Jump to content


Photo

Lewis Hamilton and car development


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Kevin Thomas

Kevin Thomas
  • Member

  • 63 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 17:39

The commentators in the US made an interesting comment on driver car development. Noting Renault's improved form and McLaren's struggles in Spain. They speculate that McLaren could be missing Alosno's development skills. This could explain better Alonso's wanting to leave McLaren after only one year if he did all the development work in 2007 but McLaren backed Hamilton for the championship.
I could better see why he would find that situation untenable.

Advertisement

#2 Ivan

Ivan
  • Member

  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 27 April 2008 - 17:48

I hoped you watch the race with your eyes wide open and not your ears...The real difference was the fuel. Renault ran Alonso light by two laps as soon as he pitted Lewis was in the wind. After Alonso pitted he couldn't catch the car that was in front of him.

#3 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 27 April 2008 - 17:48

If that's true then the majority of F1 engineers are a waste of space.

#4 archstanton

archstanton
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 17:57

designers design cars and drivers drive cars, the clue is in the respective titles.

all this car developing genius driver nonsense that seems so fashionable of late, doubtful.
if they can reliably and fairly accurately give the engineers a rough idea of the grip during a lap, then that's their job pretty much done ... they don't develop anything, they drive what they are given.

#5 WOOT

WOOT
  • Member

  • 429 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 17:58

because alonso designed and developed the j-dampers and the engine cover that is the main cause of performance jump. :rolleyes: he was nowhere in the last 3 races.

#6 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:01

WOOHOO! SUxxorz! Another bashing thread :down: Why cant mods delete these threads before they catch wind :(

#7 blackgerby

blackgerby
  • Member

  • 534 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:08

why do teams run three wind tunnel programmes and supercomputer CFDs when all they need to do is ask their drivers? :rolleyes:

#8 Ligier26

Ligier26
  • Member

  • 256 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:12

Right now - and certainly last season - I think Alonso probably is better at car development than Hamilton. It's a function of experience, as much as anything else.

That said, and although I have no way of prove it, my gut instinct is that Alonso isn't quite as pre-eminent at this as he and his fans think - and certainly not to the tune of '0.6 secs'! To read some of the comments here, anyone would think that McLaren was a back of the grid minnow before Alonso arrived and showed them how to do it, rather than a team that had already won 148 grands prix and 19 world titles.

Furthermore, in the ultra-sophisticated engineering world of modern F1, I wonder how much real impact on car development any driver can have - technical breakthroughs are made by aerodynamicists and other engineers, evaluated in the windtunnel or test-bed, and finally verified on track by the drivers (not to say that accurate feedback and consistent driving aren't undoubtedly beneficial).

If Renault have made a step forward, which it looks like they have, I suspect that the same factors are at work. They had a new aero package for Spain, just like most other teams, and they got their sums right (or at least they did a better job than their 'best of the rest' rivals). I'm pretty sure that Alonso didn't come up with the idea of copying Newey's shark fin, for example!

I certainly think the suggestion that he left McLaren because he couldn't stand seeing his rookie team-mate benefiting from his development skills is a gross over-simplification. That particular soap opera has been discussed ad nauseum and there were many factors involved.

#9 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,958 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:16

ITV made an interesting observation yesterday which caught my attention. McLaren have been struggling with brakes apparently.. Hamilton locking up a lot and also the car braking on three wheels rather than all four.

ITV then pointed out that brakes were one of the systems that were found to possibly incorporate Ferrari technology and one of the areas McLaren promised to not develop. They speculated that although McLaren had a strong showing at Australia.. they may actually be suffering from having to redevelop those parts of the car.

Interesting. Not much has been said about McLaren suffering from those FIA measures but it does make sense.

#10 Digitaldrug

Digitaldrug
  • Member

  • 287 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:19

Originally posted by blackgerby
why do teams run three wind tunnel programmes and supercomputer CFDs when all they need to do is ask their drivers? :rolleyes:


Nobody is saying its all down to the drivers, but they have a strong influence. Planet f1 summed it up well.

