in F1? I did consider it 10 years ago and the wages were, frankly, not very good compared to what else I could earn at the time...
skwdenyer said:
uktrailmonster said:
If you were designing an F1 car today, you would be under enormous pressure to produce the lightest, stiffest, most aerodynamic structure imaginable in a ridiculously short time scale. It's easy to design a car 3 seconds off the pace, but the competition at the front of the grid is pretty intense. If you think you could do better, get in there and make yourself a fortune.
Fair point and I certainly wasn't saying I could do that. Hindsight is very interesting, and I definitely found it illuminating to think of what I was doing 10 years ago vs what the F1 teams were doing.However my skills in that field haven't moved on in 10 years as I've been working on other projects, whereas of course theres have been!
Also in fairness is there really "a fortune" to be made as an engineer / designer in F1? I did consider it 10 years ago and the wages were, frankly, not very good compared to what else I could earn at the time...
runway78 said:
skwdenyer said:
uktrailmonster said:
If you were designing an F1 car today, you would be under enormous pressure to produce the lightest, stiffest, most aerodynamic structure imaginable in a ridiculously short time scale. It's easy to design a car 3 seconds off the pace, but the competition at the front of the grid is pretty intense. If you think you could do better, get in there and make yourself a fortune.
Fair point and I certainly wasn't saying I could do that. Hindsight is very interesting, and I definitely found it illuminating to think of what I was doing 10 years ago vs what the F1 teams were doing.However my skills in that field haven't moved on in 10 years as I've been working on other projects, whereas of course theres have been!
Also in fairness is there really "a fortune" to be made as an engineer / designer in F1? I did consider it 10 years ago and the wages were, frankly, not very good compared to what else I could earn at the time...
skwdenyer said:
Also in fairness is there really "a fortune" to be made as an engineer / designer in F1? I did consider it 10 years ago and the wages were, frankly, not very good compared to what else I could earn at the time...
There are no rules when it comes to pay in F1. You get what you can negotiate based on your experience and past history. There are engineers in F1 earning anything between £20K and a few million. But I'd say an average senior engineer with plenty of experience can make around £100K. Not city boy salaries, but pretty good by engineering standards. Well as a follow up to the questioned posed here, I must say I'm most surprised but just how good the McLarens were in Monza.
Alfonso was right on the sweet spot and Hamilton driving with so much confidence and aggression.
I'd love to read the two chassis readouts for the two McLarens for the race though. Hamilton doesn't have quite the on the edge confidence and commitment seemingly in the middle of the race.
Alonso is absolutely peerless at the moment.
Do you suppose Hamilton will not be completely distraught at not winning the championship; he must see how Alonso's experience (as much as anything else) has the tiniest edge?
Alfonso was right on the sweet spot and Hamilton driving with so much confidence and aggression.
I'd love to read the two chassis readouts for the two McLarens for the race though. Hamilton doesn't have quite the on the edge confidence and commitment seemingly in the middle of the race.
Alonso is absolutely peerless at the moment.
Do you suppose Hamilton will not be completely distraught at not winning the championship; he must see how Alonso's experience (as much as anything else) has the tiniest edge?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff