Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

McLaren MCL33: Part III


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4085 replies to this topic

#1 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,511 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 April 2018 - 12:15

New topic, same car.



Advertisement

#2 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 4,209 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 19 April 2018 - 12:21

Hope the update work out

#3 Joseki

Joseki
  • Member

  • 4,142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 19 April 2018 - 12:34

We open part III while P4 in the WCC and P6 in the WDC.  :up:



#4 IamFasterthanU

IamFasterthanU
  • Member

  • 929 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:08

Wow Part 3 already, at this pace we'll reach part 4 before Monaco  :rotfl:



#5 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:21

This thread is faster than the car.

#6 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:24

@Radoye post 4971 from the old topic... You're kidding yourself if you think my expectations are unreasonable. If you really listen to the vocabulary the "astonished" Boullier and the "unacceptable" Brown have been using, its really not a coherent arguement to make that McLaren are precisely meeting expectations, currently. Its abundantly clear they are not. They have spelt it out that they are not. Support doesn't require the prerequisite of unstinting acceptance of whatever fate befalls us. Its ok to expect more... Ask an Arsenal fan...



#7 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:24

This thread is faster than the car.

Car is more reliable than the thread



#8 Oblivion

Oblivion
  • Member

  • 1,413 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:27

Wow Part 3 already, at this pace we'll reach part 4 before Monaco  :rotfl:

definetely earlier, if Barcelona upgrade won't work. :)



#9 IridiumBoy

IridiumBoy
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:40

One question: how can be this car so draggy? small sidepods, tiny roll hoop inlet, clean bargeboards and turning vanes...the front and rear wing for example look overproduced but just like many other teams. Maybe because the high rake? or because they have not been using the S-Duct for now? 

 

I don't get it, looking at the car you would never say that it would produce so much dirty downforce, just the contrary. These are my tough thoughts, though.



#10 ZOne

ZOne
  • Member

  • 156 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:51

One question: how can be this car so draggy? small sidepods, tiny roll hoop inlet, clean bargeboards and turning vanes...the front and rear wing for example look overproduced but just like many other teams. Maybe because the high rake? or because they have not been using the S-Duct for now? 

 

I don't get it, looking at the car you would never say that it would produce so much dirty downforce, just the contrary. These are my tough thoughts, though.

 

I'm wondering this too. It may be a lot of little things adding up. I think Red Bull is running a little less rear wing, which means they get more from the floor. Also the vortex-generators on the sidepods may not be the best solution drag-wise. Red Bull tried that last year and quickly went for the "flat wing above sidepod" solution.

 

Regarding the sidepods one has to note McLaren is the only team to have all the cooling in the sidepods. The other teams put more and more above and beside the engine. This increases the COG and will probably reduce the rear wing efficiency, but you get smaller sidepods which could be better for drag. The McLaren way could be a bad balance of these things under the current (engine-)rules.



#11 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 11,875 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 April 2018 - 13:56

New topic, same car.

 

 

Not for long apparently.



#12 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,365 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:01

@Radoye post 4971 from the old topic... You're kidding yourself if you think my expectations are unreasonable. If you really listen to the vocabulary the "astonished" Boullier and the "unacceptable" Brown have been using, its really not a coherent arguement to make that McLaren are precisely meeting expectations, currently. Its abundantly clear they are not. They have spelt it out that they are not. Support doesn't require the prerequisite of unstinting acceptance of whatever fate befalls us. Its ok to expect more... Ask an Arsenal fan...

 

Yes, they are "astonished" at the "unacceptable" qualifying pace. And i agree with them, it must be better if we are to capitalize in the races.

 

But i don't think overtaking Red Bull right out of the box from race 1 this season was ever in the cards. Right now we're P4, not just in the standings but pretty much on race pace as well, which is right where i'd expect us to be. I'd like the gap to P3 to be smaller and to P5 bigger, but so far this is far from an unqualified disaster as some here are working very hard to paint it.