Maybe McLaren Are Missing What Revived Renault Now Have
The follow-up to Renault's sudden revival - Fernando Alonso's stunning lap in qualifying was one of the few aspects of the weekend that wasn't publicly deceptive given that the team admitted he was light and Felipe Massa pitted only two laps later than the former World Champion - must be the contemplation that it is a vindication of the Spaniard's claim that he brought sixth-tenths to McLaren in 2007. Which, by neat coincidence, is the margin that McLaren, now sans Fernando, are trailing Ferrari by in 2008.


The fear before the season was that armed with two drivers boasting two years of F1 experience between them, McLaren lacked the required wherewithal, technical feedback and leadership to keep improving their car in order to keep pace with Ferrari's monotonous development. At the quarter stage of the season, McLaren have produced nothing to alter that view (or, it could be said, their car).


The Alonso '6 tenths' joke has been very popular for a while but its exactly what Renault have found since their upgrade. Its no longer a joke. Its now the Alonso Theorem.

#11 WOOT

WOOT
  • Member

  • 429 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:21

Originally posted by Digitaldrug


Nobody is saying its all down to the drivers, but they have a strong influence. Planet f1 summed it up well.



The Alonso '6 tenths' joke has been very popular for a while but its exactly what Renault have found since their upgrade. Its no longer a joke. Its now the Alonso Theorem.


And yet Alonso failed to develop the reliability of Renault engines. Perhaps he should spend more time in the engine design room than aero next time. Perhaps look at the camshaft designs and see if can do anything to improve the torque curve.

#12 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:21

Originally posted by Digitaldrug

The Alonso '6 tenths' joke has been very popular for a while but its exactly what Renault have found since their upgrade. Its no longer a joke. Its now the Alonso Theorem.

all the teams found a lot of time since day one of the season. renault found more because they were really nowhere

#13 Ligier26

Ligier26
  • Member

  • 256 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:30

Originally posted by Digitaldrug

The Alonso '6 tenths' joke has been very popular for a while but its exactly what Renault have found since their upgrade. Its no longer a joke. Its now the Alonso Theorem.


Didn't he do any work over the winter then? Or should we now be talking about 1.2 secs - 0.6 before the season started and another 0.6 after four races? At this rate he should lap everyone in Brazil (and give his new rookie team-mate a second place finish on home turf).

#14 MrAerodynamicist

MrAerodynamicist
  • Member

  • 13,712 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:36

Originally posted by blackgerby
why do teams run three wind tunnel programmes and supercomputer CFDs when all they need to do is ask their drivers? :rolleyes:

It's fairly common for teams to talk about promising updates they're testing in wind tunnels, only to then find they don't actually work particularly well when actually bolted on to a car. During his post-race interview on ITV today, Button alluded to Honda's recent history of problems in that area. There's no guarantees until you actually try driving something. After all, if wind tunnel programmes and CFD runs were all you needed, why do the teams still crave testing so much?

So, testing is important, and given the driver drives it, they are by implication a factor. One reason is this: consider a scenario where you need to know if configuration A or B is better. In parallel universe 1, you have Michael Schumacher driving. Schumacher was famed for his consistancy, to always hit the same point, and knock out uniform lap times. Now, if he goes and sets better times using car configuration B, you can be fairly sure that configuration B is the better one. In parallel universe 2, the team has Taki Inoue doing the driving. Now when he sets a better time in configuration B, is it because configuration B is better or just that he happened to drive those laps better? Worse case scenario, the team wasting time going down the wrong route.

The second reason, it that designers design not by random ideas, but by a process of considered evolution. In order to do that, they need information on what works and doesn't work, and hopefully enough information that they can decide why it works/doesn't work. *Information is key*. If you don't have this information, then you might as well just turn off the lights and draw some random shapes on the paper.

