115 replies to this topic

[1player]

We are probably gonna a Maths, Probability and Combinatorics thread elsewhere in the Racing Comments forum.

[PayasYouRace]

Anyone know if this is real?

https://twitter.com/...747578488942916

F1 TROLL
@f1trollofficial
The gap between Max and Lando in Japanese GP

He won by 19 seconds. How far through the lap is 19 seconds? Seems about right.

[Henri Greuter]

Officially, but in practical terms Ascari couldn't focus on Indy and also do the Swiss GP so he was 6 out of 7 in races he competed in. Whether you adjust for that is a matter of preference.

 

And there is the matter of the way larger difference in the numbers involved for races won out of the total amount of races. The larger the total, the more chances that a retirement beyond your own control or related with your own driving and your own car may happen. A lesser finish result or even retirement by own fault or own car failure is something else than when being an innocent victim of another's error. Can we really claim that Bottas fouled up in Japan last Sunday for example?

Hence why, when I validated the RB19 performances with another Dominator of the past, I made the conditions for the RB19 at least numberwise equal to that of the older car. (Edit: and used the point score system used with the older car. EndEdit)

But I admit, even that comparison is not entirely valid due to the fact that the RB19 drove at tracks that did not exist yet in 1988 and/or 2002 or that track on which the MP4/4 or F2002 drove on in their seasons have yet to come for the RB19 due to the larger amount of races.

 

But if we take everything in consideration then such comparisons better should not be made at all, because as is by now obvious, yo can't please everyone with bringing in or excluding every factor that everyone thinks to be important and you'll get comments on ignoring facts and parameters that are important for others and they make such known.

 

But don't worry, I'll quit doing those comparisons of the remaining dominators of the past with the RB19.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 27 September 2023 - 08:12.

[taran]

Any sources for that idea, Henri? Or was it just an edgy car that Prost coped with and Roserg couldn't? In many hours, amounting to days, spent reading or listening to the great F1 engineers, never have I encountered this idea of designing a car to one driver's preferences.

 

From memory, the McLaren was set up for understeering which suited Prost's driving style of gently, gently....Rosberg came from wild-handling Williams and Honda turbos with an off/on switch. He wasn't used to the McLaren-TAG Porsche which was optimised for efficiency (the Porsche long distance influence) and Lauda and Prost's gentler style of driving. And the team's design guru John Barnard was at the height of his fame and prevented Rosberg from changing the setups of his cars too much, much like Patrick Head did with his drivers.

By mid-season, Rosberg was finally allowed to set the car up his way and became much faster with it.

 

Didn't change the fact that Rosberg acknowledged that Prost was much faster than he had previously believed but it did show Rosberg wasn't as bad as his early McLaren races had suggested.

 

 

[PayasYouRace]

Barnard left McLaren for Ferrari midway through 1986. That’s probably why Rosberg was able to get the car more to his liking.

Though I object to the claim that Barnard was preventing Rosberg from making setup changes “due to his fame”. Stubbornness of an engineer sure, but these guys aren’t prima donnas.

[Henri Greuter]

From memory, the McLaren was set up for understeering which suited Prost's driving style of gently, gently....Rosberg came from wild-handling Williams and Honda turbos with an off/on switch. He wasn't used to the McLaren-TAG Porsche which was optimised for efficiency (the Porsche long distance influence) and Lauda and Prost's gentler style of driving. And the team's design guru John Barnard was at the height of his fame and prevented Rosberg from changing the setups of his cars too much, much like Patrick Head did with his drivers.

By mid-season, Rosberg was finally allowed to set the car up his way and became much faster with it.

 

Didn't change the fact that Rosberg acknowledged that Prost was much faster than he had previously believed but it did show Rosberg wasn't as bad as his early McLaren races had suggested.

 

 

This is very much similar as of what I do remember having read about the situation for Rosberg, thnx for posting this

[taran]

Barnard left McLaren for Ferrari midway through 1986. That’s probably why Rosberg was able to get the car more to his liking.

Though I object to the claim that Barnard was preventing Rosberg from making setup changes “due to his fame”. Stubbornness of an engineer sure, but these guys aren’t prima donnas.

Oh, I don't think it was just due to his fame and indeed a sense of "I know best" but because his fame was then at it's zenith, Barnard's word was decisive on the technical side. Allegedly, Dennis didn't like Barnard's importance and influence in the team which led to him moving to Ferrari.

[Henri Greuter]

Oh, I don't think it was just due to his fame and indeed a sense of "I know best" but because his fame was then at it's zenith, Barnard's word was decisive on the technical side. Allegedly, Dennis didn't like Barnard's importance and influence in the team which led to him moving to Ferrari.

 

 

Which was a bit in contrast with the fact that less than a year before, when Lauda announced his retirement in a press conference at Zandvoort, Ron entirely ignored Niki and instead hammered on the fact that all of the recent achievements of McLaren were mainly thanks to the work of John Barnard......

[Sterzo]

I can't recall the publication where I've read this anymore (Pruller GP story 86 would be my first guess) but the gest as how I remember it was that both Prost and Lauda had a drive style that was more similar to another then that of Prost and Rosberg. And that as a result of the two previous years for McLaren (Prost-Lauda) the 1986 car suited Prost much better than it did Rosberg.

Prost had a way more smooth manner of driving than Keke Rosberg had.