#13 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:08

One question: how can be this car so draggy? small sidepods, tiny roll hoop inlet, clean bargeboards and turning vanes...the front and rear wing for example look overproduced but just like many other teams. Maybe because the high rake? or because they have not been using the S-Duct for now? 

 

I don't get it, looking at the car you would never say that it would produce so much dirty downforce, just the contrary. These are my tough thoughts, though.

 

Do we even know for a fact that the car is so draggy? It has been used as an explanation for the top speed, and it is possible, but it's not the only possible explanation - unless we have factual statements, I am not sure.

 

If it is, the rake certainly is part of it. Much aero work in recent years has generally been focused on internal air paths, which we can't see. And all the little vortices and how well they work we can't see either, but also have a considerable effect. S-duct and who knows how many little details added together. We are after all not talking about a 30 kph top speed difference, there isn't a huge problem required to explain the gap


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 April 2018 - 14:09.


#14 MaxisOne

MaxisOne
  • Member

  • 2,334 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:15

Yes, they are "astonished" at the "unacceptable" qualifying pace. And i agree with them, it must be better if we are to capitalize in the races.

 

But i don't think overtaking Red Bull right out of the box from race 1 this season was ever in the cards. Right now we're P4, not just in the standings but pretty much on race pace as well, which is right where i'd expect us to be. I'd like the gap to P3 to be smaller and to P5 bigger, but so far this is far from an unqualified disaster as some here are working very hard to paint it.

 

Dont think true mclaren fans are saying its a disaster on the car front. I think the Honda and by extension new Torro Rosso fans have had their cake and gloating all wrapped up in Bahrain so they can leave this thread alone now.

 

Admittedly upgrade deadlines have not been met according to Management

 

Now is the time for Mclaren to meet deadlines and demonstrate the capability to get on top of their internal issues.



#15 Joseki

Joseki
  • Member

  • 4,142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:19

One question: how can be this car so draggy? small sidepods, tiny roll hoop inlet, clean bargeboards and turning vanes...the front and rear wing for example look overproduced but just like many other teams. Maybe because the high rake? or because they have not been using the S-Duct for now?

I don't get it, looking at the car you would never say that it would produce so much dirty downforce, just the contrary. These are my tough thoughts, though.


Most of the drag may be coming from inside the sidepods, the air channeling inside the car could be sub optimal.

It's just a guess, but it's not unprecedented, Ferrari in 2014 had this problem.

#16 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 2,573 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:25

One question: how can be this car so draggy? small sidepods, tiny roll hoop inlet, clean bargeboards and turning vanes...the front and rear wing for example look overproduced but just like many other teams. Maybe because the high rake? or because they have not been using the S-Duct for now? 

 

I don't get it, looking at the car you would never say that it would produce so much dirty downforce, just the contrary. These are my tough thoughts, though.

 


Eric has said it is not as simple a solution as reducing drag which leaves me to think the lack of strait line speed might be down to other factors such as not feeding the engine enough air perhaps with the small inlets? If drag is an issue I would think it would be more down to the internals as the external doesn't look that draggy to me at all.

#17 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 8,611 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:25

This thread is faster than the car.

 

 

Car is more reliable than the thread

 

This is why I keep coming back  :rotfl:



#18 jwill189

jwill189
  • Member

  • 2,641 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 19 April 2018 - 14:30

Most of the drag may be coming from inside the sidepods, the air channeling inside the car could be sub optimal.

It's just a guess, but it's not unprecedented, Ferrari in 2014 had this problem.

 

Ferrari also used an undersized turbo in its concept, which only exacerbated the straightline issue.

 

We need 4,000 posts for a part 4 for Spain.  New topic, new car...



#19 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,809 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 15:17

This is a pet peeve, but please don't equate high rake to high drag. If done correctly it's actually low drag. The draggiest car on the grid in absolute terms is (most likely) the low rake Mercedes.
 
