Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

McLaren-Honda MP4-30 III


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3993 replies to this topic

#51 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,944 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 23 March 2015 - 15:48

Hint here that power steering failure could be (another) issue to resolve?*

 

http://www.mclaren.c...it-in-malaysia/

 

*Without wishing to pollute this thread with accident chatter


Edited by Owen, 23 March 2015 - 15:53.


Advertisement

#52 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 15:57

Yeah, maybe so. But maybe not. If you miss the apex, you'll probably have to slow a bit to make the turn, thus likely lowering somewhat the G reading for the turn. If you go through at max possible speed, with the best possible line, grip, etc, that still might consistently produce the highest G force on the car, right? A high G reading doesn't necessarily indicate bigger changes of direction in the car. Small, quick, changes of direction in a faster moving car might produce bigger readings and may be what these guys were shooting for with this measurement. A relatively "smooth" driver could still produce high readings if he's able to maintain a higher speed through the turn.

 

But say you're going through maggots and beckets, the straighter you're able to take those corners, i.e. the less g's you have the quicker you're going to go? Wouldn't that be right? You want to make corners as 'straight' as possible?



#53 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,324 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:01

But say you're going through maggots and beckets, the straighter you're able to take those corners, i.e. the less g's you have the quicker you're going to go? Wouldn't that be right? You want to make corners as 'straight' as possible?

Sure, but the straighter you make them, the faster you can go. You're still going to have the lateral component. The added speed intensifies it.

 

Another way to look at it is like this: Two cars go through the same corner on the exact same line. One goes through at a higher speed. That car will give a higher G reading through the corner.



#54 DrivenF1

DrivenF1
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:06

The fact that Massa, Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel and Raikkonen (the five fastest cars in the race) were all in the top 6/7 must mean the model has some merits.

 

As others have stated above, the higher the speed the higher the G-force.

 

It's not a definitive model (and cornering speeds in general would be better) but it's a useful indicator.



#55 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:10

Sure, but the straighter you make them, the faster you can go. You're still going to have the lateral component. The added speed intensifies it.

 

Another way to look at it is like this: Two cars go through the same corner on the exact same line. One goes through at a higher speed. That car will give a higher G reading through the corner.

Yeah, I see that. It's an interesting measure.

 

I started a new topic to discuss. The throttle measure is pretty baffling to be honest.


Edited by bonjon1979a, 23 March 2015 - 16:11.


#56 FirstWatt

FirstWatt
  • Member

  • 995 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:13

Since it seems an average reading (not sure if averaged over time or over distance), the driving style component has some influence.
I assume that Kimi is driving "round" in the corners, while Vettel is more diving deep, smashing the car around and realigning it early to accelerate. Button perhaps drives more like Kimi, using the whole space to drive the corner.
In a g average reading, Vettels style could well result in a lower reading.

However, a bad car for sure doesn't allow for high g average. The other way around, is much more possible as I explained above.

#57 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:20

But if the McLaren is not the quickest round the corners, even if they fix the pu it won't be winning.

So all this kind of means means is that what they have to do is overtake 3 other engine manufacturers and 4 other chassis manufacturers and then they'll be good?

Edited by oetzi, 23 March 2015 - 16:20.


#58 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 11,079 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:23

Yeah, maybe so. But maybe not. If you miss the apex, you'll probably have to slow a bit to make the turn, thus likely lowering somewhat the G reading for the turn. If you go through at max possible speed, with the best possible line, grip, etc, that still might consistently produce the highest G force on the car, right? A high G reading doesn't necessarily indicate bigger changes of direction in the car. Small, quick, changes of direction in a faster moving car might produce bigger readings and may be what these guys were shooting for with this measurement. A relatively "smooth" driver could still produce high readings if he's able to maintain a higher speed through the turn.

Well that still doesn't explain the g-force discrepancy between Massa and Vettel whom produced similar lap times unless we go out on a limb and say Vettel made all that time up on the straights.

It's preposterous as we know that the Mercedes engine is top of the line.

I still think that there is a relationship between downforce and the lateral forces when cornering which aren't being factored into these g readings.

#59 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,324 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:34

Well that still doesn't explain the g-force discrepancy between Massa and Vettel whom produced similar lap times unless we go out on a limb and say Vettel made all that time up on the straights.

It's preposterous as we know that the Mercedes engine is top of the line.

