Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 6 votes

McLaren Technical Thread (MCL34)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4323 replies to this topic

#51 OvDrone

OvDrone
  • Member

  • 8,641 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 07 January 2019 - 00:25

Does Ron ever speak about the current status of Mclaren?

 

He mainly just weeps.



Advertisement

#52 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 2,778 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:07

He mainly just weeps.

 

Interestingly in that video he says that part of the dispute was that other shareholders wanted to spend more on getting the F1 team back to full competitiveness whereas he believed growing the overall company was more of a priority



#53 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 1,874 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 15:11

Wasn’t Tooned Rons idea??

I thought that it was credited to Whitmarsh, although the idea probably came from neither of them but rather from someone in the marketing department.



#54 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 1,874 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 15:18

Interestingly in that video he says that part of the dispute was that other shareholders wanted to spend more on getting the F1 team back to full competitiveness whereas he believed growing the overall company was more of a priority

If one defined "accuracy" as requiring not merely that nothing false be adduced but furthermore that everything relevant and true be adduced, then I don't think that Ron's version of the events leading to his departure could be described as accurate.

 

I very much wish that he were still at McLaren but, like most of the other big beasts of Formula One, he could be a tricky customer. There was a lot more behind his departure than just a disagreement over resource allocation.



#55 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 2,778 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 07 January 2019 - 17:28

If one defined "accuracy" as requiring not merely that nothing false be adduced but furthermore that everything relevant and true be adduced, then I don't think that Ron's version of the events leading to his departure could be described as accurate.

 

I very much wish that he were still at McLaren but, like most of the other big beasts of Formula One, he could be a tricky customer. There was a lot more behind his departure than just a disagreement over resource allocation.

 

Hence my use of the phrase "part of the dispute" - ie not the whole of it, ie room for there being "a lot more" to it. Just for accuracy.



#56 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 1,874 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 23:27

Hence my use of the phrase "part of the dispute" - ie not the whole of it, ie room for there being "a lot more" to it. Just for accuracy.

I was not implying that your wording was wrong; I was trying only to elaborate on it for anyone (perhaps not the typical participant on the McLaren threads, but rather a less involved reader) who might be inclined to take Ron's assertions at face value. It amazes me that he seems still to presume that listeners would take what he says literally and without qualification.



#57 Quickshifter

Quickshifter
  • Member

  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 08 January 2019 - 16:53

McLaren chasing reliability ahead of winter testing

 

“I don’t want to share in detail some of the things we’re doing differently this offseason than we did last season,” Brown said. “We are doing things differently, to be more prepared, not just with performance but we had a lot of reliability issues going into Barcelona testing last year. So we have taken some measures to get ahead of that. “We will continue to develop as all F1 teams do, on a weekly basis, and we’ll bring to Australia our most developed performance that we’ve been doing here since we started developing the car and having reliability programs to make sure [it is better].

 

“One of the reasons why we were slower to bring performance (in 2018) is because we had reliability issues. You roll off the truck in Barcelona, instead of being able to get straight down to performance, you’re having issues — wheel nut issues, heating issues — you then stop focusing on performance and you start focusing on reliability.

 

https://racer.com/20...winter-testing/


Edited by Quickshifter, 08 January 2019 - 16:53.


#58 ExEd

ExEd
  • Member

  • 468 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 January 2019 - 20:28

 

McLaren chasing reliability ahead of winter testing

 

“I don’t want to share in detail some of the things we’re doing differently this offseason than we did last season,” Brown said. “We are doing things differently, to be more prepared, not just with performance but we had a lot of reliability issues going into Barcelona testing last year. So we have taken some measures to get ahead of that. “We will continue to develop as all F1 teams do, on a weekly basis, and we’ll bring to Australia our most developed performance that we’ve been doing here since we started developing the car and having reliability programs to make sure [it is better].

 

“One of the reasons why we were slower to bring performance (in 2018) is because we had reliability issues. You roll off the truck in Barcelona, instead of being able to get straight down to performance, you’re having issues — wheel nut issues, heating issues — you then stop focusing on performance and you start focusing on reliability.

 

https://racer.com/20...winter-testing/

 

Here i have disagree with him ,i know he has to say it but that kind of performance Brown is talking about is not the case.

