Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do 'evolutions' of cars ever flop?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,775 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:17

The Ferrari and Renault look much alike their last years version, and Mclaren too. I do wonder - is this a safe choice by definition? Do evolutions of cars ever flop?

For Mclaren, their all-new MP4-19 (2004) was sort of a flop - for Ferrari the all-new F90 from 2009 comes to mind.

I just wonder if there will be many surprises next year in terms of performance - and I suppose I just hope Ferrari will do well ;p

Advertisement

#2 beqa16v

beqa16v
  • Member

  • 151 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:43

The Ferrari and Renault look much alike their last years version, and Mclaren too. I do wonder - is this a safe choice by definition? Do evolutions of cars ever flop?

For Mclaren, their all-new MP4-19 (2004) was sort of a flop - for Ferrari the all-new F90 from 2009 comes to mind.

I just wonder if there will be many surprises next year in terms of performance - and I suppose I just hope Ferrari will do well ;p


Mclaren changed their concept significantly from what I saw. But evolutions of successful cars are rarely outright failures. The tend to become uncompetitive by the end of their second season due to reaching the end of the development cycle.

#3 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,059 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:44

McLaren tells us that their car is 'revolutionary' this year..

Just because we as armchair enthusiasts can't see it on the outside, it might be true.

#4 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,197 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:45

For Mclaren, their all-new MP4-19 (2004) was sort of a flop

The MP4/19 was an evolution as well - of MP4/18  ;)

#5 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,580 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:46

Do evolutions of cars ever flop?


Across regulation changes they do. For example, the Williams FW20.

#6 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:48

The MP4/19 was an evolution as well - of MP4/18 ;)


how i miss the legendary MP4-18 which rumoured to be one hell of a car that never debuted as it went over agressive can couldn't be raced.

#7 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:50

referring to history is irrelevant.

Mclaren obviously feel confident enough to revolve the car instead of evolving it.

Ferrari learned many stuff last year to improve the F2012, hence they opt for evolution.

Too early to tell which approach is better.

#8 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:53

Ferrari 642 was a flop.

#9 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,882 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:55

The Lotus 80. Took ground effects too far. Lotus took another 3 years to win a race.

#10 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:57

McLaren tells us that their car is 'revolutionary' this year..

Just because we as armchair enthusiasts can't see it on the outside, it might be true.


The general aero is said to be evolutionary but the front and rear suspension on the 28 is said to be revolutionary. Much easier for an armchair Engineer to see aero changes than suspension layout changes.

#11 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:57

how i miss the legendary MP4-18 which rumoured to be one hell of a car that never debuted as it went over agressive can couldn't be raced.

Wow, great. A racing car you can't race. Awesome :love:

#12 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 01 February 2013 - 21:41

I don't know if you can call the Mp4/21 a flop...it was a complete and utter failure to launch...the expectations after 2005 was that McLaren were gonna cruise to both titles with Kimi (from the fans anyway) in saying that, I think others stepped up and McLaren didn't take the leap it needed, maybe contributed by Newey leaving.

#13 Schumacher7

Schumacher7
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:17

Mercedes W02.

#14 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,197 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:21

Mercedes W02.

That wasn't an evolution at all.

#15 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:32

how i miss the legendary MP4-18 which rumoured to be one hell of a car that never debuted as it went over agressive can couldn't be raced.

The car was too far ahead of its time, has it raced it would probably have decimated the field, too bad you could fry an egg on the bodywork after 3 seconds of idling haha

#16 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,197 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:37

I don't know if you can call the Mp4/21 a flop...it was a complete and utter failure to launch...the expectations after 2005 was that McLaren were gonna cruise to both titles with Kimi (from the fans anyway) in saying that, I think others stepped up and McLaren didn't take the leap it needed, maybe contributed by Newey leaving.

But I doubt if one could call the MP 4/21 just an evolution of the MP4/20 when so many rules changed after 2005. And because the 2006 rules were so different anybody who thought McLaren would cruise to both titles unmasked themselves as utter silly fanboys anyway.

This was the experts' gamble on 2006 before the season started: http://www.autosport...icle.php/id/440 Alonso and Renault were favourites, ahead of Kimi/McLaren and Schumi/Ferrari - with quite a few experts having some fear about the fragility of the Mc/Merc package.

#17 Schumacher7

Schumacher7
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:44

That wasn't an evolution at all.

Well...it was...

#18 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,197 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:54

Well...it was...

Specify.

#19 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:55

But I doubt if one could call the MP 4/21 just an evolution of the MP4/20 when so many rules changed after 2005. And because the 2006 rules were so different anybody who thought McLaren would cruise to both titles unmasked themselves as utter silly fanboys anyway.

This was the experts' gamble on 2006 before the season started: http://www.autosport...icle.php/id/440 Alonso and Renault were favourites, ahead of Kimi/McLaren and Schumi/Ferrari - with quite a few experts having some fear about the fragility of the Mc/Merc package.

With good reason too, Mercedes built hand grenades back then.

Advertisement

#20 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:21

Across regulation changes they do. For example, the Williams FW20.



That was largely because Renault left F1.

If Renault was in F1 in '98 and beyond, Williams would have been a contender...

#21 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:27

Mercedes W01 was an evolution of the Brawn, yet it was very slow.

#22 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,224 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:03

for Ferrari the all-new F90 from 2009 comes to mind.

'All-new' is right. No car in 2009 was an 'evolution' of anything.

I dont think evolutionary changes are ever 'flops'. What works doesn't suddenly not work with more refinement.