The MCL33 does currently seem to be higher drag than the other Renault powered cars, on the basis that the top speed (other things being equal) seems consistently lower. If we knew for certain that the amount of power getting to the wheels was pretty much the same then we could eliminate the engine/drivetrain from the equation. I'm not sure we can do that for certain.
 
It's possible that the integration of the PU (particularly the cooling) is not as optimised as the other teams. If the cooling is less efficient then that means more airflow is required which means more drag. It's possible that the team might improve this during the year, at least incrementally.
 
The other thing is overall aerodynamic efficiency. As has been noted many times, the MCL33 is still missing some major elements. Once we see the full package at Barcelona, we should expect to see average downforce increase and also for aerodynamic efficiency improve (the amount of drag for a given amount of downforce). I have no idea if drag in absolute terms will increase or decrease. However, it's possible that the team will be able to afford to run the RW with less angle of attack - producing downforce from the RW is not particularly efficient, so if they have enough DF at the rear they can then run the RW at a shallower angle. So it's possible that drag will come down as a side effect.
 
Finally... there is too much talk about drag. It's not the main reason why we're so far behind RB in quali. Getting the most out of the tyres is probably the main reason currently, probably followed by downforce.

Edited by CPR, 19 April 2018 - 15:17.


Advertisement

#20 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 7,170 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:06

This is a pet peeve, but please don't equate high rake to high drag. If done correctly it's actually low drag. The draggiest car on the grid in absolute terms is (most likely) the low rake Mercedes.

The MCL33 does currently seem to be higher drag than the other Renault powered cars, on the basis that the top speed (other things being equal) seems consistently lower. If we knew for certain that the amount of power getting to the wheels was pretty much the same then we could eliminate the engine/drivetrain from the equation. I'm not sure we can do that for certain.

It's possible that the integration of the PU (particularly the cooling) is not as optimised as the other teams. If the cooling is less efficient then that means more airflow is required which means more drag. It's possible that the team might improve this during the year, at least incrementally.

The other thing is overall aerodynamic efficiency. As has been noted many times, the MCL33 is still missing some major elements. Once we see the full package at Barcelona, we should expect to see average downforce increase and also for aerodynamic efficiency improve (the amount of drag for a given amount of downforce). I have no idea if drag in absolute terms will increase or decrease. However, it's possible that the team will be able to afford to run the RW with less angle of attack - producing downforce from the RW is not particularly efficient, so if they have enough DF at the rear they can then run the RW at a shallower angle. So it's possible that drag will come down as a side effect.

Finally... there is too much talk about drag. It's not the main reason why we're so far behind RB in quali. Getting the most out of the tyres is probably the main reason currently, probably followed by downforce.

With all respects and as a colleague McLaren supporter, I kinda think that it is different from what I think.

Drag is coming from the back of the car due lower air pressure so to speak in contrast to higher resistance in front of the car with higher air pressure that is in proportion to the frontal projection surface of he car. A Draggid car has both resistance in front as well as lower pressure behind it thus.

Drag in my opinion thus caused by the vacume or turbulence behind the car, either behind the rear wing of where ever. MCL33 do not create so much drag behind the rear wing but more behind the chassis yes that include the floor.

Side pods indeed have this trick to flow air under the body but above the floor especially under the gearbox...
but if this is more draggier than Red Bull... that is yet to see...

Edited by kumo7, 19 April 2018 - 16:09.


#21 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:06

Eric has said it is not as simple a solution as reducing drag which leaves me to think the lack of strait line speed might be down to other factors such as not feeding the engine enough air perhaps with the small inlets? If drag is an issue I would think it would be more down to the internals as the external doesn't look that draggy to me at all.

 

Or it could be that this 'interim' package can only sufficiently cool the Renault PU if its run at a lower 'wick' than the others, which might explain why McLaren fall behind in qualifying when everyone can turn their engines up except them, and then in the race they are able to run on par to the others over the race distance and perform much better comparatively...