Bringing some updates a little sooner because you managed to get some extra laps yes,sure would help.

But a fundamentaly flawed design cant be saved in 4 winter days. 

Could Mclaren grab some extra speed given they had reliable testing? Yes, but how much? How would affect their pace overall to the point that could changed their targets? Not at all imho. 

 

Of course they need reliability,who doesnt? But the focus is,and should be the main design of the car ,possible brilliant ideas and wind tunnel effectiveness so they dont have to find out again 

late February when its too late. 


Edited by ExEd, 08 January 2019 - 20:29.


#59 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 January 2019 - 20:55

He mainly just weeps.

Without Ron Dennis, There be no McLaren as we know it. A****in men.



Advertisement

#60 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 January 2019 - 00:10

Here i have disagree with him ,i know he has to say it but that kind of performance Brown is talking about is not the case.

Bringing some updates a little sooner because you managed to get some extra laps yes,sure would help.

But a fundamentaly flawed design cant be saved in 4 winter days. 

Could Mclaren grab some extra speed given they had reliable testing? Yes, but how much? How would affect their pace overall to the point that could changed their targets? Not at all imho. 

 

Of course they need reliability,who doesnt? But the focus is,and should be the main design of the car ,possible brilliant ideas and wind tunnel effectiveness so they dont have to find out again 

late February when its too late. 

 

McLaren have said that if they'd been able to understand the problem soon enough they'd have done a B-spec and solved the fundamental flaw during the season.

 

Let's imagine an alternative scenario for 2018: apart from the weather, McLaren's testing goes quite smoothly (though PU issues do cause some stoppages) and they gather all the data that they need. Perhaps they see early signs of the flaw with the extra data they gather but don't yet have enough information to figure out the root cause of the problem. They decide to proceed with their planned upgrade package for Melbourne (when instead much of it got delayed until Barcelona). At Melbourne, the upgrade generally works as expected and while they quali inside the top 10 they were expecting a bit more. With most of the focus on the upgrade they don't spend that much time examining the aero flaw. Instead that happens at Bahrain, a circuit that should expose it quite well. It's significant enough that they decide to delay other upgrades to focus on it. By the time the Spanish GP comes around they've got some experimental parts to help confirm the nature of the aero flaw. Using the post GP test they are able to pinpoint the flaw. They decide to start working on a B-spec though due to the limited time available it's not as comprehensive a change as they'd like and it'll also have to form the basis of the 2019 car. This limited B-spec turns up at Spa and makes a noticeable difference and McLaren also bring numerous other upgrades to future races.

 

How likely is the above? I dunno really... but it's certainly far more likely that something like this could have happened if they'd have been much better prepared at the start of winter testing.

 

There's very few general testing days in F1 any more so it's better to test what you can test in-house, even if it increases overall costs.



#61 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,840 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 January 2019 - 00:35

McLaren have said that if they'd been able to understand the problem soon enough they'd have done a B-spec and solved the fundamental flaw during the season.

 

Let's imagine an alternative scenario for 2018: apart from the weather, McLaren's testing goes quite smoothly (though PU issues do cause some stoppages) and they gather all the data that they need. Perhaps they see early signs of the flaw with the extra data they gather but don't yet have enough information to figure out the root cause of the problem. They decide to proceed with their planned upgrade package for Melbourne (when instead much of it got delayed until Barcelona). At Melbourne, the upgrade generally works as expected and while they quali inside the top 10 they were expecting a bit more. With most of the focus on the upgrade they don't spend that much time examining the aero flaw. Instead that happens at Bahrain, a circuit that should expose it quite well. It's significant enough that they decide to delay other upgrades to focus on it. By the time the Spanish GP comes around they've got some experimental parts to help confirm the nature of the aero flaw. Using the post GP test they are able to pinpoint the flaw. They decide to start working on a B-spec though due to the limited time available it's not as comprehensive a change as they'd like and it'll also have to form the basis of the 2019 car. This limited B-spec turns up at Spa and makes a noticeable difference and McLaren also bring numerous other upgrades to future races.

 

How likely is the above? I dunno really... but it's certainly far more likely that something like this could have happened if they'd have been much better prepared at the start of winter testing.