 

 

From memory, the McLaren was set up for understeering which suited Prost's driving style of gently, gently....Rosberg came from wild-handling Williams and Honda turbos with an off/on switch. He wasn't used to the McLaren-TAG Porsche which was optimised for efficiency (the Porsche long distance influence) and Lauda and Prost's gentler style of driving. And the team's design guru John Barnard was at the height of his fame and prevented Rosberg from changing the setups of his cars too much, much like Patrick Head did with his drivers.

By mid-season, Rosberg was finally allowed to set the car up his way and became much faster with it.

 

Didn't change the fact that Rosberg acknowledged that Prost was much faster than he had previously believed but it did show Rosberg wasn't as bad as his early McLaren races had suggested.

Interesting points, but neither of your replies indicates that the car was (or even could be) designed for a specific driver. John Barnard makes no mention of taking into account driver preferences in either his book or his Motor Sport podcast, whereas if that was a factor in the complex process of car design I'd expect at least a hint.

[taran]

It's been a long time since I've read up on the 1986 season which I enjoyed very much at the time. I was rooting for Piquet

 

I seem to remember that Rosberg (again because of his experience with the Williams and the Honda engine) wanted a car with more immediate reflexes and a sharper throttle map. The McLaren was generally more softer in it's responses if that makes sense. It was certainly softer sprung than many contemporary cars, akin to the Lotus which had the Ducarouge touch.

 

Rosberg wanted a car that responded faster, something he could wring the neck off which is not how Lauda and Prost raced a car. Barnard wasn't happy about that because his cars were set up in a certain way (not so much designed I guess but operated with a certain throttle map and steering response etc.) and changing that would be a hassle and make it more difficult to swap cars between drivers.

 

This was 1986 after all with small teams, small budgets and very little in-season development compared to modern times. According to Grand Prix International, McLaren had 100 staff and a budget of $19m in 1985 while Brabham had 80 staff and a $12.5m budget.

 

So I don't think Barnard specifically designed cars to suit drivers but rather technical regulations. After all, Barnard designed the fuel efficient McLarens of the 1984/1985/1986 limited fuel era which Lauda and Prost enjoyed but also the normally aspirated Ferrari of 1989 and 1990 with V12 screamers that Mansell and Prost used.

[PayasYouRace]

Interesting points, but neither of your replies indicates that the car was (or even could be) designed for a specific driver. John Barnard makes no mention of taking into account driver preferences in either his book or his Motor Sport podcast, whereas if that was a factor in the complex process of car design I'd expect at least a hint.

I feel like I’ve been repeating this a lot lately, but cars can only be developed along the lines of the feedback from the driver. It’s a basic feedback loop. No, the designers don’t go out to design a car for a particular driver. But when they try a new idea, and the quicker driver goes much faster with it, and likes it, then that’s the direction development goes.

If you have two drivers who have similar driving styles and preferences, then either can push car development. If the drivers have different styles, then development will follow the quicker driver unless the effort and reproduce can be made to keep the other driver happy too.

[ARTGP]

I feel like I’ve been repeating this a lot lately, but cars can only be developed along the lines of the feedback from the driver. It’s a basic feedback loop. No, the designers don’t go out to design a car for a particular driver. But when they try a new idea, and the quicker driver goes much faster with it, and likes it, then that’s the direction development goes.

If you have two drivers who have similar driving styles and preferences, then either can push car development. If the drivers have different styles, then development will follow the quicker driver unless the effort and reproduce can be made to keep the other driver happy too.

 

The engineers can see the pressure sensors in the floor that prove to them that one floor specification is better than the other, even if the driver is wasting the car. So it's not just driver feedback that drives development and it would be seriously unusual if the engineers are able to measure the aerodynamic improvement (pressure sensors in the floor, loads being measured in the pushrods), straightline speed, but the driver is saying the car is worse. Some things are objective. 

Edited by ARTGP, 27 September 2023 - 14:56.

[PayasYouRace]

The engineers can see the pressure sensors in the floor that prove to them that one floor specification is better than the other, even if the driver is wasting the car. So it's not just driver feedback that drives development and it would be seriously unusual if the engineers are able to measure the aerodynamic improvement (pressure sensors in the floor, loads being measured in the pushrods), straightline speed, but the driver is saying the car is worse. Some things are objective.

Yes some things are, but not necessarily the things that people talk about as being suited to one driver or another.

And even for an aerodynamic part like you’re describing, that could affect a dynamic aspect of the car’s performance that once driver can cope with hit another can’t. Yes, pressure tappings might show improved performance on paper. But if that introduces a handling characteristic that the drivers can’t cope with, the car will be slower. The best engineers will use that feedback to further develop the car. If one driver can cope and another can’t, then there’s a chance that they’ll continue if that one driver is producing the results. That’s the feedback loop that gives rise to the illusion of designing a car for a driver.

In short, if the driver is saying the car is worse, then it’s worse. The stopwatch doesn’t lie, and is the ultimate measure of the car’s performance.

[Risil]

If you have two drivers who have similar driving styles and preferences, then either can push car development. If the drivers have different styles, then development will follow the quicker driver unless the effort and reproduce can be made to keep the other driver happy too.

 

That's possibly the ideal. I expect in reality, if the drivers have different styles, that's when the politics begin.

[WonderWoman61]

I would like to think Red Bull can be beaten again before the season is out.

[SenorSjon]

Oh, I don't think it was just due to his fame and indeed a sense of "I know best" but because his fame was then at it's zenith, Barnard's word was decisive on the technical side. Allegedly, Dennis didn't like Barnard's importance and influence in the team which led to him moving to Ferrari.

 

Funny how history repeated itself roughly 20 years later.