Signs Mclaren are scrapping 2009?

[RJB_666]

Just could be me imagining things here but anyway i'll throw it out there.

1- Mclaren have ran KERS for every race this season. No other team has ran it at every race. Therefore when all teams must run it at every race next season (If that rule still stands then) Mclaren will have all the data that the other teams won't have.

2- On a similar note, Lewis was fuelled pretty much to the brim on sunday. Perhaps testing what the cars like heavy. Gaining data on how the car is fully fuelled again for next seasons rules.

So am i the only one thinking Mclaren are testing for next year?

[Fire99]

RJB_666 said:

Just could be me imagining things here but anyway i'll throw it out there.

1- Mclaren have ran KERS for every race this season. No other team has ran it at every race. Therefore when all teams must run it at every race next season (If that rule still stands then) Mclaren will have all the data that the other teams won't have.

2- On a similar note, Lewis was fuelled pretty much to the brim on sunday. Perhaps testing what the cars like heavy. Gaining data on how the car is fully fuelled again for next seasons rules.

So am i the only one thinking Mclaren are testing for next year?

Well it seems FOTA are all agreed on scrapping KERS next year (no doubt dependent on the FIA's agreement) so i'd be surprised if this is the case.

IMO McLaren run KERS at every race as the car is so edgy round the bends, it needs KERS to gain any kind of advantage it can on the straights.

Heavy fuelling is purely down to poor qualifying and the 3 stop short stints didn't work too amazingly well.

[RJB_666]

Fire99 said:

RJB_666 said:

Just could be me imagining things here but anyway i'll throw it out there.

1- Mclaren have ran KERS for every race this season. No other team has ran it at every race. Therefore when all teams must run it at every race next season (If that rule still stands then) Mclaren will have all the data that the other teams won't have.

2- On a similar note, Lewis was fuelled pretty much to the brim on sunday. Perhaps testing what the cars like heavy. Gaining data on how the car is fully fuelled again for next seasons rules.

So am i the only one thinking Mclaren are testing for next year?

Well it seems FOTA are all agreed on scrapping KERS next year (no doubt dependent on the FIA's agreement) so i'd be surprised if this is the case.

IMO McLaren run KERS at every race as the car is so edgy round the bends, it needs KERS to gain any kind of advantage it can on the straights.

Heavy fuelling is purely down to poor qualifying and the 3 stop short stints didn't work too amazingly well.

You could pass it off at that, but i would have expected them to have fueled Lewis light to begin with the softer of the two tyres to gain some places at the beginning and then fuel till the end of the race on the harder compound. Like i say it was just a thought as the data they will be collecting would seem to favour next years rules.

[Fire99]

RJB_666 said:

Like i say it was just a thought as the data they will be collecting would seem to favour next years rules.

Hey, you could be right. I'm guessing too. I'm just not certain that, cause next years rules are sketchy at best, it's going to be difficult to get good data.

But on the other hand.......

[Silver Pellet]

Absolutely. Fuelling him that heavy forced him to spend a huge proportion of the race on the non-prime tyre which, given the track temperature, was distinctly suboptimal.

Looking at his demeanour, I can't help but feel that the remains of the 2009 season has been written off as an extended test session. The pressure seems to have been lifted and I genuinely think McLaren are 'doing a Honda' insofar as all their resource is now being devoted to getting the drop on the opposition with the 2010 car.

[FourWheelDrift]

Fuelling heavy is the norm for lower grid positions and it did enable him to finish ahead of his team mate who was much further up the front at the beginning of the race with lighter fuel and 2 stopping.

[John D.]

RJB_666 said:

Just could be me imagining things here but anyway i'll throw it out there.

1- Mclaren have ran KERS for every race this season. No other team has ran it at every race. Therefore when all teams must run it at every race next season (If that rule still stands then) Mclaren will have all the data that the other teams won't have.

2- On a similar note, Lewis was fuelled pretty much to the brim on sunday. Perhaps testing what the cars like heavy. Gaining data on how the car is fully fuelled again for next seasons rules.

