Mclaren heading for trouble next year?
-
The heating problem's another issue altogether. The problem in terms of speed was that the handling was unpredictable. Wurz and Raikkonnen both got snapped off the track - how fast was the 18 going to go if it was jammed in a tyre barrier?Originally posted by Gazelle: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.
Why dont you find me an article that say that MP4-18 is SLOW.
Mind you, when Wurz clocked his time, he pretty much had the track to himself. How fast would an unstable car be in traffic conditions? Do the math.
Anyway, it's just about midnight here so I'm off to cop some Z's. I'll continue tomorrow. -
FISI is just a temparary stepping stone for the team because it hae already been mentioned before that Renault will try to avoid changing both drivers at the same time. Maybe Renault themselves doesnt even know the difference like what you have mentioned.Originally posted by Gedanken: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?
-
In order for the MP4-19 to be able to put into race something must have been done right? Why dont you go find out what exactly done and see if the modification has caused the aero dynamic to suffer.Originally posted by Gedanken:The heating problem's another issue altogether. The problem in terms of speed was that the handling was unpredictable. Wurz and Raikkonnen both got snapped off the track - how fast was the 18 going to go if it was jammed in a tyre barrier?
Mind you, when Wurz clocked his time, he pretty much had the track to himself. How fast would an unstable car be in traffic conditions? Do the math.
Anyway, it's just about midnight here so I'm off to cop some Z's. I'll continue tomorrow.
Yeah go sleep in peace and stop editing my post. Mr. Moderator!! -
btw, the F1 car 20 years ago are different from what we have today, so stop using F1 fact in the past to determind the future.Originally posted by Gazelle:Off topic. You want to talk racing, carry on. You want to start calling for your kindergarten tecaher, take it somewhere else. -
If Kovalainen steps up to the race seat he'll also need a mentor. There's no need to insist that your hypothesis is right.Originally posted by Gazelle:FISI is just a temparary stepping stone for the team because it hae already been mentioned before that Renault will try to avoid changing both drivers at the same time. Maybe Renault themselves doesnt even know the difference like what you have mentioned. -
stability is key to winning F1 TOP PRIZE and to say that losing both drivers is not an issue to a team fighting for championship is pure rubbishOriginally posted by Kuali Baba:If Kovalainen steps up to the race seat he'll also need a mentor. There's no need to insist that your hypothesis is right. -
We can speculate that they'll have a lull period next year but it won't stay that way for long.Originally posted by Gazelle:stability is key to winning F1 TOP PRIZE and to say that losing both drivers is not an issue to a team fighting for championship is pure rubbish -
Hmm, do people talk differently today as compared to 20 years ago? We're talking about engineers learning to work with drivers, so what's that got to do with the cars themselves?Originally posted by Gazelle:btw, the F1 car 20 years ago are different from what we have today, so stop using F1 fact in the past to determind the future. -
Key changes to the 19 from the 18:Originally posted by Gazelle:In order for the MP4-19 to be able to put into race something must have been done right? Why dont you go find out what exactly done and see if the modification has caused the aero dynamic to suffer.
Yeah go sleep in peace and stop editing my post. Mr. Moderator!!
1) Chassis modofied to allow mounting of the FO 110Q engine
2) Larger engine cover
3) Relocated radiator and exhaust exits
4) Incorporation of a two element rear wing to comply with 2004 regulations
5) Sidepods contoured around radiator more completely
6) Wider flipups
If anything, the rear wing and exit vent changes may have helped with the instability problem.
Mind you, McLaren's level of confidence in the 18 wasn't great - in developing the 19, they only ran one 18 chassis and performed component testing on a 17D.
And if you behave yourself I won't have to edit. Simple. -
We are talking about engineers doing different scope of work, we are talking modern F1 where regulation are so much tighter than before. We are talkingabout modern F1 where the only way for engineers to gain considerable timing is through aerodynamic. We are talking about modern F1 where team spend hundreds of millions competiting one another. We are talking about modern F1 teams that are running 2 wind tunnels.Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm, do people talk differently today as compared to 20 years ago? We're talking about engineers learning to work with drivers, so what's that got to do with the cars themselves?