 

There's very few general testing days in F1 any more so it's better to test what you can test in-house, even if it increases overall costs.

 


It's all excuses. I'm sure they were aware of the flaw within a few laps of the car hitting the track. What they needed to do first was sort out the correlation problem between the simulator and real world data. Until they did that any new parts they designed would still be flawed.

#62 Eruobodo

Eruobodo
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 09 January 2019 - 01:12

It's all excuses. I'm sure they were aware of the flaw within a few laps of the car hitting the track. What they needed to do first was sort out the correlation problem between the simulator and real world data. Until they did that any new parts they designed would still be flawed.

The way to sort out the correlation problem was to design new parts and see if they work as expected.



#63 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 2,022 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:39

Marc Priestley about Mclaren (and Renault etc.)

Edited by Alburaq, 09 January 2019 - 08:38.


#64 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,840 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:45

The way to sort out the correlation problem was to design new parts and see if they work as expected.

Chicken and eggs. Designing new parts using a broken system won't fix the fundamental issue.

#65 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,770 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 09 January 2019 - 08:44

Thanks Alburaq. First time I’ve heard the shortcomings of the 33 explained like that. And certainly the mood music sounds better this year.

#66 ar1

ar1
  • Member

  • 172 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:05

McLaren have said that if they'd been able to understand the problem soon enough they'd have done a B-spec and solved the fundamental flaw during the season.

 

Let's imagine an alternative scenario for 2018: apart from the weather, McLaren's testing goes quite smoothly (though PU issues do cause some stoppages) and they gather all the data that they need. Perhaps they see early signs of the flaw with the extra data they gather but don't yet have enough information to figure out the root cause of the problem. They decide to proceed with their planned upgrade package for Melbourne (when instead much of it got delayed until Barcelona). At Melbourne, the upgrade generally works as expected and while they quali inside the top 10 they were expecting a bit more. With most of the focus on the upgrade they don't spend that much time examining the aero flaw. Instead that happens at Bahrain, a circuit that should expose it quite well. It's significant enough that they decide to delay other upgrades to focus on it. By the time the Spanish GP comes around they've got some experimental parts to help confirm the nature of the aero flaw. Using the post GP test they are able to pinpoint the flaw. They decide to start working on a B-spec though due to the limited time available it's not as comprehensive a change as they'd like and it'll also have to form the basis of the 2019 car. This limited B-spec turns up at Spa and makes a noticeable difference and McLaren also bring numerous other upgrades to future races.

 

How likely is the above? I dunno really... but it's certainly far more likely that something like this could have happened if they'd have been much better prepared at the start of winter testing.

 

There's very few general testing days in F1 any more so it's better to test what you can test in-house, even if it increases overall costs.

 

Your last line sums up one of my current frustrations with the tiny amount of testing that is allowed - issues with cars are "baked in" for the whole season usually and a team has to effectively abandon prep time at weekends to do what should be done at testing. That and this only having one car at the testing so, if one breaks down everything stops!



#67 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:23

saw it on f1tech also, very interesting info as for sure he is pretty well informed through former colleagues, and his explanation actually confirm all the other individual pieces of information we received from different mclaren & media sources, He is just the first to tell the root cause, as mclaren offcourse has been reluctant to do that, merely mentioning the effects the problem caused. My only question mark, like someone on f1tech mentioned, the distance seem the same on the mcl32, how come the mcl33 suffered more. Also nice to hear renault making progress. I trust him more then motor mouth abitual or what his name is

 

 

Thanks Alburaq. First time I’ve heard the shortcomings of the 33 explained like that. And certainly the mood music sounds better this year.



#68 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 2,022 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:22

saw it on f1tech also, very interesting info as for sure he is pretty well informed through former colleagues, and his explanation actually confirm all the other individual pieces of information we received from different mclaren & media sources, He is just the first to tell the root cause, as mclaren offcourse has been reluctant to do that, merely mentioning the effects the problem caused. My only question mark, like someone on f1tech mentioned, the distance seem the same on the mcl32, how come the mcl33 suffered more. Also nice to hear renault making progress. I trust him more then motor mouth abitual or what his name is

 

Different wheel shapes? more airflow due to higher moving speeds due to increased power? slightly different car?