#22 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,365 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:07

 

Finally... there is too much talk about drag. It's not the main reason why we're so far behind RB in quali. Getting the most out of the tyres is probably the main reason currently, probably followed by downforce.

 

 

This.



#23 WestMM

WestMM
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:09

I've been a McLaren fan for as long as I've watched F1 -- just (barely) old enough to vaguely remember watching Senna, recall watching Hill V Schumacher in '95 / '96, etc...

 

Objective math is pretty useful for McLaren's misadventures thus far.

 

The ultimate 2018 pole lap in Australia, Bahrain and China have been 1.024, 0.583 and 0.811 seconds faster than 2017's pole lap, respectively. McLaren's fastest lap has been 1.828, 1.140 and 1.842 seconds faster than last year, respectively. 

 

McLaren thought that putting a Renault in their car would be worth a second a lap. In qualifying, thus far, McLaren has gained anywhere from a full second to six tenths, depending on the circuit. The team might not have hit their goals, but they certainly improved.

 

In terms of gap, percentages indicate McLaren is improving. Last year, McLaren started the year with a 3.79%, 2.85% and 3.54% gap to pole in relative performance. This year, they've been at 2.91%, 2.50% and 2.29% -- an obvious improvement, and also an improvement of nearly two-thirds of a percent over the course of this season alone.

[ Easy formula for this percentage: Gap = 1 - (Pole time / McLaren time) ]

 

tl;dr -- McLaren are closing the gap to the front, and it's verifiable with math.


Edited by WestMM, 20 April 2018 - 16:50.


#24 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:12

I've been a McLaren fan for as long as I've watched F1 -- just (barely) old enough to vaguely remember watching Senna, recall watching Hill V Schumacher in '95 / '96, etc...

 

Objective math is pretty useful for McLaren's misadventures thus far.

 

The ultimate 2018 pole lap in Australia, Bahrain and China have been 1.024, 0.583 and 0.834 seconds faster than 2017's pole lap, respectively. McLaren's fastest lap has been 1.828, 1.140 and 1.842 seconds faster than last year, respectively. 

 

McLaren thought that putting a Renault in their car would be worth a second a lap. In qualifying, thus far, McLaren has gained anywhere from a full second to six tenths, depending on the circuit. The team might not have hit their goals, but they certainly improved.

 

In terms of gap, percentages indicate McLaren is improving. Last year, McLaren started the year with a 3.79%, 2.85% and 3.54% gap to pole in relative performance. This year, they've been at 2.91%, 2.50% and 2.29% -- an obvious improvement, and also an improvement of nearly two-thirds of a percent over the course of this season alone.

[ Easy formula for this percentage: Gap = 1 - (Pole time / McLaren time) ]

 

tl;dr -- McLaren are closing the gap to the front, and it's verifiable with math.

 

 

Who is this person, joining this forum, making sense with their first post. in a McLaren topic of all places!?! Don't you know the official forum narrative is that everything is always McLaren's fault, they never improve, Honda are amazing and Alonso has some kind of gypsy curse on him?

 

Welcome WestMM :)


Edited by DanardiF1, 19 April 2018 - 16:22.


#25 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:37

 

But i don't think overtaking Red Bull right out of the box from race 1 this season was ever in the cards. 

Timewaster. I never said anything close to that. 



#26 alpes

alpes
  • Member

  • 383 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:40

Car is more reliable than the thread


Yeah but luckily we don't have the 3 parts per year limitation, otherwise we would start serving penalties from Monaco

#27 colonelbadger

colonelbadger
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:45

Who is this person, joining this forum, making sense with their first post. in a McLaren topic of all places!?! Don't you know the official forum narrative is that everything is always McLaren's fault, they never improve, Honda are amazing and Alonso has some kind of gypsy curse on him?