So am i the only one thinking Mclaren are testing for next year?

Maybe. But I'm inclined to think that:

1- Thats so at least they can be quick on the straight.

2- Because the car is a complete dog and they don't have much to lose.

[flemke]

John D. said:

2- Because the car is a complete dog and they don't have much to lose.

Your point is quite right, although I don't think we know what their car would be like if it had not been designed around KERS from the beginning.

[35secToNuvolari]

RJB_666 said:

Just could be me imagining things here but anyway i'll throw it out there.

1- Mclaren have ran KERS for every race this season. No other team has ran it at every race. Therefore when all teams must run it at every race next season (If that rule still stands then) Mclaren will have all the data that the other teams won't have.

2- On a similar note, Lewis was fuelled pretty much to the brim on sunday. Perhaps testing what the cars like heavy. Gaining data on how the car is fully fuelled again for next seasons rules.

So am i the only one thinking Mclaren are testing for next year?

There's still the attraction of finishing high in the standings to earn as much money as possible. And there's also the attraction of trying to finish ahead of Ferrari or stay ahead of Renault, BMW, and Williams.

The last time they were in big trouble, '04, they didn't give up and won at SPA. Even with the continued effort during that year they still had a cracking '05.

[stifler]

FourWheelDrift said:

Fuelling heavy is the norm for lower grid positions and it did enable him to finish ahead of his team mate who was much further up the front at the beginning of the race with lighter fuel and 2 stopping.

it is all about getting out of sync with the people on track around you so you can jump them at the pitstops. A three stopper will only work if you have the pace to put qually laps in for every lap in the race. A two stopper is probably optimal for most tracks, but most people will be doing it. A one stopper means you have to cope with the same set of tyres for a much longer stint, and you have to deal with a heavier car. But you will be saving up to 28 seconds per pitstop you don't do.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

John D. said:

2- Because the car is a complete dog and they don't have much to lose.

Your point is quite right, although I don't think we know what their car would be like if it had not been designed around KERS from the beginning.

Maybe, if you mean, 'we don't know how fast their car would've been without the KERS distraction this year.' But that goes for every team then.

In the context of the existing season, the amount of attention they gave to KERS was based on their own anlaysis. If they allocated too many resources to it then they made the wrong compromise.

[GTO Scott]

stifler said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Fuelling heavy is the norm for lower grid positions and it did enable him to finish ahead of his team mate who was much further up the front at the beginning of the race with lighter fuel and 2 stopping.

it is all about getting out of sync with the people on track around you so you can jump them at the pitstops. A three stopper will only work if you have the pace to put qually laps in for every lap in the race. A two stopper is probably optimal for most tracks, but most people will be doing it. A one stopper means you have to cope with the same set of tyres for a much longer stint, and you have to deal with a heavier car. But you will be saving up to 28 seconds per pitstop you don't do.

But then you'd have to make sure you were no more than a second off the pace per lap to just be level with the slower two-stoppers in a 60ish lap race. If you could be only half a second off the pace of the leading three cars and still be on a one-stop strategy then maybe it would work - though the only car that is even close to being able to achieve that is the one currently leading the field.

I can see the argument for McLaren using the rest of '09 as extended testing - it would make a lot of sense.

[flemke]

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

John D. said:

2- Because the car is a complete dog and they don't have much to lose.

Your point is quite right, although I don't think we know what their car would be like if it had not been designed around KERS from the beginning.

Maybe, if you mean, 'we don't know how fast their car would've been without the KERS distraction this year.' But that goes for every team then.

In the context of the existing season, the amount of attention they gave to KERS was based on their own anlaysis. If they allocated too many resources to it then they made the wrong compromise.

Sure, they may have made the wrong choice. They obviously have made at least one very wrong choice, or quite a few smaller wrong choices, or both.
Sure, it is also true that we don't know what the other cars would be like without the KERS distraction. That does not mean, however, that all the designs have been affected equally. My comment was only to the effect that, although McLaren seem to have been relying on KERS to ameliorate some of their car's poor pace, it may be that the underlying cause of that poor pace was the original commitment to KERS, and how McLaren in specific chose to accomodate it.