Now where does this information come from? The answer is (a) telemetry and (b) the driver. Telemetry might be miles ahead of where is was 40 years ago, but you quite discount the driver yet.

#15 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:38

Originally posted by WOOT
because alonso designed and developed the j-dampers and the engine cover that is the main cause of performance jump. :rolleyes: he was nowhere in the last 3 races.


I think you completely misunderstand the term "setting up the car". Obviously the driver doesn't design parts for the car, but what the driver can do is give a definitive answer on what the setup should be. For example, ride height, wing adjustments etc. An inexperienced driver like Lewis obviously is on the back foot with regards to such things, (which is why he copied Alonso's setup for most races last year).

In addition, a driver who knows the technical details can tell the team that they need more tyre pressure, less wing etc.

McLaren are undoubtably in a worse situation with 2 drivers who only have a seasons experience, as opposed to having a driver who his engineers, (and Ron Dennis BTW), acknowledge as being the best at giving the feedback that can allow them to improve the car.

#16 IOU 16

IOU 16
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:41

Lewis is not a God like some think. He is having a sophmore slump. Other teams have stepped up, causing Lewis to take more risks to remain up front and he is suffering from those risks. Even the best drivers have off years, and maybe this is Lewis' off year? I am not a fan, and Lewis obviously is having a on-off start to the year, but two podiums, one win and 2nd in the championship is not having a bad year.


Same with my Montoya CART quote in the CART thread, Lewis' troubles arise from the car, but not because Fernado is gone. If anything is to blame, it would be the fact that the team has 100 million less dollars to spend on the car.

#17 Johnny Alpha

Johnny Alpha
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:44

Originally posted by Josta
(which is why he copied Alonso's setup for most races last year).

Source???

#18 IOU 16

IOU 16
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:48

I'd like to see the source as well.


2nd in the World Championship! 1 WIN, 2 PODIUMS! In FOUR STARTS only !



Sounds like struggling to me?

#19 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:51

When are people going to realise it's not the 1960's, 70's or 80's anymore?

The drivers simply do not steer development of the car whatsoever now and haven't for a long time.

Setting a car up over the weekend is where the driver has an influence.

Alonso was out of the loop at Mclaren by mid-season last year. He could have had no influence whatsoever on the 2008 Mclaren, yet the car has been raced to one victory and came 3rd today, correct?

Renault's improved form is down the the European season having started today and the top teams (in which I include Renault) being able to use their first car upgrades of the season.

Alonso is no more responsible for the Renault's improved form this weekend than Mark Webber or Jenson Button were for Red Bull and Honda being a little faster than usual.

Advertisement

#20 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 18:55

Originally posted by Digitaldrug


Nobody is saying its all down to the drivers, but they have a strong influence. Planet f1 summed it up well.

Maybe McLaren Are Missing What Revived Renault Now Have
The follow-up to Renault's sudden revival - Fernando Alonso's stunning lap in qualifying was one of the few aspects of the weekend that wasn't publicly deceptive given that the team admitted he was light and Felipe Massa pitted only two laps later than the former World Champion - must be the contemplation that it is a vindication of the Spaniard's claim that he brought sixth-tenths to McLaren in 2007. Which, by neat coincidence, is the margin that McLaren, now sans Fernando, are trailing Ferrari by in 2008.


The fear before the season was that armed with two drivers boasting two years of F1 experience between them, McLaren lacked the required wherewithal, technical feedback and leadership to keep improving their car in order to keep pace with Ferrari's monotonous development. At the quarter stage of the season, McLaren have produced nothing to alter that view (or, it could be said, their car).



The Alonso '6 tenths' joke has been very popular for a while but its exactly what Renault have found since their upgrade. Its no longer a joke. Its now the Alonso Theorem.