I still think that there is a relationship between downforce and the lateral forces when cornering which aren't being factored into these g readings.

Not sure if this what you're getting at, but more downforce won't reduce the G reading, all other things being equal.



Advertisement

#60 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,324 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:37

But if the McLaren is not the quickest round the corners, even if they fix the pu it won't be winning.

So all this kind of means means is that what they have to do is overtake 3 other engine manufacturers and 4 other chassis manufacturers and then they'll be good?

4 other chassis mfrs? By this measure they were behind two chassis. 

 

Something else to factor in is their lack of time put in on setup/aero work. By all accounts I've seen, this was pretty much a launch-spec car in terms of aero. Certainly there's still a lot of power and reliability to be found in this PU. It surely isn;t a stretch to suggest there's more to be had in the chassis as well.



#61 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,202 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:43

The fact that Massa, Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel and Raikkonen (the five fastest cars in the race) were all in the top 6/7 must mean the model has some merits.

 

As others have stated above, the higher the speed the higher the G-force.

 

It's not a definitive model (and cornering speeds in general would be better) but it's a useful indicator.

yeah also correlates with driver comment and what we saw on TV (JB doing ok against other cars in corners, one time he was apparently pulling the gap against Perez in corners). So just one more factor to add. Nothing to be buoyed about, nor to be dismissed either. Kinda like fastest lap and top speed etc figures. These figures alone doesnt mean much, or in fact quite little, to race result or car's competitiveness, but if seen in certain context some things can be derived out of it. I dont know they have been doing this thing before, but if not, I hope they continue to do this. It's certainly intriguing data to be given.



#62 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 16:58

4 other chassis mfrs? By this measure they were behind two chassis.

Something else to factor in is their lack of time put in on setup/aero work. By all accounts I've seen, this was pretty much a launch-spec car in terms of aero. Certainly there's still a lot of power and reliability to be found in this PU. It surely isn;t a stretch to suggest there's more to be had in the chassis as well.

Behind 2 others on the last lap, I suppose. If that's what you want to get from it, then fair enough.

I doubt Ron's 'jewel' of an engine has stopped their CFD machines from working, btw.

#63 frewin90

frewin90
  • Member

  • 261 posts
  • Joined: January 15

Posted 23 March 2015 - 17:01

nice to read how the McLaren does actually corner well despite everything!  :)

 

oh, and what a shock, look who the two naysayers are :drunk:

 

as for the engine having 600bhp - isn't that the baseline figure from the start of last year?! :| I do hope they're trying to cover up and not fully telling the truth! aren't Mercedes/Ferrari up to ~680bhp (plus the ERS obviously) now?!

 

and if there were rain, I think that'd play massively in McLaren and especially Button's favour! outright power will matter a significantly less as the other teams won't be able to put it all to the floor anyway, traction will be an issue... hmmmm interesting, come on rain!! :clap:



#64 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 17:11

The concept for the car this year is downforce over a wider working range, this would tie in with the car being better in the corners overall as it would be able to carry more of its speed for longer through the body of the corner. Button commented on this during testing stating that while last years car had more downforce overall, it dropped bags of it through the corners making the car a handful. This one is more predictable as it holds on to most of its downforce regardless of cornering.

 

With regard to the suggestion of corrective steering throwing the corning G-Force reading, the averaging of the value would filter out such spikes.  



#65 FirstWatt

FirstWatt
  • Member

  • 995 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 23 March 2015 - 17:15

Well that still doesn't explain the g-force discrepancy between Massa and Vettel whom produced similar lap times unless we go out on a limb and say Vettel made all that time up on the straights.

[...]

I tried to explain....driving styles can lead to lower g readings, as the g readings are an average reading, not a peak reading (at least thats how it is desribed).
Driving a corner with the max possible radius (and longest time with lateral accel) will lead to higher average than diving deeper into the corner, doing the corner in a narrower style and realigning and accelerating earlier. You somehow transfer some of the lateral in longitudinal acceleration.

Kimi and Button, AFAIK, are known for a smooth, round driving style, which when averaging, would lead to higher g readings. So perhaps Massa.

Therefore, a good cornering car can have "low" g readings, BUT a badly cornering car cannot have "high" g readings.