Do you have all this 20 years ago?
Are you sure you are qualify to be a moderator. Because my concern here is that you dont even know what to moderate. OR are you trying to create your rules in F1?
-
So with all the changes, does it create more DRAG ? With more drag does it affect the aero efficiency? with poor aero efficiency, does it slow down the car?Originally posted by Gedanken:Key changes to the 19 from the 18:
1) Chassis modofied to allow mounting of the FO 110Q engine
2) Larger engine cover
3) Relocated radiator and exhaust exits
4) Incorporation of a two element rear wing to comply with 2004 regulations
5) Sidepods contoured around radiator more completely
6) Wider flipups
If anything, the rear wing and exit vent changes may have helped with the instability problem.
Mind you, McLaren's level of confidence in the 18 wasn't great - in developing the 19, they only ran one 18 chassis and performed component testing on a 17D.
And if you behave yourself I won't have to edit. Simple.
Which team in the world will have confidence with a car that has never made it to race? You are just repeating what I have been saying to you over and over again. are you high on drugs? -
Does it? You go the 18 and 19's cD figures to show that it does?Originally posted by Gazelle:So with all the changes, does it create more DRAG ? With more drag does it affect the aero efficiency? with poor aero efficiency, does it slow down the car?
Theoretically, the redesign of the rear wing endplates and wider flipups would have created smoother airflow and less drag, while the introduction of vents would have created less resistance in the sidepods. On the other hand, the installation of funnels would have increased drag. Is the overall drag increased? I don't know - do you?
Lemme get this straight - the car has to race before the team can have confidence in it, but the team has to have confidence in it before they can release it from testing to race.Originally posted by Gazelle:Which team in the world will have confidence with a car that has never made it to race? You are just repeating what I have been saying to you over and over again. are you high on drugs?
I don't think you even know what you have been saying, because you keep wagging the dog and contradicting yourself as well.
I think you're the one who needs drugs - of the prescribed sort. -
If the car was properly designed in the first place, adjusting it to suit the driver would not require major redesigns, just fine adjustments during practice and qualifying and incremental improvements in between races to maintain progress over the season. If the car was not going to be properly designed, no amount of jawing with the driver would do a jot of good. None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels.Originally posted by Gazelle:We are talking about engineers doing different scope of work, we are talking modern F1 where regulation are so much tighter than before. We are talkingabout modern F1 where the only way for engineers to gain considerable timing is through aerodynamic. We are talking about modern F1 where team spend hundreds of millions competiting one another. We are talking about modern F1 teams that are running 2 wind tunnels.
Do you have all this 20 years ago?
Are you sure you are qualify to be a moderator. Because my concern here is that you dont even know what to moderate. OR are you trying to create your rules in F1?
I'm touched by your concern, but the moderator's role is to make sure that people like you behave themselves. You only have to worry about me being a moderator if you start going off on irrelevant tangents like what you said about the relationship between Briatore and Fisi sister. Note that I have not edited anything you have written that is racing-related. Keep your nose clean and I'll engage you on the level of just another member and not a mod. -
Let me quote you a statement from Martin Whitmarsh and Alex Wurz when Mclaren launch the MP4-18A.Originally posted by Gedanken:Lemme get this straight - the car has to race before the team can have confidence in it, but the team has to have confidence in it before they can release it from testing to race.
I don't think you even know what you have been saying, because you keep wagging the dog and contradicting yourself as well.
I think you're the one who needs drugs - of the prescribed sort.
Martin : ""It's early days to be making any claims about the car's performance, but we're very confident from the analysis and simulation we've already done that the car will definitely be quick," he added."