#69 Quickshifter

Quickshifter
  • Member

  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:49

Mclaren actually had a very extensive upgrade path for the MCL33 but because of this front tyre wake issue under varying steering inputs they did not even introduce parts they had already manufactured as it was pointless.

Matt Morris and Tim Goss lost their jobs not just because of making a fundamental error but also because of their failure to get to the root of the issue quickly. People were asking why Prodromou kept the job cos the mechanical issue baked in was responsible for the woes. Keeping the same cooling philosophy despite moving to a power unit with different architecture cost them heavily.

If there is a silver lining for a train wreck of a season, it is the realization that basic fundamental parameters cannot be gambled upon whimsically and never go chasing silver bullets cos there aren't any in this era of f1. Mclaren would have atleast fought with Renault for 4th with a half decent car without fundamental mistakes in car design.

If you see Redbull and Ferrari, they they have cleverly placed the crash structure elements within the aero fairings ahead of the sidepods in order to meet technical regulations allowing the sidepods to be moved back, further away from front axle. This is one thing i expect Mclaren to adopt for 2019 instead of just extending the wheelbase.

Cooling including intakes, sidepod design and bargeboard area will be the key focus area for MCL34 imho as front wing is fairly prescriptive under 2019 regulations. I won't be surprised if Mclaren keep the same nose albeit slightly modified for 2019.

Edited by Quickshifter, 09 January 2019 - 12:55.


#70 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 2,280 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 09 January 2019 - 22:07

Mclaren actually had a very extensive upgrade path for the MCL33 but because of this front tyre wake issue under varying steering inputs they did not even introduce parts they had already manufactured as it was pointless.

Matt Morris and Tim Goss lost their jobs not just because of making a fundamental error but also because of their failure to get to the root of the issue quickly. People were asking why Prodromou kept the job cos the mechanical issue baked in was responsible for the woes. Keeping the same cooling philosophy despite moving to a power unit with different architecture cost them heavily.

If there is a silver lining for a train wreck of a season, it is the realization that basic fundamental parameters cannot be gambled upon whimsically and never go chasing silver bullets cos there aren't any in this era of f1. Mclaren would have atleast fought with Renault for 4th with a half decent car without fundamental mistakes in car design.

If you see Redbull and Ferrari, they they have cleverly placed the crash structure elements within the aero fairings ahead of the sidepods in order to meet technical regulations allowing the sidepods to be moved back, further away from front axle. This is one thing i expect Mclaren to adopt for 2019 instead of just extending the wheelbase.

Cooling including intakes, sidepod design and bargeboard area will be the key focus area for MCL34 imho as front wing is fairly prescriptive under 2019 regulations. I won't be surprised if Mclaren keep the same nose albeit slightly modified for 2019.


Matt Morris resigned when they signed their new TD up.  Bad blood there from his days at Sauber.

With respect to the distance between the front wheels and sidepods, this was something that was changed to accommodate the Renault PU and was discussed in the first part of last year - so it would appear that the rushed changes to force the Renault PU into a car designed for the Honda PU tripped them up.



#71 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 January 2019 - 00:56

It's all excuses. I'm sure they were aware of the flaw within a few laps of the car hitting the track. What they needed to do first was sort out the correlation problem between the simulator and real world data. Until they did that any new parts they designed would still be flawed.

 

Whatever the exact details, it took them months to fully understand it even from when they were actively looking into it. I doubt it was quite so obvious in winter testing as you make out... though I do think McLaren were too slow to respond to it either way.

 

But it does generally seem to me that how they came to fully understand the problem was more or less what you suggested above - they had to figure out exactly where, how and why their simulations did not match reality and until they could replicate it closely they couldn't be sure that they properly understood it.

 

 

 

 

Marc Priestley about Mclaren (and Renault etc.)

 

 

Interesting. It's clearly second hand information but it does fit in well with the hints that Zak (and others from McLaren) has dropped.... though not everything.

 

Essentially, the DF worked as expected in a straight line (where DF is mostly useless) but not in corners where you needed it the most. Also, the root cause was more or less between the front wheels and the middle of the car but the loss of DF would have been only felt at the rear since the middle of the car generates very little downforce itself - what's critical is how it feeds the airflow to the rear.

