Mclaren heading for trouble next year?
-
Ooooh, and who got the WDC? Whose car was more reliably fast? Sure, sure, the 20 could be fast, but not when it counted, and tough luck, that's NOT fast.Originally posted by Gazelle:In year 2005, Kimi has more race victory than Alonso. If not for Merc engine blowing up and some unlucky DNF for kimi, the WDC and WCC would have already swing mclaren's way. Please go and read the Nov 2005 issue of F1 Racing to find out if the MP20 is as bad as what you are saying.
Dude, its about time that you get your facts right again!!
You should be laughing at yourself because the joke about ron is suppose to be for you.
Let's not forget Kimi's suspension flyapart after he locked up and flatspotted the tyre. Is that an engine problem of lack of grip? Unlucky DNF indeed - the car wasn't balanced. -
OUTSTANDING! Even better - they had years to get used to Prost, but it was a new driver who came along and took the WDC. What happened to your little theory about engineers needing time to know how the driver works?Originally posted by Gazelle:Get your facts right dude, we are talking about changing 2 (TWO) drivers at the same time. Alain Prost was already with Mclaren since 1984 and he was with Mclaren until 89. What you talking about?
Your logic's astounding. -
GED, I think you dont quite understand what I am trying to tell youOriginally posted by Gedanken:MP4-19A:
Number of wins: 0
Average points per start: 0.94
MP4-19B:
Number of wins: 1
Aberage points per start: 2.89
Sorry, which car did Newey NOT support? The B? The one that got 2.89 points per start compared to the A's 0.94?
Very good, Gaz.
a) Both 18a, 19a and 19b were all flop
b) What Newey is suggesting is that instead of working on a evolution of 19a (which is basically a rebadge 18a) for 19b he prefer to redesign the car from scratch. And this idea was VETO. The the reason why Newey suggested that is because there is a serious fundamental flaw in the 18A design, which was partly due to Mike Coughlan's idea to push for twin keel design.
So what I am telling you is that the flop of 19B is not due to Newey, it is due to Mclaren's decision. (You really think Newey is interested to claim that 1 win huh??)
anyway thanks for the statistic. -
Like I said, it may have had some quick little performances, but even during testing Mac already knew that it couldn't deliver the goods. What's the point of something that turns in a few quick laps and then sends itself into the kitty litter? Alternatively, they could keep tuning it and tuning it and tuning it and tuning it ..... and it still wouldn't deliver because they'd have to sacrifice speed for possible stability.Originally posted by Gazelle:The fact is that MP4-18A was never a SLOW car. Didnt know they have drag racing at Barcelona circuit.. -
Oh, NOW the 18's not fast. Make your mind up, will ya?Originally posted by Gazelle:GED, I think you dont quite understand what I am trying to tell you
a) Both 18a, 19a and 19b were all flop
b) What Newey is suggesting is that instead of working on a evolution of 19a (which is basically a rebadge 18a) for 19b he prefer to redesign the car from scratch. And this idea was VETO. The the reason why Newey suggested that is because there is a serious fundamental flaw in the 18A design, which was partly due to Mike Coughlan's idea to push for twin keel design.
So what I am telling you is that the flop of 19B is not due to Newey, it is due to Mclaren's decision. (You really think Newey is interested to claim that 1 win huh??)
anyway thanks for the statistic. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
The arguement here is the Newey has done really good job for the MP20. If not for the driver's error and engine problem. Mclaren could have win both championship already.
Ooooh, and who got the WDC? Whose car was more [b]reliably fast? Sure, sure, the 20 could be fast, but not when it counted, and tough luck, that's NOT fast.
Let's not forget Kimi's suspension flyapart after he locked up and flatspotted the tyre. Is that an engine problem of lack of grip? Unlucky DNF indeed - the car wasn't balanced.[/b] -
And I'm saying that Mac are now yet one more step ahead - they not only don't have to deal with the troublesome 18, they don't have to deal with the guy who was so interested dreaming about boats that he designed a car that handled like one.Originally posted by Gazelle:b) What Newey is suggesting is that instead of working on a evolution of 19a (which is basically a rebadge 18a) for 19b he prefer to redesign the car from scratch. And this idea was VETO. The the reason why Newey suggested that is because there is a serious fundamental flaw in the 18A design, which was partly due to Mike Coughlan's idea to push for twin keel design.