Alex : ""Of course, I'm very excited to be driving the MP4-18 for the first time. Everything feels great,"
Are you saying that you know more that the guys at Mclaren? -
Hey dude, are you aware that top teams are not allow to run the third cars on friday? Do you know that FIA is imposing testing restriction? For a team to spend over 400m in a season I really dont think there is room for so many 'IFs'.Originally posted by Gedanken:If the car was properly designed in the first place, adjusting it to suit the driver would not require major redesigns, just fine adjustments during practice and qualifying and incremental improvements in between races to maintain progress over the season. If the car was not going to be properly designed, no amount of jawing with the driver would do a jot of good. None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels.
I'm touched by your concern, but the moderator's role is to make sure that people like you behave themselves. You only have to worry about me being a moderator if you start going off on irrelevant tangents like what you said about the relationship between Briatore and Fisi sister. Note that I have not edited anything you have written that is racing-related. Keep your nose clean and I'll engage you on the level of just another member and not a mod.
Please qualify this statement : None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels? . -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Nice try, Gaz, but you read the wrong part - read the bit in red. Was Whitmarsh's claim based on simulations or on how the car actually drove?
Let me quote you a statement from Martin Whitmarsh and Alex Wurz when Mclaren launch the MP4-18A.
Martin : ""It's early days to be making any claims about the car's performance, but we're very confident from the analysis and simulation we've already done that the car will definitely be quick," he added."
Alex : ""Of course, I'm very excited to be driving the MP4-18 for the first time. Everything feels great,"
Are you saying that you know more that the guys at Mclaren?
As for Wurz, it was the first time he was to drive it - he said that before the car started chucking him into the tyre barriers.
If you're going to put quotes up like that, do make sure you work out when it was said, and what was actually said. Othewrwise you're just grasping at straws. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
So does the third driver have exactly the same driving style and preferences as the guys on the starting grid? Third car restriction is therefore irrelevant.
Hey dude, are you aware that top teams are not allow to run the third cars on friday? Do you know that FIA is imposing testing restriction? For a team to spend over 400m in a season I really dont think there is room for so many 'IFs'.
Please qualify this statement : [b]None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels? .
[/b]
Testing restrictions would apply to both old and new drivers in a team trying out a new car. Irrelevant.
If the car is fundamentally flawed, no amount of talking with the engineers is going to fix it, be it a month with a new driver or a year with an existing driver. That's what hasn't changed - Mac have seen it with the 18, Ferrari had it last year with their car, Williams experienced it with the walrus, BAR had it time and again, and so on. Go back through the years and you'll see numerous examples of the case where if the car sucks, it sucks regardless of how long the engineers and drivers have worked together. -
What about the part they say that the MP18 is definiltey going to be QUICK? Pretending that didnt see it?Originally posted by Gedanken:Nice try, Gaz, but you read the wrong part - read the bit in red. Was Whitmarsh's claim based on simulations or on how the car actually drove?
As for Wurz, it was the first time he was to drive it - he said that before the car started chucking him into the tyre barriers.
If you're going to put quotes up like that, do make sure you work out when it was said, and what was actually said. Othewrwise you're just grasping at straws.
you were saying that no team will have confident in the car until if has been proven in race. What I am telling you is that you have gotten you facts wrong again about this. Mclaren was very confident about the MP4-18 before they even tested the car on the circuit.
NICE try!! -
Can you tell the difference between "is" and "going to be"? If not, go check up that obscure bit of language before carrying on.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
a) Any additional time on the track are always valuable to the team. Minus that, you will have to do more in less time and to do it with 2 new drivers it is worst.
[b]
So does the third driver have exactly the same driving style and preferences as the guys on the starting grid? Third car restriction is therefore irrelevant.
Testing restrictions would apply to both old and new drivers in a team trying out a new car. Irrelevant.