 

Welcome WestMM :)

 

Whats also interesting is that WestMM's figures for improvement by McLaren do not come from chassis improvements, since McLaren themselves have admitted that the current car is largely the 2017 car. I'm sure there is some improvement from the chassis, but the biggest chunk must be down to the Renault engine. If we take in to consideration the current improvement, and then take in to consideration the new chassis changes and updated Renault engine from Spain, we may just be starting to see light at the end of that tunnel !!!!



#28 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 2,573 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:48

Or it could be that this 'interim' package can only sufficiently cool the Renault PU if its run at a lower 'wick' than the others, which might explain why McLaren fall behind in qualifying when everyone can turn their engines up except them, and then in the race they are able to run on par to the others over the race distance and perform much better comparatively...


Could be part of the problem.

#29 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 19 April 2018 - 17:10

tl;dr -- McLaren are closing the gap to the front, and it's verifiable with math.


Welcome!

Please ignore everything I say.

#30 darenp

darenp
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 19 April 2018 - 17:31

I've been a McLaren fan for as long as I've watched F1 -- just (barely) old enough to vaguely remember watching Senna, recall watching Hill V Schumacher in '95 / '96, etc...

 

Objective math is pretty useful for McLaren's misadventures thus far.

 

The ultimate 2018 pole lap in Australia, Bahrain and China have been 1.024, 0.583 and 0.834 seconds faster than 2017's pole lap, respectively. McLaren's fastest lap has been 1.828, 1.140 and 1.842 seconds faster than last year, respectively. 

 

McLaren thought that putting a Renault in their car would be worth a second a lap. In qualifying, thus far, McLaren has gained anywhere from a full second to six tenths, depending on the circuit. The team might not have hit their goals, but they certainly improved.

 

In terms of gap, percentages indicate McLaren is improving. Last year, McLaren started the year with a 3.79%, 2.85% and 3.54% gap to pole in relative performance. This year, they've been at 2.91%, 2.50% and 2.29% -- an obvious improvement, and also an improvement of nearly two-thirds of a percent over the course of this season alone.

[ Easy formula for this percentage: Gap = 1 - (Pole time / McLaren time) ]

 

tl;dr -- McLaren are closing the gap to the front, and it's verifiable with math.

 

 

Nice data to have, but a couple points to also consider.  At the start of 2017 Honda was underperforming, also MCL was improving their chassis all last season, so if you did these same three races with the Honda PU & MCL chassis that finished the season last year, the jump in performance likely wouldn't look as good.  Though it will be most interesting to see these same sort of comparisons as the season progresses as the data should be a bit more accurate. 



#31 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 4,062 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 19 April 2018 - 17:45

I've been a McLaren fan for as long as I've watched F1 -- just (barely) old enough to vaguely remember watching Senna, recall watching Hill V Schumacher in '95 / '96, etc...

 

Objective math is pretty useful for McLaren's misadventures thus far.

 

The ultimate 2018 pole lap in Australia, Bahrain and China have been 1.024, 0.583 and 0.834 seconds faster than 2017's pole lap, respectively. McLaren's fastest lap has been 1.828, 1.140 and 1.842 seconds faster than last year, respectively. 

 

McLaren thought that putting a Renault in their car would be worth a second a lap. In qualifying, thus far, McLaren has gained anywhere from a full second to six tenths, depending on the circuit. The team might not have hit their goals, but they certainly improved.

 

In terms of gap, percentages indicate McLaren is improving. Last year, McLaren started the year with a 3.79%, 2.85% and 3.54% gap to pole in relative performance. This year, they've been at 2.91%, 2.50% and 2.29% -- an obvious improvement, and also an improvement of nearly two-thirds of a percent over the course of this season alone.

[ Easy formula for this percentage: Gap = 1 - (Pole time / McLaren time) ]

 

tl;dr -- McLaren are closing the gap to the front, and it's verifiable with math.

 

Can you do the % calculation with end of last season? That's far more useful imo.

 

Ps. Welcome

 

giphy.gif



#32 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 8,611 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 April 2018 - 18:13

I've been a McLaren fan for as long as I've watched F1 -- just (barely) old enough to vaguely remember watching Senna, recall watching Hill V Schumacher in '95 / '96, etc...