First read pRy's post about McLaren needed to redevelop parts of their cars due to Max Mosleys judgement and then read the above quote, remembering that Renault now, for the first race, are using the J-damper that was explained in the McLaren tech documents that Renault had access to.

Then you can add Alonso in the mix. Which ingredient is most important? I can not say, but neither can Planet F1.

#21 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:03

Originally posted by Imperial
When are people going to realise it's not the 1960's, 70's or 80's anymore?

The drivers simply do not steer development of the car whatsoever now and haven't for a long time.

Setting a car up over the weekend is where the driver has an influence.

Alonso was out of the loop at Mclaren by mid-season last year. He could have had no influence whatsoever on the 2008 Mclaren, yet the car has been raced to one victory and came 3rd today, correct?

Renault's improved form is down the the European season having started today and the top teams (in which I include Renault) being able to use their first car upgrades of the season.

Alonso is no more responsible for the Renault's improved form this weekend than Mark Webber or Jenson Button were for Red Bull and Honda being a little faster than usual.


The thing is that once again, disregarding new additions, LEWIS HAMILTON HIMSELF has said that his problems over the last few GP's has been to do with the car not being set up perfectly. Ron said this, Lewis said this, Whitmarsh said this, yet some people can't even come to believe them when they admit it. In his pre race interview Lewis said that all of his problems have been down to not finding the right setup. "A centimetre in ride height can make the difference between 1st and 5th". The McLaren is a great car, and when it is set up properly can win races. When it isn't, it can't.

Two almost rookies in the car are obviously not going to get the sort of setup that a double world champion can get. Obviously, if the car is crap, no amount of setup perfection will make it uncrap, but a good car that is badly set up will lose.

#22 archstanton

archstanton
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:06

Originally posted by Josta

(which is why he copied Alonso's setup for most races last year).



yeah, i wouldn't mind the source on that too.

especially when last year, any bad hamilton outing was blamed on his lack of setup ability, now the bashers say that he was sharing setups all along (despite the fact we all know no data was being shared, and that both drivers prefer completely different setups) ... it just makes it hard for the rest of us if you guys keep changing the story year on year, to whatever is currently most convenient. pick a story and stick to it.



it seem pretty obvious that last year
a) kimi took a few races to get the measure of felipe, and ferrari slightly underperformed their cars ability to an extent, esp reliability over a weekend, which made things look a little closer in the championship than maybe they actually had any right to be.
... and b) it was always dangerous to move the design philosophy of the new mclaren to something more like last years ferrari ... if you get caught half-way you end-up nowhere (you lose the advantage on the "mclaren tracks", but don't have enough on the "ferrari tracks", a double whammy that puts you in big trouble. but given a), and a settled kimi, i think they had to try it. relying on monaco, hungary, canada to win a wdc wouldn't be enough .... but it looks tough.

#23 Kevin Thomas

Kevin Thomas
  • Member

  • 63 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:08

Originally posted by Imperial
When are people going to realise it's not the 1960's, 70's or 80's anymore?

The drivers simply do not steer development of the car whatsoever now and haven't for a long time.

Setting a car up over the weekend is where the driver has an influence.

Alonso was out of the loop at Mclaren by mid-season last year. He could have had no influence whatsoever on the 2008 Mclaren, yet the car has been raced to one victory and came 3rd today, correct?

Renault's improved form is down the the European season having started today and the top teams (in which I include Renault) being able to use their first car upgrades of the season.

Alonso is no more responsible for the Renault's improved form this weekend than Mark Webber or Jenson Button were for Red Bull and Honda being a little faster than usual.


Sorry, just don't agree with this. For years it was said that the Ferrari was designed specifically around Schumacher's driving style. That to me says that driver feedback is still pretty important.

#24 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:10

Originally posted by archstanton

especially when last year, any bad hamilton outing was blamed on his lack of setup ability, now the bashers say that he was sharing setups all along (despite the fact we all know no data was being shared, and that both drivers prefer completely different setups) ... it just makes it hard for the rest of us if you guys keep changing the story year on year, to whatever is currently most convenient. pick a story and stick to it.