Not about KERS, but relating to the thread, Gary Anderson had an interesting observation a few weeks ago about the McLaren. To paraphrase (and IIRC), the McLaren's upper front wishbones appear to be at a much steeper angle than those on other cars. Under a lot of front DF (such as in the high-speed bends where the McLaren is at its worst), as the chassis goes down, the steepness of the angle of the wishbones causes a greater change in front track, and more erratic ride height, than would occur if the WBs were more horizontal when static, as they are on the other cars.

[AlexS]

Silver Pellet said:

Absolutely. Fuelling him that heavy forced him to spend a huge proportion of the race on the non-prime tyre which, given the track temperature, was distinctly suboptimal.

Looking at his demeanour, I can't help but feel that the remains of the 2009 season has been written off as an extended test session. The pressure seems to have been lifted and I genuinely think McLaren are 'doing a Honda' insofar as all their resource is now being devoted to getting the drop on the opposition with the 2010 car.

Next years rules haven't been finalised yet, so there isn't a huge amount of work that can be done on next years car yet.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

Not about KERS, but relating to the thread, Gary Anderson had an interesting observation a few weeks ago about the McLaren. To paraphrase (and IIRC), the McLaren's upper front wishbones appear to be at a much steeper angle than those on other cars. Under a lot of front DF (such as in the high-speed bends where the McLaren is at its worst), as the chassis goes down, the steepness of the angle of the wishbones causes a greater change in front track, and more erratic ride height, than would occur if the WBs were more horizontal when static, as they are on the other cars.

Ineresting. I'm not sure what they said on the BBC, but the commentators for the US coverage mentioned, a couple of times, how stiffly sprung the Mclaren looked. Who knows the accuracy with which one can ascertain spring stiffness from video, but I wonder if the two observations are linked, and Mclaren are using stiffer springs to control wishbone movement and limit the negative side effects of the design.

[Le TVR]

flemke said:

McLaren's upper front wishbones appear to be at a much steeper angle than those on other cars. Under a lot of front DF (such as in the high-speed bends where the McLaren is at its worst), as the chassis goes down, the steepness of the angle of the wishbones causes a greater change in front track, and more erratic ride height, than would occur if the WBs were more horizontal when static, as they are on the other cars.

Interesting comment. I had the impression that the McLarens looked very stiff at the front? Almost like they were oversprung, maybe to keep the ride height constant at the expense of optimum handling?
I remember something about wing vortices moving inboard as ride height reduced below a certain % of wing chord. If the ride height moved too far at high speed then the vortices could be arriving in less than optimal positions on the body and causing drag etc...

[FNG]

Interesting comments.

More inclined upper wishbones will add more camber for any given suspension compression, but have little effect on track. And track change is a lot less critical to the handling than camber change.

Running very stiff springs can be a last resort to reduce the suspension travel in order to minimise unwanted geometry changes. i.e. if the suspension is doing nasty things to the camber of the wheel or the location of the roll centre, run stiff to minimise the level of nastiness. This opens another can of worms obviously.

I'm no expert in F1 chassis tubs but believe the front suspension mounts are designed into the tub and are very hard to relocate without affecting the entire structure (and the orientation of the carbon cloth weave etc) so can understand it needing a second iteration of the car to resolve.

However, if they're running stiff front ends to get around this problem they must know the issue, and you'd think would be doing that redesign - the work to develop a new tub must be meat and drink to the composites team.

But would relocated upper wishbones affect the aero enough to warrant a complete carve-up of the upper body? That'd be another matter.

[RB Will]

If I recall correctly during the race on Sunday I think it was Brundle who said it seems like there is an iron girder across the front of Kovi's car as it keeps lifting the inside front in corners.

[thegobetween]

Interesting comments re the car design / suspension.

Slightly OT, has McL's downturn in performance something to do with internal resource structure with the road car program? Developing 3 cars in different stages of development would be massive for a large(r) organisation - I wonder if resources have been re-allocated?

Didn't something similar happen when the Technology Center was being built?