 

Objective math is pretty useful for McLaren's misadventures thus far.

 

The ultimate 2018 pole lap in Australia, Bahrain and China have been 1.024, 0.583 and 0.834 seconds faster than 2017's pole lap, respectively. McLaren's fastest lap has been 1.828, 1.140 and 1.842 seconds faster than last year, respectively. 

 

McLaren thought that putting a Renault in their car would be worth a second a lap. In qualifying, thus far, McLaren has gained anywhere from a full second to six tenths, depending on the circuit. The team might not have hit their goals, but they certainly improved.

 

In terms of gap, percentages indicate McLaren is improving. Last year, McLaren started the year with a 3.79%, 2.85% and 3.54% gap to pole in relative performance. This year, they've been at 2.91%, 2.50% and 2.29% -- an obvious improvement, and also an improvement of nearly two-thirds of a percent over the course of this season alone.

[ Easy formula for this percentage: Gap = 1 - (Pole time / McLaren time) ]

 

tl;dr -- McLaren are closing the gap to the front, and it's verifiable with math.

 

Welcome! Nice Alias :)

 

Nice data to have, but a couple points to also consider.  At the start of 2017 Honda was underperforming, also MCL was improving their chassis all last season, so if you did these same three races with the Honda PU & MCL chassis that finished the season last year, the jump in performance likely wouldn't look as good.  Though it will be most interesting to see these same sort of comparisons as the season progresses as the data should be a bit more accurate. 

 

Besides the point of Honda underperforming, with regards to McLaren chassis improving over the course of last season, that applies to the other teams as well, so it is still a valid comparison.

 

That said, Honda has definitely upped their game somewhat over last year, and over winter... but by how much, is hard to tell.



#33 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,502 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 18:28

Who is this person, joining this forum, making sense with their first post. in a McLaren topic of all places!?! Don't you know the official forum narrative is that everything is always McLaren's fault, they never improve, Honda are amazing and Alonso has some kind of gypsy curse on him?

 

Welcome WestMM :)

And don't forget the latest: Boullier & crew are LIARS!!!1!11!!



#34 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 5,339 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 19 April 2018 - 18:32

Nice data to have, but a couple points to also consider. At the start of 2017 Honda was underperforming, also MCL was improving their chassis all last season, so if you did these same three races with the Honda PU & MCL chassis that finished the season last year, the jump in performance likely wouldn't look as good. Though it will be most interesting to see these same sort of comparisons as the season progresses as the data should be a bit more accurate.


By your logic Mercedes should have improved their time considerably but they barely matched their best time in China.

#35 darenp

darenp
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 19 April 2018 - 18:48

Welcome! Nice Alias :)

 

 

Besides the point of Honda underperforming, with regards to McLaren chassis improving over the course of last season, that applies to the other teams as well, so it is still a valid comparison.

 

That said, Honda has definitely upped their game somewhat over last year, and over winter... but by how much, is hard to tell.

 

 

Correct, bit of a brain fart on the chassis portion  :drunk:   

 

I guess actually when you think about it, if so far the MCL33 is said to be basically a slightly modified MCL32 & we're yet to see the full package, the majority of the gains so far are more PU related.  Again, will be interesting to see this data in the coming races. 



#36 realracer200

realracer200
  • Member

  • 1,759 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 19 April 2018 - 18:52

Can you do the % calculation with end of last season? That's far more useful imo.

 

Very good point, the meaningful comparison is with the end of last season.



#37 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 8,611 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 April 2018 - 19:09

That's difficult to do since it doesn't take into account the nature of the track. 

We could compare the end of this season with the end of last season, and then correlate that back to the beginning of this season with the beginning of last season to get some kind of picture.

That said, we won't really know the true gains made in part by the engine switch, and in part with the engine gains through the season. 

