Mclaren heading for trouble next year?
-
a) Agreed that test time is important, but since the WDC assumes that a new guy like Alonso can not only drive but can give engineers a clear idea of his preferences, what's the difference?Originally posted by Gazelle: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) 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.
b) If they work exclusively on prior knowledge of how the drivers drive, why bother setting up the cars for existing drivers? By your logic the data should be sufficient. Get a driver who knows what he wants (like Senna did) and whether he's new to the team or not won't make a whole lot of difference.
c) If test drivers could drive like the #1 driver, wouldn't they already be race drivers instead of being stuck in testing? -
So why put up the quote? It doesn't do anything to support your point because it was a prediction, not an analysis of testing results.Originally posted by Gazelle: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?
Honestly dont waste time moderating the F1 forum when you cant even discuss facts.
Don't waste time with irrelevant cut-and-pastes. -
Other than the MP4-18A that didnt make it to race, all other cars to me are not fundamentally flawed in design. Please qualify what do you mean by that.Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, I read it all right. Read the paragraph again:
"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?
Are you saying that all teams should have just packed their bagw and go for a 10 months holiday and resume during testing season, because they are unable to win the first few races. And because of that it is call "fundementally flawed"?
Would be interesting to hear what you have to say about that. -
that quote is to prove that your argument about no team will be confident about their cars until it has been put through the race is WRONGOriginally posted by Gedanken:So why put up the quote? It doesn't do anything to support your point because it was a prediction, not an analysis of testing results.
Don't waste time with irrelevant cut-and-pastes.
The barcelona track time is to proof that your arguement about MP18 is a SLOW car is Wrong.
You mind seems to be incredibility unstable, suspect it might be fundamentally flawed.
-
You've quite obviously taken the 'fundamental flaw' out of context. There's a difference between the cars of the also-rans not being as EFFICIENT in getting aerodynamic and mechanical grip/powerful, and a design flaw which pitches the car out of control which you can't seem to grasp.Originally posted by Gazelle:Other than the MP4-18A that didnt make it to race, all other cars to me are not fundamentally flawed in design. Please qualify what do you mean by that.
Are you saying that all teams should have just packed their bagw and go for a 10 months holiday and resume during testing season, because they are unable to win the first few races. And because of that it is call "fundementally flawed"?
Would be interesting to hear what you have to say about that.
Season after season teams have been bewildered by the gulf between their cars' performance in the wind tunnel and even in tests, and their actual performance in the race. We've already pointed out the FW26, MP4-19 and C24 as examples of this. The latter 2 set the pace at Valencia but were duds in Barcelona. -
Well, what else do you expect Whitmarsh to say to sponsors and guests at the launch? "We understand that computer simulation can be flawed and it's all Bill Gates' fault - the Oracle at Delphi has told us that this car is a bloody waste of your investment"?Originally posted by Gazelle:that quote is to prove that your argument about no team will be confident about their cars until it has been put through the race is WRONG
The barcelona track time is to proof that your arguement about MP18 is a SLOW car is Wrong.
-
This to me are just pure speculation at best. good try.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Well, what else do you expect Whitmarsh to say to sponsors and guests at the launch? "We understand that computer simulation can be flawed and it's all Bill Gates' fault - the Oracle at Delphi has told us that this car is a bloody waste of your investment"? -
Other cars weren't unpredictably pitching themselves off the track. If you don't think that's fundamentally flawed, you need to reexamine your understanding of racing.Originally posted by Gazelle:Other than the MP4-18A that didnt make it to race, all other cars to me are not fundamentally flawed in design. Please qualify what do you mean by that.
Are you saying that all teams should have just packed their bagw and go for a 10 months holiday and resume during testing season, because they are unable to win the first few races. And because of that it is call "fundementally flawed"?
Would be interesting to hear what you have to say about that. -
Yup, they were so confident they didn't let the car on track.Originally posted by Gazelle:that quote is to prove that your argument about no team will be confident about their cars until it has been put through the race is WRONG
The barcelona track time is to proof that your arguement about MP18 is a SLOW car is Wrong.
You mind seems to be incredibility unstable, suspect it might be fundamentally flawed.