 

 

Your last line sums up one of my current frustrations with the tiny amount of testing that is allowed - issues with cars are "baked in" for the whole season usually and a team has to effectively abandon prep time at weekends to do what should be done at testing. That and this only having one car at the testing so, if one breaks down everything stops!

 

It is frustrating and it's largely there to help the smaller teams... in theory. Except if anything it entrenches those teams with the resources to simulate as much as possible outside the track. I'd prefer a more flexible approach at least where teams get a fixed amount of time for free testing but can decide when to "spend" it.



#72 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,840 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:04

Whatever the exact details, it took them months to fully understand it even from when they were actively looking into it. I doubt it was quite so obvious in winter testing as you make out... though I do think McLaren were too slow to respond to it either way.

But it does generally seem to me that how they came to fully understand the problem was more or less what you suggested above - they had to figure out exactly where, how and why their simulations did not match reality and until they could replicate it closely they couldn't be sure that they properly understood it.




Interesting. It's clearly second hand information but it does fit in well with the hints that Zak (and others from McLaren) has dropped.... though not everything.

Essentially, the DF worked as expected in a straight line (where DF is mostly useless) but not in corners where you needed it the most. Also, the root cause was more or less between the front wheels and the middle of the car but the loss of DF would have been only felt at the rear since the middle of the car generates very little downforce itself - what's critical is how it feeds the airflow to the rear.



It is frustrating and it's largely there to help the smaller teams... in theory. Except if anything it entrenches those teams with the resources to simulate as much as possible outside the track. I'd prefer a more flexible approach at least where teams get a fixed amount of time for free testing but can decide when to "spend" it.

I just think it would have been obvious they had problems very early in the tests, understanding it was the issue.

#73 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 1,599 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 10 January 2019 - 02:50

Whatever the exact details, it took them months to fully understand it even from when they were actively looking into it. I doubt it was quite so obvious in winter testing as you make out... though I do think McLaren were too slow to respond to it either way.

 

But it does generally seem to me that how they came to fully understand the problem was more or less what you suggested above - they had to figure out exactly where, how and why their simulations did not match reality and until they could replicate it closely they couldn't be sure that they properly understood it.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. It's clearly second hand information but it does fit in well with the hints that Zak (and others from McLaren) has dropped.... though not everything.

 

Essentially, the DF worked as expected in a straight line (where DF is mostly useless) but not in corners where you needed it the most. Also, the root cause was more or less between the front wheels and the middle of the car but the loss of DF would have been only felt at the rear since the middle of the car generates very little downforce itself - what's critical is how it feeds the airflow to the rear.

 

 

 

It is frustrating and it's largely there to help the smaller teams... in theory. Except if anything it entrenches those teams with the resources to simulate as much as possible outside the track. I'd

prefer a more flexible approach at least where teams get a fixed amount of time for free testing but can decide when to "spend" it.

 

Empty barge board area has been down for some time.

All teams used all kinds of flow fin thingy to sort the airflow. 

McLaren was the lest car. 

 

I cannot imagine that it did not recognized that the part has issues.

Perhaps more to do with philosophy or ambition, therefore about accepting it rather than missing it.



#74 PeterScandlyn

PeterScandlyn
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 10 January 2019 - 03:12

That fellow that used to sharpen Adrian's pencils over at Red Bull that McLaren hired, should've had that sorted shouldn't he. Can't have been paying too much attention...... :rolleyes:



#75 Quickshifter

Quickshifter
  • Member

  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 10 January 2019 - 05:13

Zak Brown has admitted they should have been a lot faster to diagnose the issue at hand so that they would have been in a position to react quicker. This is where the structure and team cohesion comes in to the picture. With a properly functioning technical team pulling in one direction they would have discovered the root cause much earlier. So yes they were rushed in to 2018 cos of late engine switch but that is only part of the reason why they got themselves in a tight situation.

Regarding simulation, yes they should have done a better job but this is something every team tries to improve constantly. Ferrari actually discovered after several weekends that the aero upgrade had actually made them slower and not faster. This doesn't mean that Mclaren gets a free pass rather an opportunity to improve their testing methods and equipment which they admittedly did during the course of 2018. Definitely Mclaren realized their simulation methods and equipment weren't up to scratch.