 



#38 Obster

Obster
  • Member

  • 195 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 April 2018 - 19:18

I'm a big McLaren fan, too, and have suffered along with the rest of you over the past three years.

So sad that the Honda deal did not work out-but McLaren were right to try.

With the Renault in the car it is much more reliable-that's the first step. Glad to see both drivers fighting for position at every race. They were just hanging on before.

Now, without the Honda PU distraction, they can settle down and improve the car. They have done it before during the season, ending up with a really fast car.

But, man, the wait between races is KILLING me after the last three years!

Great thread, guys-I check it every day at the office...



#39 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2018 - 20:40

That's difficult to do since it doesn't take into account the nature of the track. 

We could compare the end of this season with the end of last season, and then correlate that back to the beginning of this season with the beginning of last season to get some kind of picture.

That said, we won't really know the true gains made in part by the engine switch, and in part with the engine gains through the season. 

 

 

It may be difficult, but comparing to a car whose PU barely worked may be good ammunition to argue that McLaren is way better off with Renault than Honda, however improvement from that level is expected and the difference is a poor measure of how much the car improved.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 19 April 2018 - 20:41.


Advertisement

#40 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 19 April 2018 - 20:40

I'm very interested in how McLaren are so optimistic about this B spec car. The current car houses the Renault PU and its internals well. The bodywork is fairly shrink wrapped and the wheelbase isn't going to change (I don't think) without a new crash test. The aero looks well developed.

 

I can't see how they make such a big leap forward - internal packaging isn't going to yield much more quicker times (certainly not 1 sec), plus if the B spec car is more aggressive on packaging wouldn't that increase reliability concerns? Especially if this B spec was delayed after the reliability issues with current car.

 

Is this McLaren just a test mule then? :confused:



#41 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 19 April 2018 - 20:53

Any surface will give you drag. It's just that the floor (when raked - and in more ground effect) will have a better lift to drag ratio. Less obstructions.

 

I think that's what Newey is after as the RB looks pretty slippery on the surface.

 

My gut feeling is that Prod will produce something similar on the B-Spec Mc car.

 

Merc are down another direction. Should be interesting.........



#42 Osiris

Osiris
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 19 April 2018 - 21:39

I'm very interested in how McLaren are so optimistic about this B spec car.

:confused:


CFD and simulations.

Right now, "Honda PU" planned front end plus "Renault PU" back end = car is as aerodynamic as a parachute.

It may look slippery smooth, but what you don't see is this huge vacuum pocket that slows us down.

Their simulations are what gives them the excitement and confidence of the new spec car which we have no idea or have seen. They have had a good sim to reality correlation so I hope it continues.

Then maybe it won't all be lies.

#43 Flyhigh

Flyhigh
  • Member

  • 4,206 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 19 April 2018 - 22:06

Hope the update work out

Eric Boullier, people were already getting happy with Mclaren results on sunday and seeing strong finishes, Imagine if he would just shup up and kept as a surprise and just show the update on track and it was an improvement? Even if it was something like 0.3-0.4 People would be really happy, now people will obsesse over this update building high expectations, and if is not something like 0.8 seconds at least, people will freak out....  :stoned:


Edited by Flyhigh, 20 April 2018 - 16:10.


#44 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 8,611 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 April 2018 - 22:21

It may be difficult, but comparing to a car whose PU barely worked may be good ammunition to argue that McLaren is way better off with Renault than Honda, however improvement from that level is expected and the difference is a poor measure of how much the car improved.

 

Yeah, you're right. There are too many variables to make a useful point out of it. The biggest indicator we have is what we see out on track through the season. So far, it seems like McLaren are in a better place overall than they were in the past three years (and Honda is also in a better place overall than they were in the past 3 years); however our sample size for results is very small. 

Sooooooooo... isn't this why we watch F1? :)

On a personal level, I am enjoying watching McLaren a lot more this year than I had in any of the past 3. I just hope the problems we currently see can be resolved. Let's see if the team can put their money where their mouth is. 