#66 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 17:43

yeah also correlates with driver comment and what we saw on TV (JB doing ok against other cars in corners, one time he was apparently pulling the gap against Perez in corners). So just one more factor to add. Nothing to be buoyed about, nor to be dismissed either. Kinda like fastest lap and top speed etc figures. These figures alone doesnt mean much, or in fact quite little, to race result or car's competitiveness, but if seen in certain context some things can be derived out of it. I dont know they have been doing this thing before, but if not, I hope they continue to do this. It's certainly intriguing data to be given.


I think the fact that button was able to keep a merc powered car behind him has to suggest that they're doing something right with the car as with the power deficit. Force India would breeze by all things being equal in the aero department. The throttle performance is weird it appently shows how much throttle is used relative to speed, button scores ten, merc powered cars just 1-2. I don't quite understand it to be honest.

#67 MP430

MP430
  • Member

  • 128 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:03

How can those comments be construed as being negative.
Do you have any constructive comments on where you believe the MGU-K has been placed?

Like I said I wasn't having a dig at you. Its still ludicrous to suggest it is within the "V" and placed in the same locale as where the merc MGUH is.

Power loss and raising COG from such an arrangement is not the innovation HONDA is renowned for.

Edited by MP430, 23 March 2015 - 18:54.


#68 Gintonious

Gintonious
  • Member

  • 1,576 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:09

If the cornering point is true, it would be more likely proven (or disproven) more at the next race with the sweeping turns in sector 2.



#69 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:15

Like I said I wasn't having a dig at you. Its still ludicrous to suggest it is within the "V" and placed in the same locale as where the merc MGUH is.

Power loss and raising COG from such an arrangement is not the innovation HONDA is renowned for.

 

Their own MGU-H will be within the V as with the Mercedes design. Due to this, I find it doubtful that they would place the MGU-K there for the simple reason of access. You don't want to have to remove the turbo/MGU-H in order to service the MGU-K. I personally think the MGU-K is built into the clutch housing.



#70 fastpast

fastpast
  • Member

  • 112 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:22

But if the McLaren is not the quickest round the corners, even if they fix the pu it won't be winning.

So all this kind of means means is that what they have to do is overtake 3 other engine manufacturers and 4 other chassis manufacturers and then they'll be good?


Might fixing the PU also lend the opportunity to be quickest round the corners? Yes and also the answer to your second question is yes, when they overtake the other 3 engine manufacturers and the 4 quickest chassis manufacturers they will be good.

#71 Kimble

Kimble
  • Member

  • 1,240 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:22

Their own MGU-H will be within the V as with the Mercedes design. Due to this, I find it doubtful that they would place the MGU-K there for the simple reason of access. You don't want to have to remove the turbo/MGU-H in order to service the MGU-K. I personally think the MGU-K is built into the clutch housing.

 

Yes, I tend to agree.



#72 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:50

Their own MGU-H will be within the V as with the Mercedes design. Due to this, I find it doubtful that they would place the MGU-K there for the simple reason of access. You don't want to have to remove the turbo/MGU-H in order to service the MGU-K. I personally think the MGU-K is built into the clutch housing.

Not quite sure what you mean by the clutch housing, could be you're right but there is this rule to bear in mind.


5.2.3 The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to the powertrain before the main clutch. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio

Edited by bonjon1979a, 23 March 2015 - 18:54.


#73 MP430

MP430
  • Member

  • 128 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:51

Their own MGU-H will be within the V as with the Mercedes design. Due to this, I find it doubtful that they would place the MGU-K there for the simple reason of access. You don't want to have to remove the turbo/MGU-H in order to service the MGU-K. I personally think the MGU-K is built into the clutch housing.

Yes I'm thinking along the same line. Somewhere internal within the bottom end or like you said in the clutch housing/ flywheel
. Oil seal failures during testing points in that direction for me.

Edited by MP430, 23 March 2015 - 18:53.


#74 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 11,079 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2015 - 18:54

I tried to explain....driving styles can lead to lower g readings, as the g readings are an average reading, not a peak reading (at least thats how it is desribed).
Driving a corner with the max possible radius (and longest time with lateral accel) will lead to higher average than diving deeper into the corner, doing the corner in a narrower style and realigning and accelerating earlier. You somehow transfer some of the lateral in longitudinal acceleration.

Kimi and Button, AFAIK, are known for a smooth, round driving style, which when averaging, would lead to higher g readings. So perhaps Massa.

Therefore, a good cornering car can have "low" g readings, BUT a badly cornering car cannot have "high" g readings.

