McLaren struggling a bit and Ferrari being completely boring this test season is why this has happened

Wait until Massa or Kimi struggle a bit or make a mistake or two then we'll see!

Hahaha, but with the Mp4/24 being a bit of a crap car, this thread will go past 15,000 posts with bashers saying that Lewis is shi*** material as he could only win on a good car.

And maybe there'll be some other 10,000+ tests saying how good MS was if Rubens starts the season on a dominating fashion.

:p:p

As a McLaren fan, and a fan of racing, I'm looking forward to seeing Lewis in a mid-field car. With his swagger, and that big #1 on the car, we may seem some dogfights from this guy.

Unfortunately, by mid-year, the McLaren engineers will probably have him more towards the front, and in clean air... oh welll ;)

Get real. I'm a macca fan and the way the car has performed during pre-season, we'll be lucky to get both cars out of Q1 and this includes the Jerez updates, because we were that far behind. We will only be upper midfield and possibly challenging for a podium or 2, come the European races. We have at least 4 to 6 races of development catch up, to be competitive with the front runners.

This is the time when McLaren's development tools really come to the fore. Are they as good as everybody says? This is the season we'll find out.

Their rate of development already has been phenomenal - just look at the changes that happened to the car - so we know they have it in them, it's just whether or not they can correlate the figures that matters.

Fingers crossed they can.

To completely solve the problems, it will probably be required to completely redesign the sidepods/cooling system/KERS (to allow better airflow toward the rear of the car). Possibly, dropping the latter completely, or at least greatly reduce the number of batteries (or go to a flywheel system a la Williams). I suspect KERS is responsible for a lot of MP4/24 problems.

Thats quite good think when unless you're working for McLaren you don't know exactly what the problems are

Mclaren has a car like honda last year.Many useless Things that arent working.

They should concentrate on 2010 and give up 2009.

Click - welcome to another ignore list

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...320170102.shtml

Looks like they don't even know if they will make it in to Q2.

I reckon its actually a problem similar to Renaults in 2007.

New tyre profiles have screwed up the aerodynamics as they haven't got the dynamic tyre deformations right.


It took Renault a long time to find a solution....

Mclaren have got a massive tyre modelling programme that actually meant they were competitive in 2007 because they were able to allow for the change in tyre. I think that this isn't the problem for the MP4-24.

How good a source do you have for that?

It was a common topic on the major F1 websites a few weeks ago.

Ahh, reading about it now...

A few points.


1. I read that as contact patch and similar mechanical performance modelling - not aerodynamic. If McLaren used it to adapt their 2007 car aerodynamically, then that would be news to many in F1... Pat Symonds had previously inferred McLaren's 2007 performance was a fluke. They stuck the new (Bridgestone) tyres on, and instantly went faster without knowing why. Everyone was aware of how close Renault were to Michelin - that of course would mean they would not be lacking in tyre modelling abilities either (remember the OCP suspension?).


2. Its modelling. When a large variable (like say... going from grooves to slicks) occurs, many of your algorithms used to build the model go out the window. More importantly, you have to recalibrate the thing - that requires data - as is indicated, the software was apparently 10 years in the making - you don't rejig that overnight. Also, as anyone that works in numerical modelling knows, the more complex the model... the more things can go horribly wrong when its outside its design condition (as is the case here for slicks).




For now, I'll stand by my opinion that the McLaren's problems lie in how the tyres are affecting the aerodynamics. Which would go a long way to explaining why the CFD and windtunnel were not showing alarming discrepancies before hitting the track - the boundary conditions were based on the same incorrect tyre deformations.