[b]
b) If you have 2 new drivers driving your car around the circuit the first time, the engineer and drivers will have no prior information about how to set up the cars, except to guess while doing testing in other circuit with similary characterist if any. that is the problem you have to face if you have 2 new drivers to deal with.
c) Test drivers are suppose to understand the driving style of the leading drivers that is why their purpose if to help set up the cars for them prior to their qualifying. -
Your statement was : None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels?Originally posted by Gedanken:If the car is fundamentally flawed, no amount of talking with the engineers is going to fix it, be it a month with a new driver or a year with an existing driver. That's what hasn't changed - Mac have seen it with the 18, Ferrari had it last year with their car, Williams experienced it with the walrus, BAR had it time and again, and so on. Go back through the years and you'll see numerous examples of the case where if the car sucks, it sucks regardless of how long the engineers and drivers have worked together.
Your reply didnt quite match the BOLD statement you made. Nice try Ged,
Nothing has change? Why dont you check out a 20 year old road car and tell me if it is any different from modern cars on the road today.
slow down ged, you are tripping all over.. -
Does it matter? the test time of the MP4-18 has already proven to be quick. Hard facts dude!! not some BIG talks without facts.Originally posted by Gedanken:Can you tell the difference between "is" and "going to be"? If not, go check up that obscure bit of language before carrying on.
And please dont give me your extented retro remix meaning of the word SLOW.
Meaning of slow in dictionary is
Not moving or able to move quickly; proceeding at a low speed: a slow train; slow walkers. Marked by a retarded tempo: a slow waltz.
Taking or requiring a long time: the slow job of making bread.
Taking more time than is usual: a slow worker; slow progress in the peace negotiations.
Allowing movement or action only at a low speed: a slow track; a slow infield.
Registering a time or rate behind or below the correct one: a slow clock.
Lacking in promptness or willingness; not precipitate: They were slow to accept our invitation.
Characterized by a low volume of sales or transactions: Business was slow today.
Lacking liveliness or interest; boring: a slow party.
Not having or exhibiting intellectual or mental quickness: a slow learner.
Only moderately warm; low: a slow oven. -
You're kidding, right? You're telling me that someone who said that the car was "going to be" fast is proof that is is fast?Originally posted by Gazelle:Does it matter? the test time of the MP4-18 has already proven to be quick. Hard facts dude!! not some BIG talks without facts.
Alex Yoong can say he's going to be WDC. I suppose you're going to take it that he IS the WDC.
Don't waste my time. -
Oh, I read it all right. Read the paragraph again:Originally posted by Gazelle:Your statement was : None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels?
Your reply didnt quite match the BOLD statement you made. Nice try Ged,
Nothing has change? Why dont you check out a 20 year old road car and tell me if it is any different from modern cars on the road today.
slow down ged, you are tripping all over..
"If the car was properly designed in the first place, adjusting it to suit the driver would not require major redesigns, just fine adjustments during practice and qualifying and incremental improvements in between races to maintain progress over the season. If the car was not going to be properly designed, no amount of jawing with the driver would do a jot of good. None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels. "
And I stood by, "If the car was properly designed in the first place, adjusting it to suit the driver would not require major redesigns, just fine adjustments during practice and qualifying and incremental improvements in between races to maintain progress over the season. If the car was not going to be properly designed, no amount of jawing with the driver would do a jot of good" when I said:
"If the car is fundamentally flawed, no amount of talking with the engineers is going to fix it, be it a month with a new driver or a year with an existing driver. That's what hasn't changed - Mac have seen it with the 18, Ferrari had it last year with their car, Williams experienced it with the walrus, BAR had it time and again, and so on. Go back through the years and you'll see numerous examples of the case where if the car sucks, it sucks regardless of how long the engineers and drivers have worked together".
So which part of that didn't you understand? -
i think you have a shortage on memory space in your brain. Didnt the test time at Barcelona clearly and surely reflected the lap time of the MP18?Originally posted by Gedanken:You're kidding, right? You're telling me that someone who said that the car was "going to be" fast is proof that is is fast?
Alex Yoong can say he's going to be WDC. I suppose you're going to take it that he IS the WDC.
Don't waste my time.
Honestly dont waste time moderating the F1 forum when you cant even discuss facts.