Ta.

#75 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 13,324 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 19:12

I think the fact that button was able to keep a merc powered car behind him has to suggest that they're doing something right with the car as with the power deficit. Force India would breeze by all things being equal in the aero department. The throttle performance is weird it appently shows how much throttle is used relative to speed, button scores ten, merc powered cars just 1-2. I don't quite understand it to be honest.

Sounds to me like it means Button is using more throttle & getting less speed, while the Mercs take less throttle to get more speed, which makes sense.



#76 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 19:21

Sounds to me like it means Button is using more throttle & getting less speed, while the Mercs take less throttle to get more speed, which makes sense.


Except that if you ever look at throttle traces in telemetry as soon as the drivers aren't traction limited, it's full throttle. Cars with better traction then would spend more time on throttle, maybe it's because they're on full throttle for less time because they cover the straights quicker. I find it interesting doing the comparisons because it is true of all the merc powered cars, even the cars that were slower on the straights like the force india are marked as much lower on the scale than ferrari for example. I don't fully understand the vagaries of the system or what it's telling us to be frank!

#77 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 19,178 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 March 2015 - 19:31

Their own MGU-H will be within the V as with the Mercedes design. Due to this, I find it doubtful that they would place the MGU-K there for the simple reason of access. You don't want to have to remove the turbo/MGU-H in order to service the MGU-K. I personally think the MGU-K is built into the clutch housing.

Yes this is a possibility.  Arai stated that the MGU-K was hidden from view, so if he meant hidden while the PU is separated from the car, then under such circumstances it would be visible.  If he meant hidden with simply the engine cover and side pod covers removed, then it could be hidden within the gearbox casing.

 

It could sit between the clutch and the turbine (vertically), but the turbo would have to be raised in comparison to the Mercedes turbo and the MGU-K would have to be shielded from the heat of course.


Edited by OO7, 23 March 2015 - 22:14.


#78 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 19:31

Sounds to me like it means Button is using more throttle & getting less speed, while the Mercs take less throttle to get more speed, which makes sense.

It does make sense. What's confusing me though is the ferrari powered cars who top the speed traps, are quicker on the straights then the mercs yet they're on throttle rated at 7-9 while the mercs are down at 1-2. It's baffling, I don't understand the units of comparison at all!

#79 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 21:20

Yes I'm thinking along the same line. Somewhere internal within the bottom end or like you said in the clutch housing/ flywheel
. Oil seal failures during testing points in that direction for me.

 

These are dry sump engines - so it is entirely possible. It makes sense to try and keep what would be quite a heavy item on the centerline right at the bottom of the engine. It would also be a bugger to cool down there.



Advertisement

#80 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 21:22

Not quite sure what you mean by the clutch housing, could be you're right but there is this rule to bear in mind.


5.2.3 The MGU-K must be solely and permanently mechanically linked to the powertrain before the main clutch. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio

 

That just means that the interface should be before the main clutch - the unit itself could face either direction.



#81 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 March 2015 - 21:25

It does make sense. What's confusing me though is the ferrari powered cars who top the speed traps, are quicker on the straights then the mercs yet they're on throttle rated at 7-9 while the mercs are down at 1-2. It's baffling, I don't understand the units of comparison at all!

 

The Mercedes cars could have a slightly lower top speed (due to drag or gearing) but have slightly better acceleration. Over the course of a lap, that better acceleration could be worth more than the higher top speed at only one or two points on the track for a few seconds?



#82 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 21:31

Might fixing the PU also lend the opportunity to be quickest round the corners? Yes and also the answer to your second question is yes, when they overtake the other 3 engine manufacturers and the 4 quickest chassis manufacturers they will be good.

No. Yes.

#83 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 21:37

No. Yes.

 

Why no? If the tyres are switched on, if they can add more df because they don't need to compensate for a weak engine, if the BBW works better because the car actually has seen setup time (edit: and the MGU-K is actually working properly), this all contributes to better cornering speed as well. 


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 23 March 2015 - 21:38.


#84 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,745 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 March 2015 - 21:41

It does make sense. What's confusing me though is the ferrari powered cars who top the speed traps, are quicker on the straights then the mercs yet they're on throttle rated at 7-9 while the mercs are down at 1-2. It's baffling, I don't understand the units of comparison at all!