#45 WestMM

WestMM
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 20 April 2018 - 00:49

Nice data to have, but a couple points to also consider.  At the start of 2017 Honda was underperforming, also MCL was improving their chassis all last season, so if you did these same three races with the Honda PU & MCL chassis that finished the season last year, the jump in performance likely wouldn't look as good.  Though it will be most interesting to see these same sort of comparisons as the season progresses as the data should be a bit more accurate. 

 

100% true. I took a look at three races towards the end of the year: USA, Brazil and Abu Dhabi. McLaren only ran in Q1 of Mexico, so I skipped that race.

 

The gaps in qualifying were 1.899 seconds (2.00%), 1.295 seconds (1.86%) and 2.405 seconds (2.44%)

 

That said, McLaren had 3 years of experience with Honda as a works chassis and they managed to score all of 30 points in 2017, compared to 28 points already in 2018. 



#46 MrRat

MrRat
  • Member

  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 20 April 2018 - 04:19

100% true. I took a look at three races towards the end of the year: USA, Brazil and Abu Dhabi. McLaren only ran in Q1 of Mexico, so I skipped that race.

 

The gaps in qualifying were 1.899 seconds (2.00%), 1.295 seconds (1.86%) and 2.405 seconds (2.44%)

 

That said, McLaren had 3 years of experience with Honda as a works chassis and they managed to score all of 30 points in 2017, compared to 28 points already in 2018. 

You should try Mexico too, you'd be surprised,maybe.  :yawnface:



#47 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 3,166 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 20 April 2018 - 05:46

C spec thread before Catalunya  :up: 



#48 Borko

Borko
  • Member

  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 20 April 2018 - 07:10

Eric Boullier, people were already getting happy with Mclaren results on sunday and seeing strong finishes, Imagine if he would just shup up and kept as a surprise and just show the update on track and it was an improvement? Even if it was something like 0.3-0.4 People would be really happy, know people will obsesse over this update building high expectations, and if is not something like 0.8 seconds at least, people will freak out....  :stoned:

I am pretty sure that if kept quiet many people who dislike McLaren would have said: "Where is Boullier? He is the racing director of the team and he doesn't even have the courage to adress the media? He needs to go!"

 

It's easy to pick on McLaren nowadays. No matter how these three races ended up for the team, 100 different flaws would have been found. No doubt about it. Even if Alonso was "the best of the rest", and took maximum amount of points not just in Australia, but in Bahrain and China as well, it would have meant nothing for those who dislike McL so much. "Best chassis? LOL. Where is McLaren compared to Red Bull? Nowhere. Boullier needs to go, Prodormou needs to go, he produced the draggiest chassis in F1 history."



#49 GoranF1

GoranF1
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: March 18

Posted 20 April 2018 - 07:24

Boulier is doing the same job any other racing director would do in his shoes.

Alonso is the best driver in F1 today by 2 steps atleast.

Prodrumou is not at foult for drag,it's internal aero.

Mclaren needs a works deal(not whit Honda)

#50 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 April 2018 - 07:32

With all respects and as a colleague McLaren supporter, I kinda think that it is different from what I think.

Drag is coming from the back of the car due lower air pressure so to speak in contrast to higher resistance in front of the car with higher air pressure that is in proportion to the frontal projection surface of he car. A Draggid car has both resistance in front as well as lower pressure behind it thus.

Drag in my opinion thus caused by the vacume or turbulence behind the car, either behind the rear wing of where ever. MCL33 do not create so much drag behind the rear wing but more behind the chassis yes that include the floor.

Side pods indeed have this trick to flow air under the body but above the floor especially under the gearbox...
but if this is more draggier than Red Bull... that is yet to see...

 

Your opinion of drag isn't correct, or more accurately, overly simplistic.

 

There are a number of sources of drag, broadly split into parasitic and induced drag. The overall drag experienced by the car is a complex combination of all of them.

 

CPR's post displays better understanding.