Well, if you would count James Allen as a Hamilton basher, then maybe. When Alonso was fighting back and Lewis had some bad outings, it was commented by Allen that Lewis had decided to go his own way in setup, rather than copy Alonso as he had previously done.

#25 Suntrek

Suntrek
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:17

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist

It's fairly common for teams to talk about promising updates they're testing in wind tunnels, only to then find they don't actually work particularly well when actually bolted on to a car. During his post-race interview on ITV today, Button alluded to Honda's recent history of problems in that area. There's no guarantees until you actually try driving something. After all, if wind tunnel programmes and CFD runs were all you needed, why do the teams still crave testing so much?

So, testing is important, and given the driver drives it, they are by implication a factor. One reason is this: consider a scenario where you need to know if configuration A or B is better. In parallel universe 1, you have Michael Schumacher driving. Schumacher was famed for his consistancy, to always hit the same point, and knock out uniform lap times. Now, if he goes and sets better times using car configuration B, you can be fairly sure that configuration B is the better one. In parallel universe 2, the team has Taki Inoue doing the driving. Now when he sets a better time in configuration B, is it because configuration B is better or just that he happened to drive those laps better? Worse case scenario, the team wasting time going down the wrong route.

The second reason, it that designers design not by random ideas, but by a process of considered evolution. In order to do that, they need information on what works and doesn't work, and hopefully enough information that they can decide why it works/doesn't work. *Information is key*. If you don't have this information, then you might as well just turn off the lights and draw some random shapes on the paper.

Now where does this information come from? The answer is (a) telemetry and (b) the driver. Telemetry might be miles ahead of where is was 40 years ago, but you quite discount the driver yet.


Thank you.

It's so nice to be able read something sensible, intelligent and insightsful here every now and then. :kiss:

#26 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:17

Originally posted by Kevin Thomas


Sorry, just don't agree with this. For years it was said that the Ferrari was designed specifically around Schumacher's driving style. That to me says that driver feedback is still pretty important.


Whether that's true or not (I have mixed feelings on the depth of that) was it he who steered the car design in that direction? I doubt it. I don't think there's a driver in the world who truly could do that, unless they had a degree in physics/engineering/aerodynamics etc perhaps.

That's more of a case of the team recognising his driving style and designing the car accordingly. Whether that's the same thing or not, I don't know.

He had the advantage that he was at the team for so long, they'd naturally end up designing a car based around his style. The same thing occured with Hakkinen and Mclaren.

I agree entirely with you that driver feedback is important, but the suggestion from others that drivers can actively steer the design team down a certain road....I'm not having that. Alonso may have brought 6/10 to Mclaren but only thanks to the sensitivity of his feet, arse and hands. He didn't do it by sitting at a drawing board at 3.30am on a Friday night with an espresso kettle boiling away in the nearest tea-point and a bowl of M&M's on his desk to boost his energy into the late night... :o

#27 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,800 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:19

In the pre race interview, lewis said being off setup is a tiny ammount, 1mm of ride height for example :eek:

#28 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:25

Originally posted by pingu666
In the pre race interview, lewis said being off setup is a tiny ammount, 1mm of ride height for example :eek:


And he's right, as anyone who has been anywhere near a racing car well knows.

I think some F1 (and general motorsports fans) are under the impression that you just randomly make massive tweeks and changes to all sorts of things on the cars and you either instantly go 2 seconds quicker per lap or only 0.10 of a second quicker.

It simply doesn't work like that at all. To be frank when it comes to car set-up's most people are talking out of their arse, including a lot of drivers who haven't got a ****ing clue what they're talking about.

Nico Rosberg is one true exception thanks to his engineering background.