 

I suppose if the Merc drivers are doing a lot of lifting and coasting, the average throttle opening will be reduced. Other engine manufacturers might save fuel more by using engine maps. That's pure speculation on my part, to try to make sense of things.



#85 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 March 2015 - 23:09

Why no? If the tyres are switched on, if they can add more df because they don't need to compensate for a weak engine, if the BBW works better because the car actually has seen setup time (edit: and the MGU-K is actually working properly), this all contributes to better cornering speed as well.

Straight line speed won't heat the tyres in a helpful way. Set up time is always helpful, but that's true for everyone else too.

There's a lot more hope than evidence this McLaren is any good. It could be but, to date, it's offered absolutely no evidence it can run near the front, let alone at the front.

#86 bass6

bass6
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 March 2015 - 01:26

But if the McLaren is not the quickest round the corners, even if they fix the pu it won't be winning.

So all this kind of means means is that what they have to do is overtake 3 other engine manufacturers and 4 other chassis manufacturers and then they'll be good?

Lol, have you actually read the FIA report or are you determined to dismiss it ad nauseam?

 

It's actually really interesting, revealing who's pushing when.  Massa comes out top at the end of the race as he's trying to get on the podium and (from memory) had fresher tyres, then it's the two Mercs (who were basically cruising by the end of the race) then Jenson who'd done a long sting on the hard tyres.

 

It's obvious that the Honda PU is down on power, I've seen assessments of being down 200 bhp.  So the McLaren will be slower entering the corner as it didn't have the power to reach top speed at the end of straights and have less power throughout the corner and on exit.   Yet even though Jenson was extremely compromised in his corner entry and exit speeds (and thus the corresponding G-forces generated by those speeds) for him to be in the top 4 of this particular metric, while not everything, is definitely surprising, and potentially good news for McLaren fans.  As mentioned in the report.

 

However, I'm sure that won't stop you from coming to p on the bonfire.



#87 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 11,079 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:46

Lol, have you actually read the FIA report or are you determined to dismiss it ad nauseam?

 

It's actually really interesting, revealing who's pushing when.  Massa comes out top at the end of the race as he's trying to get on the podium and (from memory) had fresher tyres, then it's the two Mercs (who were basically cruising by the end of the race) then Jenson who'd done a long sting on the hard tyres.

 

It's obvious that the Honda PU is down on power, I've seen assessments of being down 200 bhp.  So the McLaren will be slower entering the corner as it didn't have the power to reach top speed at the end of straights and have less power throughout the corner and on exit.   Yet even though Jenson was extremely compromised in his corner entry and exit speeds (and thus the corresponding G-forces generated by those speeds) for him to be in the top 4 of this particular metric, while not everything, is definitely surprising, and potentially good news for McLaren fans.  As mentioned in the report.

 

However, I'm sure that won't stop you from coming to p on the bonfire.

The McLaren won't be slower entering the corner, it will be slower entering the braking/lifting phase. Also, dependent on the type of corner, it is a little disingenuous to imply that they'd have less power throughout the corner. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on exit as they're running low on ERS though.

 

Malaysia should give a better idea of where McLaren stand in the cornering stakes.



#88 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 March 2015 - 07:31

Straight line speed won't heat the tyres in a helpful way. Set up time is always helpful, but that's true for everyone else too.

There's a lot more hope than evidence this McLaren is any good. It could be but, to date, it's offered absolutely no evidence it can run near the front, let alone at the front.

 

If you are faster on the straight you need to brake heavier, this does not add heat? Also more throttle out of corners. Anyway, McLaren have explicitly stated that they are not switching on the tyres at the moment, so I don't know why this is even being discussed unless you think they are lying. 

 

Setup type is helpful for everyone, true, but more helpful for those who had none.

 

I was not arguing whether it can run at the front, just whether a working engine can contribute to better cornering performance, and nothing you said convinces me that it has no effect.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 24 March 2015 - 07:32.


#89 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 24 March 2015 - 08:09

If you are faster on the straight you need to brake heavier, this does not add heat? Also more throttle out of corners. Anyway, McLaren have explicitly stated that they are not switching on the tyres at the moment, so I don't know why this is even being discussed unless you think they are lying.

Setup type is helpful for everyone, true, but more helpful for those who had none.

I was not arguing whether it can run at the front, just whether a working engine can contribute to better cornering performance, and nothing you said convinces me that it has no effect.