The top three teams naturally will most likely have an advantage everytime there is a regulation change because of the resources and the sheer number of personnel at their disposal however the midfield battle will be really interesting to watch. If Mclaren interpret and implement the 2019 rules properly they can be in a fight for fourth next season especially if Renault PU also makes significant gains. But then again we have to wait till preseason to find out the real story..


Edited by Quickshifter, 10 January 2019 - 08:15.


#76 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,770 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:48

As always it boils down to resources...

#77 Lotusse7en

Lotusse7en
  • Member

  • 63 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:33

As always it boils down to resources...

And not just the number of resources , the quality too.



#78 Matthew22

Matthew22
  • Member

  • 66 posts
  • Joined: November 18

Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:10

Excited about Seidl guys?!



#79 Hamm

Hamm
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:10

McLaren Racing has appointed Andreas Seidl as managing director of our @F1 team. 🤝
Find out more ➡️ https://t.co/k5EiiP3Q9K https://t.co/631n8zzStY

https://twitter.com/...7710568448?s=19

Advertisement

#80 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 4,033 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:31

Excited about Seidl guys?!



Well, that's good news. He is highly rated guy. Things are looking brighter for the future for sure!

#81 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:41

best news in a long time, hands om experience and proven track record of succeding with teams he put together, and mclaren ios basicly a new start so, in my opinion a very good signing from Zak, and he is german  :up:  now give him the ressouces/money and power to make the changes needed, and get gil out of the way, whatever he does



#82 BertoC

BertoC
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: August 17

Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:07

Good news IMO, he's a good asset. Curious to know what his role will be. What is the managing director role?



#83 Oblivion

Oblivion
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:09

Good news IMO, he's a good asset. Curious to know what his role will be. What is the managing director role?

 

He will report to Zak directly. So I think it's something Jost Capito should be doing



#84 blacky

blacky
  • Member

  • 1,842 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:35

Capito was CEO of McLaren racing, like Brown is now.

I guess Seidl will be in the Boullier role (the one sitting in the press conferences and stuff like that).



#85 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,770 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:51

Why he was hired: https://www.autospor...has-hired-seidl

 

Other developments at Woking: https://www.motorspo...saward/id/00404



#86 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:59

yeah agree, his role will be similar to boulliers, although with more responsability i think, he will have complete command of setting up and running the F1 team. Brown is a business developer, now he will have more time for that, so thats great. That Mclaren signs a big name like this will hopefully also bring some credibility and confidence back to the mclaren name and potential partners. He will know who to get onboard from Porsches Lmp1 program, maybe even some pu related to help mclaren help Renault. A engineer, with people skills and an eye for politics, just sounds to good no. Its our own toto wolff/horner just with tech insight :-) 


Edited by f1rules, 10 January 2019 - 13:11.


#87 Quickshifter

Quickshifter
  • Member

  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 10 January 2019 - 13:19

Incredible news. Seidl, Key, Fry and de Ferran, those are some astute signings. Mclaren meant business when they used the word restructure. Kudos to Brown for making some impressive signings. Brown has also brought several sponsors albeit smaller ones, throughout 2018 campaign. 2020 will be the first year under the influence of Key and Seidl. Hopefully 2019 will be a good stepping stone for 2020.

#88 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 13:30

from bbc on De Ferran

 

De Ferran's role will expand to take in the IndyCar programme and, potentially in the future, a world sportscar entry.

The 51-year-old is effectively to be Brown's right-hand man across all McLaren's motorsport activities - he is essentially an internal management consultant, floating across all aspects of McLaren's racing operations and offering advice and insight.

The Brazilian will remain heavily involved in F1, but is also likely to be part of Alonso's bid to win the Indy 500, where the Spaniard is bidding to become only the second man in history to win motorsport's unofficial 'triple crown'.

This is to win Indy, the Le Mans 24 Hours and the Monaco Grand Prix, although some regard the F1 aspect of it as the world championship.



#89 Louis Mr. F1

Louis Mr. F1
  • Member

  • 3,192 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 10 January 2019 - 14:57

Bob Fernley too. Hopefully he will be working on the F1 team after they’re done with this year’s Indy500.