What can happen, though, is the competition getting legs up on you. For the Mercedes W01, it proved unsuccessful largely because other teams were able to build cars around the double-diffuser concept, which they couldn't do in 2009. Its not that it didn't work or 'flopped', it just wasn't special anymore.

#23 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:13

'All-new' is right. No car in 2009 was an 'evolution' of anything.

I dont think evolutionary changes are ever 'flops'. What works doesn't suddenly not work with more refinement.

What can happen, though, is the competition getting legs up on you. For the Mercedes W01, it proved unsuccessful largely because other teams were able to build cars around the double-diffuser concept, which they couldn't do in 2009. Its not that it didn't work or 'flopped', it just wasn't special anymore.


That's exactly why "evolution" in F1 can flop....

#24 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,224 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:15

That's exactly why "evolution" in F1 can flop....

Depends on how you define 'flop' I guess.

#25 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,684 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:27

The Ferrari and Renault look much alike their last years version, and Mclaren too. I do wonder - is this a safe choice by definition? Do evolutions of cars ever flop?

For Mclaren, their all-new MP4-19 (2004) was sort of a flop - for Ferrari the all-new F90 from 2009 comes to mind.

I just wonder if there will be many surprises next year in terms of performance - and I suppose I just hope Ferrari will do well ;p

F60

#26 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:38

The car was too far ahead of its time, has it raced it would probably have decimated the field

Come off it. It didn't even work.

#27 ArnageWRC

ArnageWRC
  • Member

  • 1,081 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:49

Mitsubishi didn't do too bad with their Evolutions.

#28 chumma

chumma
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:54

That was largely because Renault left F1.

If Renault was in F1 in '98 and beyond, Williams would have been a contender...

Weren't Mechachrome engines rebranded Renault's anyway? I think a lot can be contributed to the narrow chassis rule beginning in 98, Newey leaving and the beginning of grooved tyres.

#29 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 11:20

That was largely because Renault left F1.

If Renault was in F1 in '98 and beyond, Williams would have been a contender...


3 factors I'd say.

-Losing official Renault support

-Losing Adrian Newey in 1997

-Losing Damon Hill as a test and development driver.

#30 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 February 2013 - 19:58

3 factors I'd say.

-Losing official Renault support

-Losing Adrian Newey in 1997

-Losing Damon Hill as a test and development driver.



Yes, those also played a huge role as well, no doubt if Adrian stayed, Williams would have been there with Mac and Ferrari.

Edited by George Costanza, 02 February 2013 - 19:59.


#31 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 02 February 2013 - 20:34

1979 Ferrari 312 T4 - WDC, WCC
1980 Ferrari 312 T5 - 8 points, 10th in Constructors Championship


#32 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 February 2013 - 20:58

1979 Ferrari 312 T4 - WDC, WCC
1980 Ferrari 312 T5 - 8 points, 10th in Constructors Championship


I suppose that could easily be countered with the Lotus 49, 72, the McLaren M23, etc.

#33 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,287 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 02 February 2013 - 21:13

Well i could say the F2004-M...

They started the 2005 season with this evolution of the F2004 and it wasn't working at all, the new rules didn't suit it at all, the F2005 which was also a evolution of the F2004 also didn't work that year because they didn't adapt it well enough to the new rules.

#34 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 02 February 2013 - 23:31

Well i could say the F2004-M...

They started the 2005 season with this evolution of the F2004 and it wasn't working at all, the new rules didn't suit it at all, the F2005 which was also a evolution of the F2004 also didn't work that year because they didn't adapt it well enough to the new rules.


Due to tyre changes, not car changes.

#35 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 February 2013 - 17:50

Lotus 76 wasn't much different from the 72 but it as a lemon.

#36 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,748 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 16:11

They regularly flop if compared only to the leading car, but not so much if compared to the average car of the year.

#37 beeclown

beeclown
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 16:53

Renault R27.

Edited by beeclown, 04 February 2013 - 16:54.


#38 Spaceframe

Spaceframe
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 04 February 2013 - 17:34

1979 Ferrari 312 T4 - WDC, WCC
1980 Ferrari 312 T5 - 8 points, 10th in Constructors Championship

A very good example - I seem to recall remarks from punters, that the T5 was a second or more faster per lap than the T4, but that the competition was two-three seconds faster than the previous season.

Given that the T4 was a new concept (full venturi tunnels - well, as full as allowed by the flat-12 engine), it is remarkable how fast it became obsolent. Quite different from the Lotus 49 and 72s and the M23, which all ran at the front for several years before they were overtaken by the competition.

#39 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 February 2013 - 17:53

Can't really compare with Lotus 72 with what we have now me think...

Teams like Ferrari accumulated data on their 2012 car that were not directly usable to the season as it was too late. Bu those data ├žan'be applied to this year's car in a better way... in theory... Starting a new means that you start from collecting data again, that could demand another days of testing.
Mclaren looks interesting as they seems to maintain big line how body works are arranged and changed internals...

Advertisement

#40 Francesc

Francesc
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 February 2013 - 17:58

Renault R27.


From Michelins made around their car to Bridgestones.

#41 Gintonious

Gintonious
  • Member

  • 968 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 18:18

Was the McLaren MP4-18 an evolution? It was a disaster anyway.

#42 Gold

Gold
  • Member

  • 167 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 19:26

I'd guess:

Tyrrell 020
F92A
MP4/9
FW16A
Lotus 99T

But I may be wrong.