#29 archstanton

archstanton
  • Member

  • 425 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:25

surely the fact they took all those years of lineage of the bespoke designed schumacher car, gave it to kimi, and after a few races, once he figured out the tyres, won a wdc, suggests that all this "driver driving development" malarkey is a bit of nonsense.

you hear the engineer/driver radio traffic during qualifying, for the most part you'd be better sticking a wet finger in the air. (you can hear the engineers roll their eyes at some of the responses they have to deal with)
during testing, they just need someone to do consistent but fairly fast laps, to get the data, to do the analysis, run the numbers, validate the models, to do the designs, to develop the car.

the highly-coupled complexity that is the current f1 car package makes any significant development from the driver's seat highly unlikely.

#30 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:30

Originally posted by archstanton
surely the fact they took all those years of lineage of the bespoke designed schumacher car, gave it to kimi, and after a few races, once he figured out the tyres, won a wdc, suggests that all this "driver driving development" malarkey is a bit of nonsense.

you hear the engineer/driver radio traffic during qualifying, for the most part you'd be better sticking a wet finger in the air. (you can hear the engineers roll their eyes at some of the responses they have to deal with)
during testing, they just need someone to do consistent but fairly fast laps, to get the data, to do the analysis, run the numbers, validate the models, to do the designs, to develop the car.

the highly-coupled complexity that is the current f1 car package makes any significant development from the driver's seat highly unlikely.


:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

It took years of development to allegedly tailor the car to Schumacher's taste before he was able to win a WDC in it - Raikkonen then steps into the Schumacher Special and wins a WDC first time out in a car refined to someone else's tastes....

#31 Kevin Thomas

Kevin Thomas
  • Member

  • 63 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:32

Originally posted by Imperial


Whether that's true or not (I have mixed feelings on the depth of that) was it he who steered the car design in that direction? I doubt it. I don't think there's a driver in the world who truly could do that, unless they had a degree in physics/engineering/aerodynamics etc perhaps.

That's more of a case of the team recognising his driving style and designing the car accordingly. Whether that's the same thing or not, I don't know.

He had the advantage that he was at the team for so long, they'd naturally end up designing a car based around his style. The same thing occured with Hakkinen and Mclaren.

I agree entirely with you that driver feedback is important, but the suggestion from others that drivers can actively steer the design team down a certain road....I'm not having that. Alonso may have brought 6/10 to Mclaren but only thanks to the sensitivity of his feet, arse and hands. He didn't do it by sitting at a drawing board at 3.30am on a Friday night with an espresso kettle boiling away in the nearest tea-point and a bowl of M&M's on his desk to boost his energy into the late night... :o


LOL I like that! I think that how a team recognizes a drivers style is directly related to how good his feedback is.

#32 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:40

Originally posted by Imperial


:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

It took years of development to allegedly tailor the car to Schumacher's taste before he was able to win a WDC in it - Raikkonen then steps into the Schumacher Special and wins a WDC first time out in a car refined to someone else's tastes....

Why not? I can appreciate a glas of Lagavulin or Ardbeg although they were not developed for me ;)

Seriously, of course a drivers input is important, but mostly for tuning. Specially nowadays when they hardly can test a real car on a real track anymore. If we look at Honda for instance. Are they suffering because Rubens and Button sucks as car developers? It is not impossible that they are the worst two development drivers in the world, but I think the problem is elsewhere in the chain. Give Jenson a diamond and I am sure he can make it shine. Give Alonso a turd and I am certain that no matter what he does, the result will always be crap.

#33 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:44

Lets just cut the crap. Mclaren were probably closer today to Ferrari than they were in Barca 12 months ago.

#34 jesee

jesee
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:44

Jeez not again! These kind of threads are getting too much.
Why can't we all agree that Alonso is a designer, engineer, wind tunnel and driver all wrapped into one which equates to him being the best developer since cake eating was discovered? Then we can at last get the fanboys happy, the lewis/alonso arguement over and go into something more interesting. Jeez, iam now hyperventillating!