#90 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 3,709 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 10 January 2019 - 16:02

McLaren Racing has appointed Andreas Seidl as managing director of our @F1 team.
Find out more ➡ https://t.co/k5EiiP3Q9K https://t.co/631n8zzStY

https://twitter.com/...7710568448?s=19

Home run appointment, this is the kind of developement they needed when they sacked the old squad and changed the roles. Thers's a name that's missing though from all of these reports. Andrea Stella, where is he ?



#91 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 6,494 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 16:18

Him and fry will be under key

#92 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 3,709 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 10 January 2019 - 16:24

Fry ? Waouw the guy returned ? I missed things.



#93 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 4,033 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 January 2019 - 16:35

Fry ? Waouw the guy returned ? I missed things.


He's working on this year's car.

#94 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 3,709 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 10 January 2019 - 17:01

Why they put him back in Design ? no engneering director ?



#95 Christophe77

Christophe77
  • Member

  • 869 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 10 January 2019 - 17:25

Seidl will effectively be the F1 team principal.  Bigger role then Bouiller, because he was only responsible for the trackside ops. He was not head of the factory for example. Seidl will be. Basically you have Brown as CEO (of Mclaren Racing), and under him Fernley as team principal for Indy and Seidl as team principal for F1. That's how I would have structured it myself :) 

And to make the picture complete: next to Brown you have the ceo's of Automotive (Flewitt) and Applied technologies (Glover a.i.) and above those 3 you have the chairman/president which is Shaikh Mohammed and who is assisted in the day to day running by the group COO (Neale). No Group CEO as far as I know...



#96 Pumpkinz

Pumpkinz
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 10 January 2019 - 19:59

Why they put him back in Design ? no engneering director ?

Should be Engineering Director

http://www.espn.com/...eering-director



#97 jstrains

jstrains
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 10 January 2019 - 22:27

That Fry? Wasn't he with Alonso at Ferrari for some time?



#98 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 17,874 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 January 2019 - 01:24

 

McLaren chasing reliability ahead of winter testing

 

“I don’t want to share in detail some of the things we’re doing differently this offseason than we did last season,” Brown said. “We are doing things differently, to be more prepared, not just with performance but we had a lot of reliability issues going into Barcelona testing last year. So we have taken some measures to get ahead of that. “We will continue to develop as all F1 teams do, on a weekly basis, and we’ll bring to Australia our most developed performance that we’ve been doing here since we started developing the car and having reliability programs to make sure [it is better].

 

“One of the reasons why we were slower to bring performance (in 2018) is because we had reliability issues. You roll off the truck in Barcelona, instead of being able to get straight down to performance, you’re having issues — wheel nut issues, heating issues — you then stop focusing on performance and you start focusing on reliability.

 

https://racer.com/20...winter-testing/

 

 

Make a car fast and then reliable, because it's harder to make a reliable car fast than a fast car reliable. Seems not to be the modus operandi anymore. Lessons from the Honda years?



#99 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 17,874 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 January 2019 - 01:27

Fry ? Waouw the guy returned ? I missed things.

They had to find an interim solution because of Key's forced delay to join the team.



Advertisement

#100 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,424 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:22

Make a car fast and then reliable, because it's harder to make a reliable car fast than a fast car reliable. Seems not to be the modus operandi anymore. Lessons from the Honda years?


I think it’s limited testing and the age of simulators.

In the past you made the car fast and tested it. After it broke down and it was repaired with slightly stronger parts, you took it back out and tested it some more. Of course you also had multiple cars and drivers testing as well, so you could just keep smashing out the laps until you made it hold together for a race distance.

These days with 1 driver and only a few days of testing, reliability is crucial to get as much track time in so as to see if all those computer numbers are accurate. Once they prove to be true, you can then keep designing a faster car on the simulators. On the other hand if the car is unreliable and you never get a true test of the car, then not only is it impossible to test new more reliable parts, you can also never test to see if your sim numbers are true to begin with meaning all future development is put on hold.

Of course I could be wrong, but I think that is why teams have changed their approach in recent years. Getting adequate track time to get those simulation numbers calibrated is just too important.