It's time for someone else to take over. A new designer may not necessarily produce better results, but sticking with an uninterested designer who wants to break away is worse. -
Nope. No. Uh uh. If he'd done a good job on the 20, the car would have been balanced. As it is, for the first part of the season the Mac could not get its tyres warm enough and that took a fair bit of sorting out. For the past few yeaqrs under Newey, the car's taken well into the season to get sorted out, even without engine problems.Originally posted by Gazelle:The arguement here is the Newey has done really good job for the MP20. If not for the driver's error and engine problem. Mclaren could have win both championship already. -
Why dont you just say why when kimi score more point than DC on his first year in Mclaren? The key issue here is that in order for the team the progress, drivers need to give feedback to the engineers so that they can develop new parts to improve the performance of the car. To have 2 new drivers, they will have to first learn the characteristic of the car before they can give any accurate feedback. Have you ever ask why Ruben has so struggle in the beginning of the season and now seem to be faster than JB?Originally posted by Gedanken:OUTSTANDING! Even better - they had years to get used to Prost, but it was a new driver who came along and took the WDC. What happened to your little theory about engineers needing time to know how the driver works?
Your logic's astounding.
It will be better if you can quote me an example of a team changing both driver at the same time and still go on to win the championship. -
when I say flop, I mean not winning races, no scoring points..Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, NOW the 18's not fast. Make your mind up, will ya?
** feel like I am talking to some kindergarden kid *** -
The problem here is that Newey is not the only key engineer that left. instead of blaming Newey, why dont you take time off and ask why other key engineer are leaving Mclaren for smaller teams?Originally posted by Gedanken:And I'm saying that Mac are now yet one more step ahead - they not only don't have to deal with the troublesome 18, they don't have to deal with the guy who was so interested dreaming about boats that he designed a car that handled like one.
It's time for someone else to take over. A new designer may not necessarily produce better results, but sticking with an uninterested designer who wants to break away is worse. -
So which car in 2005 do you think was aerodynamically better than MP20 and why?Originally posted by Gedanken:Nope. No. Uh uh. If he'd done a good job on the 20, the car would have been balanced. As it is, for the first part of the season the Mac could not get its tyres warm enough and that took a fair bit of sorting out. For the past few yeaqrs under Newey, the car's taken well into the season to get sorted out, even without engine problems. -
Why do I have to quote you an example with both drivers? Are both going to win the WDC?Originally posted by Gazelle:Why dont you just say why when kimi score more point than DC on his first year in Mclaren? The key issue here is that in order for the team the progress, drivers need to give feedback to the engineers so that they can develop new parts to improve the performance of the car. To have 2 new drivers, they will have to first learn the characteristic of the car before they can give any accurate feedback. Have you ever ask why Ruben has so struggle in the beginning of the season and now seem to be faster than JB?
It will be better if you can quote me an example of a team changing both driver at the same time and still go on to win the championship.
You said that the engineers NEED time to get used to the driver before getting results. Senna joined McLaren and won the WDC in his first year with them. That simply proves you wrong. Any other examples aren't going to make a difference, but if you want, what about Keke Rosberg and James Hunt? -
So the 18 was fast, and the 19 was developed from it and it wasn't fast. Why? Because the design was flawed and it was NOT fast!Originally posted by Gazelle:when I say flop, I mean not winning races, no scoring points..
** feel like I am talking to some kindergarden kid ***
Feel like I'm talking to an amnesiac who can't keep track of what he's saying. -
Newey's not the only one to blame, but he sure had his part in it - in his position, he was the one who was most responsible for making or breaking it. Doesn't change the fact that his leaving is preventing being kept back, if not a step ahead.Originally posted by Gazelle:The problem here is that Newey is not the only key engineer that left. instead of blaming Newey, why dont you take time off and ask why other key engineer are leaving Mclaren for smaller teams? -
Relative to its rival, MP18A was fast in 2003 and MP19B qualifying time at Barcelona in 2004 was faster. But relative to its rival they are no where to be seen.Originally posted by Gedanken:So the 18 was fast, and the 19 was developed from it and it wasn't fast. Why? Because the design was flawed and it was NOT fast!