#35 Kevin Thomas

Kevin Thomas
  • Member

  • 63 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:48

Originally posted by archstanton
surely the fact they took all those years of lineage of the bespoke designed schumacher car, gave it to kimi, and after a few races, once he figured out the tyres, won a wdc, suggests that all this "driver driving development" malarkey is a bit of nonsense.

you hear the engineer/driver radio traffic during qualifying, for the most part you'd be better sticking a wet finger in the air. (you can hear the engineers roll their eyes at some of the responses they have to deal with)
during testing, they just need someone to do consistent but fairly fast laps, to get the data, to do the analysis, run the numbers, validate the models, to do the designs, to develop the car.

the highly-coupled complexity that is the current f1 car package makes any significant development from the driver's seat highly unlikely.


I'm just not willing to sell the drivers so short. On YouTube there's a video from Top Gear where Sir Jackie Stewart coaches James May on getting shaving several seconds off his lap times. Jackie's probably not a vehicle dynamics engineer but he does know how to get the maximum out of a car.

I guess i'm saying that as the saying goes "the cream rises to the top". That is, the drivers that know setup and know how to relate that to the engineering team are the ones that win the championships.

As far as the in-car audio, that's a tiny snippet while the driver's busy driving. I'd imagine the real information exchange happens in the debriefs after sessions.

#36 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,199 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 19:51

Originally posted by jesee
Jeez not again! These kind of threads are getting too much.
Why can't we all agree that Alonso is a designer, engineer, wind tunnel and driver all wrapped into one which equates to him being the best developer since cake eating was discovered? Then we can at last get the fanboys happy, the lewis/alonso arguement over and go into something more interesting. Jeez, iam now hyperventillating!


+1

:up:

#37 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 27 April 2008 - 20:38

It would be funny to check out some posts from previous weeks. You know, when Alonso fans were preaching in choir that drivers donĀ“t have that much influence on car development. Oh my how one qualifying lap was enough to change the entire nature of F1. Now drivers have massive influence on car development, and change of form can be explained with "driver factor" only. See McLaren 2002-2004 and 2005-06. Same drivers, different performance.

#38 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,995 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 27 April 2008 - 21:00

How does Kimi factor into this?

How all of a sudden did his setting up prowess work at Ferrari but not at Maclaren? :confused:

#39 airwise

airwise
  • Member

  • 2,001 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 April 2008 - 21:57

Guess what.

Ferrari won three of the first four GP's of 2007 too.

And Ferrari ended the season with the same dominance they had in Australia. Whilst Ferrari and Mclaren have gone for conservative updates of their 2007 challengers for the last year of the current rules, both BMW and Renault went radical with much time spent on completely new designs. It's only natural that the gaps will close.

Advertisement

#40 snx843

snx843
  • Member

  • 855 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 April 2008 - 22:54

Originally posted by Digitaldrug


Nobody is saying its all down to the drivers, but they have a strong influence. Planet f1 summed it up well.



The Alonso '6 tenths' joke has been very popular for a while but its exactly what Renault have found since their upgrade. Its no longer a joke. Its now the Alonso Theorem.


Arrow? David G? Asperon? Durant? :smoking:

#41 Yellowmc

Yellowmc
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 April 2008 - 22:55

Originally posted by Fatgadget
How does Kimi factor into this?

How all of a sudden did his setting up prowess work at Ferrari but not at Maclaren? :confused:


Exactly. If we were to listen to some of you guys, Kimi is the greatest driver seeing as he jumped into a car designed for MS and started improving it eventually leading to a WDC and the demolition of everyone else in Brazil last year.

Engineers > Driver.

#42 mowaru

mowaru
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 27 April 2008 - 23:00

Originally posted by snx843


Arrow? David G? Asperon? Durant? :smoking:


you seem to have persecutory complex ....