Mark Hughes wrote a major article on this in March 5th magazine. He said, and I quote:
"Mclaren understood this [the fact that CFD modelling for tyres is important - DT] a long time ago. Back in the late 1990s, it decided it wanted to know more about the mechanisms driving tyre behaviour, rather than just accepting the hard info provided by the tyre company... Mclaren contacted the professor [Hans Batiaan Packejka, leading tyre modeller at University of Technology in Holland - DT] to develop an F1 tyre-modelling programme for the sole use of the team. They worked together for some years and the team built up a very sophisticated understanding of how the dynamic forces acting upon the tyre and how they affected its performance. Once this had been achieved, it [Mclaren] began to investigate the aerodynamic implications of what the tyre was doing. This was at a time when most other teams didn't even know what the tyre's shape was doing, let alone the airflow... Renault, without this technology, developed much of its aero configuration around the previous tyre, not fully appreciating the the impact of the change, and then not knowing how to correct it. The indications are that this year's change to slick tyres has been nothing like as big a change as that from Michelin to Bridgestone, so Mclaren's tyre-modelling expertise will probably not pay such spectacular benefits this time around."

I think Mark Hughes has some pretty good sources, so I think he is right.

The tyre dimensions haven't changed AFAIK. Though McLaren were testing this aspect with that birdcage behind the front tyre during the straight line test.

I personally think the design compromises (aero) to accomodate KERS (which works fine) is to blame.

The thin and tall sidepod solution doesnt work. Specifically the tub tapering back to the centreline is too aggressive causing the airflow to detach, resulting in an UNefficient diffuser due to lack of airflow.

Just a hunch ofc.

His/hers world is crushed now i reckon ;) I dont believe anything that Mclaren are saying.This is just a PR crap that if/when Lewis runs near the top we all should look it as miracle.Same as 96-99 Ferrari driven by MS all we heard was that Ferrari were inferior to Mclaren/Williams,so wins by them seemed as a miracle.Good damn im cynical

Thank you for that, it is good info.



I'll still not be surprised if 6-12 months down the line we hear them explain how their tyre models were out - its what happens when you pull a numerical model from its comfort zone. Its a very strong possibility that's what knocked both their CFD and windtunnel models off track.

Put it like this - there was no other significant change that affects aerodynamic boundary conditions - what else could have caused both the CFD stuff and the windtunnel tests to go awry?

Except that this was totally true. In '96 the car was damn shitty - not speed wise but reliability wise. Magny Cours in that year is only one good of a bunch of examples. In '97 it got better, but even there it was the short time of influence that Brawn and Byrne had in the pre-season, to make an average car out of the deeply flawed car that barnard had designed. In '98 the MP4-13 was worlds apart from the beginning. It's been one of the most dominant cars in the 90ies. Even the ban on several innovative ideas sporting that car didn't really change that. It only lowered the gap. '99 was the first year they could've won the WC by not relying on the others making mistakes. But Schumachers accident prevented that.

What about hacks implemented in the measurement and calculation of previous aerodynamic model not applicable anymore to new aero rules?

These things happen when you get cocky with computers.

Are you insinuating that McLaren got cocky with their computers or is that just a rhetorical statement?

IF it is directed at McLaren please provide a source of this accusation (and don't just say MP4/24) provide proof that you have that they became cocky.

It's Madras, don't expect him to say anything contructive as far as McLaren is concerned.

Perhaps they had too much faith in their simulators, but I wouldn't say cocky at all, that's only going to cause trouble..

I reckon Mclaren are sandbagging big time and will wait till the last possible moment to show the true pace of the car. java script:smilie('')

All this talk of the car not being able to perform is all media hype. All Mclaren fans keep the faith....java script:smilie('')java script:smilie('')java script:smilie('')

hahahahahaha

Funny, cuz I remember before winter testing started, Hughes was talking about how Mclaren's tire simulator was going to give them a huge advantage.

I like Hughes, but I think this is all just speculation to reconcile the old article with the new one so he can keep on thinking he wasn't wrong.

I read about that "tire modelling" stuff as well in Autosport and it all sounds advanced etc.

However, as somebody already pointed out, when it comes to all sorts of simulations, models which are accurate in one sort of scenario doesn't neccessarily stay accurate and represent the reality as well if you throw in totally new parameters - like the new tires for instance. In previous years with more or less stable rules I can imagine there's been more of an extremely high level of detailed fine-tuning, but now there's a totally different situation.