Feel like I'm talking to an amnesiac who can't keep track of what he's saying.
Gen, will next year's car be faster than this year if there is not major rule change? -
Rivals for the 18? The thing never even made it to the races! Do you even know what you're talking about, or is this a silverware thing?Originally posted by Gazelle:Relative to its rival, MP18A was fast in 2003 and MP19B qualifying time at Barcelona in 2004 was faster. But relative to its rival they are no where to be seen.
Gen, will next year's car be faster than this year if there is not major rule change?
So the 19 was faster than the 18 but it couldn't touch it's rivals, but the 18 was fast? Stop tripping over yourself. -
If you think that is not an issue, can you please explain why Renault resigned FISI for ONE year, when there are plenty of more capable drivers waiting to take up his seat?Originally posted by Gedanken:Why do I have to quote you an example with both drivers? Are both going to win the WDC?
You said that the engineers NEED time to get used to the driver before getting results. Senna joined McLaren and won the WDC in his first year with them. That simply proves you wrong. Any other examples aren't going to make a difference, but if you want, what about Keke Rosberg and James Hunt? -
Off topic. You want to talk racing, carry on. You want to start calling for your kindergarten tecaher, take it somewhere else.
-
He's still useful to them as a #2 driver at times, and they're comfortable with the guy. They aren't counting on him to be their next champ, but they figure he's reliable.Originally posted by Gazelle:If you think that is not an issue, can you please explain why Renault resigned FISI for ONE year, when there are plenty of more capable drivers waiting to take up his seat? -
in 2003, MP4-18 lap time in Barcelona was 0.5 sec faster than its rival in testing.Originally posted by Gedanken:Rivals for the 18? The thing never even made it to the races! Do you even know what you're talking about, or is this a silverware thing?
So the 19 was faster than the 18 but it couldn't touch it's rivals, but the 18 was fast? Stop tripping over yourself.
in 2004, MP4-19B lap time in Barcelona race was faster than MP4-18A 2003 test timing but it is not fast enough to beat its competitors.
Why? Because competitor's car development was faster than MP4-19 because MP4-19 has a fundamental flaw in design.
It was fast in 2003 but not fast in 2004? Understand? Mr. F1 Moderator? -
If championship quality, why only sign him for 1 year?? This show how much you really know about what is going on in F1.Originally posted by Gedanken:He's still useful to them as a #2 driver at times, and they're comfortable with the guy. They aren't counting on him to be their next champ, but they figure he's reliable. -
Testing is not racing, and anybody who follows racing knows that testing results are not an indicator of the car's performance in the championship. Understand, Mr I-watch-the-occasional-race-at-a-bar?Originally posted by Gazelle:in 2003, MP4-18 lap time in Barcelona was 0.5 sec faster than its rival in testing.
in 2004, MP4-19B lap time in Barcelona race was faster than MP4-18A 2003 test timing but it is not fast enough to beat its competitors.
Why? Because competitor's car development was faster than MP4-19 because MP4-19 has a fundamental flaw in design.
It was fast in 2003 but not fast in 2004? Understand? Mr. F1 Moderator?
The fundamental flaws were inherent in the basic design, and the basic design was the 18, so the 18 was fundamentally flawed. Get it? -
And who says he's championship quality? And a 1-year contract is standard, so what's the big deal? if Fisi was put on a race-by-race contract, then he's got a problem. Or haven't you watched F1 long enough to know the difference?Originally posted by Gazelle:If championship quality, why only sign him for 1 year?? This show how much you really know about what is going on in F1. -
That still doesnt mean that MP4-18 wasnt fast. it is just not reliable. And to correct its reliability you will have to change its aero side pot to address the engine heating problem and along the way you are actually slowing the cars down.Originally posted by Gedanken:Testing is not racing, and anybody who follows racing knows that testing results are not an indicator of the car's performance in the championship. Understand, Mr I-watch-the-occasional-race-at-a-bar?
The fundamental flaws were inherent in the basic design, and the basic design was the 18, so the 18 was fundamentally flawed. Get it?
Why dont you find me an article that say that MP4-18 is SLOW.