I suspect they're running less downforce to compensate for under powered engine, less downforce means less energy going into the tyres. Once they get more engine power, they'll be able to put on more downforce which will mean more energy going into the tyres.

#90 Turbo1

Turbo1
  • Member

  • 194 posts
  • Joined: January 15

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:32

when can we start the alonso v button thread? :stoned:



#91 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 1,896 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:33

when can we start the alonso v button thread? :stoned:

 

I hope not before the first practice



#92 Newbrray

Newbrray
  • Member

  • 2,750 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 24 March 2015 - 10:46

when can we start the alonso v button thread? :stoned:

 

Maybe when Alonso passes his final tests on Thursday



#93 macfannz

macfannz
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 24 March 2015 - 11:26

Heh.

 

HONDAPU22 ‏@hondapu22

I hear we've arrived @JensonButton. Spiffing, I do hate traveling.



#94 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 10,831 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 24 March 2015 - 13:50

Preview from McLaren.com.

 

http://www.mclaren.c...d-prix-preview/



#95 argiriano

argiriano
  • Member

  • 1,646 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 24 March 2015 - 14:10

Sounds to me like it means Button is using more throttle & getting less speed, while the Mercs take less throttle to get more speed, which makes sense.

 

That`s correct - Merc were cruising, when Jenson actually relied almost entirely on ICE that`s why his throttle measurement is much higher. 

 

 

If you are faster on the straight you need to brake heavier, this does not add heat? Also more throttle out of corners. Anyway, McLaren have explicitly stated that they are not switching on the tyres at the moment, so I don't know why this is even being discussed unless you think they are lying. 

 

Setup type is helpful for everyone, true, but more helpful for those who had none.

 

I was not arguing whether it can run at the front, just whether a working engine can contribute to better cornering performance, and nothing you said convinces me that it has no effect.

 

Don`t forget that the gear ratios are far from optimized for PU this much detuned which could lead to running trough corners on different gears than optimal. 



#96 Newbrray

Newbrray
  • Member

  • 2,750 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 24 March 2015 - 15:06

SILVER LINING AMID THE GLOOM AT MCLAREN IS THEIR GOOD CHASSIS

http://www.grandprix...r-good-chassis/

 

 

It is believed Honda de-tuned its engine, and particularly the power unit’s ERS systems, to the tune of some 60 per cent in Melbourne, due to reliability fears.

“We had to lower performance in Australia,” Frenchman Boullier confirmed, “but there is more potential on the way.

 

Indeed, it is rumoured Honda took a very aggressive approach to its V6 design, realising the gap that eventually needed to be closed to Mercedes.

Button confirmed: “It’s probably wrong for me to say… it’s probably more like a Mercedes than it is the other two manufacturers. In terms of design, aggressiveness and packaging. But it’s going to take a little bit of time.”

Also on the bright side, it emerged on Tuesday that the 2015 McLaren chassis is almost certainly a good one.

F1’s official website calculates ‘cornering ratings’ for each driver after races, by averaging the side-to-side G-forces in every corner across a grand prix.

Button’s cornering rating ranked fourth overall in Australia, behind only the two Mercedes drivers and Felipe Massa.

 



#97 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 1,600 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 24 March 2015 - 15:11

^^^^

 

This is interesting and encouraging for next year.  Problem is they are chasing a moving target and will probably not be able to develop the aero and mechanical packages to the same degree that they would if they were running at 100%.  All of this will contribute to a slow and painful evolution, probably with a few decent qualifying efforts along the way.



#98 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 24 March 2015 - 15:26

^^^^

 

This is interesting and encouraging for next year.  Problem is they are chasing a moving target and will probably not be able to develop the aero and mechanical packages to the same degree that they would if they were running at 100%.  All of this will contribute to a slow and painful evolution, probably with a few decent qualifying efforts along the way.

 

I'm interested in your thinking on this one, why will they not be able to develop their aero and mechanical package as quickly? 



#99 Hollow

Hollow
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 March 2015 - 15:30

C'mon Honda show us what you've got, and don't wait until the end of the season. And I think we'll have to wait for Honda to show their hand before we start talking about McLaren's chassis, don't you think?


Edited by Hollow, 24 March 2015 - 15:31.


Advertisement

#100 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 6,470 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 24 March 2015 - 15:35

when can we start the alonso v button thread? :stoned:

Let's not bother.