I'm pretty sure they'll get there sooner or later anyway, but these rule changes might perhaps create a scenario where most teams have had to start more or less from scratch, regardless of how heavily they've relied on simulations and the likes before. Just speculating though.

I think McLaren were just too focused on 2008.

We still have a long way to match the consistency of ferrari,the aero department need a big shake up,with all the cost cutting going on in f1 Mercedes should heavily fund the poaching of top aero staff, I have absolutely no faith in Tim Goss, Pat Fry always has to clean up his mess mid season.

?

Tim Goss was the chief engineer for the first title winning McLaren in nearly 10 years. I don't think people that criticise him even really know what his job entails.

Isn't fry the responsible for this one ?

That too.

Who is the main person that is "hands on deck" so to speak in conceptualising the car (aero)?

Not Pat Fry or Tim Goss - I just see them as "Project Managers" for the car, but doesn't contribute to its theoretical basis.

If the faults are down to aero as we think, I think Simon Lacey is the highest ranked manager that is hands-on with the car? And after that probably Patrick Lowe a step above him.

Please, lets see it run in anger in Melbourne for the first time before we start asking for peoples heads.

It'll need a few more races than that. Even a car capable of dominating races can do poorly initially, look at the MP4-20. Obviously I'm not expecting that kind of performance this year, but the point remains.

Well we don't know what went wrong. Whether it's the tools like the cfd/simluator/windtunnel, or a single mistake in the concept, or bad execution of some kind.

Nor do we know how bad it is. There are more new parts for Melbourne, and if the double-decker diffusers are banned then 3 teams could suddenly be behind not in front. And even 5th fastest car in a close field can still win.

So any finger-pointing is way premature.

Indeed. And I believe just finishing the first race will give you the chance of great points - McLaren seem to have had good reliability, so let's hope they can pick up a decent haul.

yep

Can't we just ask for Ron Dennis head no matter what?

Seconded. We don't know anything until Melbourne.


Some McLaren fans are so ungrateful - looking to lay blame and chastise designers when last year those same designers and McLaren employees gave the fans the WDC they had been waiting so long for.


All teams make bad cars from time to time - it's nothing to get really upset about and according to Ecclestone the team may well be sandbagging so just wait people.

Ecclestone claims McLaren is sandbagging

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gilles4Ever
Ecclestone claims McLaren is sandbagging [/QUOTE

i don´t think so

"Let's put it this way, there's been no need for them to show that they're quick."

No, but there's also no need for them to try and convince the world that they're slow, either. Unless I've missed something?

I'd be surprised to see McLaren competing for the win in Melbourne but doubt things are quite as bad as they've been saying lately (last third and all...). They're just playing down the expectations so that once Lewis finishes third or whatever it will be seen as something positive rather than a failure.

That's right, but I don't remember the pr stuff so negative before a start of the season... At beginning of testing they said there are no problems despite their weird testing methods. And as their times improved significantly suddenly there were problems. I wait until sunday...

The hairstyle is different, but the ticket-selling technique is just like Don King's.
"This is NOT a foregone conclusion - you MUST watch this fight/race."

These are not statements of fact or expert opinions.
Its just Bernie's usual hucksterism - he's 'talking up' the show.
Thats all.




But it WILL be very interesting to see how the field shakes out.

He also claimed he had the support of the teams for his preposterous medals idea which he rebadged 'winner takes all'.

The guy is off his fricken rocker.

As a PS to the Ecclestone interview, did anyone else spot Sherlock Holmes' "dog that didn't bark"?

Bernie somehow avoided any mention of the championship FIAsco.

It can only have been an interview conducted previously.
But how long ago?

He had, FIA said teams were supporting similar idea, therefore it must be true.

What a farce

In testing probably not, but in their Preview they are sandbagging a bit.