The Barcelona time was on a clear track and in testing conditions, and during testing conditions the car already proved to be unpredictable. To this day McLaren have never stated that they found the reason for the off-track excursions.
Are you keeping track of what you're saying? You keep making the case against what you claim to be arguing for. -
You just don't get it, do you? They have to say something positive in front of corporate guests. And though the simulations were reassuring, the on-track incidents weren't.Originally posted by Gazelle:This to me are just pure speculation at best. good try. -
Exactly, KB. Testing is no indicator of the car's performance during the season, and despite so many drivers and teams brushing off their testing performances, Gaz just doesn't seem to want to get it.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:You've quite obviously taken the 'fundamental flaw' out of context. There's a difference between the cars of the also-rans not being as EFFICIENT in getting aerodynamic and mechanical grip/powerful, and a design flaw which pitches the car out of control which you can't seem to grasp.
Season after season teams have been bewildered by the gulf between their cars' performance in the wind tunnel and even in tests, and their actual performance in the race. We've already pointed out the FW26, MP4-19 and C24 as examples of this. The latter 2 set the pace at Valencia but were duds in Barcelona. -
Regardless if the car has fundamental design flaw or not, the teams will still have to address the problem. Will the team be in better position to do that if you dont have to deal with additional variable for having 2 new drivers?Originally posted by Kuali Baba:You've quite obviously taken the 'fundamental flaw' out of context. There's a difference between the cars of the also-rans not being as EFFICIENT in getting aerodynamic and mechanical grip, and a design flaw which pitches the car out of control which you can't seem to grasp.
Season after season teams have been bewildered by the gulf between their cars' performance in the wind tunnel and even in tests, and their actual performance in the race. We've already pointed out the FW26, MP4-19 and C24 as examples of this. The latter 2 set the pace at Valencia but were duds in Barcelona.
Is MP21 consider as fundamental flaw since they have yet to win a single race? -
Yes, they have to address the problem, and if they don't solve the problem they don't release the car, which is exactly what McLaren did.Originally posted by Gazelle:Regardless if the car has fundamental design flaw or not, the teams will still have to address the problem. Will the team be in better position to do that if you dont have to deal with additional variable for having 2 new drivers?
Is MP21 consider as fundamental flaw since they have yet to win a single race?
Is the MP21 flinging itself off the track? Have you been taking anything in? -
I only need to proof to you that your fact about MP18 is too slow is WRONG.Originally posted by Gedanken:Exactly, KB. Testing is no indicator of the car's performance during the season, and despite so many drivers and teams brushing off their testing performances, Gaz just doesn't seem to want to get it.
PERIOD.
Reliability of the MP18 is something which we all know so there is no point of you telling me what I already know.
GOT IT? -
You really haven't been taking anything in, have you? One testing lap is not enough to prove that the car is fast.Originally posted by Gazelle:I only need to proof to you that your fact about MP18 is too slow is WRONG.
PERIOD.
Reliability of the MP18 is something which we all know so there is no point of you telling me what I already know.
GOT IT? -
Did the FW26 fling itself off the track?Originally posted by Gedanken:Yes, they have to address the problem, and if they don't solve the problem they don't release the car, which is exactly what McLaren did.
Is the MP21 flinging itself off the track? Have you been taking anything in? -
That is left to the development team back at the factory and testing. The new drivers will still give feedback, like the old ones - some drivers are better at it, and some are not as good. There's nor eason to believe hiring Alonso will be a step backwards in this aspect.Originally posted by Gazelle:Regardless if the car has fundamental design flaw or not, the teams will still have to address the problem. Will the team be in better position to do that if you dont have to deal with additional variable for having 2 new drivers?
Is MP21 consider as fundamental flaw since they have yet to win a single race?
And you still don't understand the difference, right? A flaw can usually be pinned down to one particular aspect of the design...I can't name what it is on the MP4-21, can you?
Otherwise it's just the package that isn't gelling as well as hoped. Going by your logic, you might as well say all the other teams' cars are 'flawed'.
Anyway, this season's Macca shines on high-downforce, low-grip tracks like Albert Park and Monte Carlo. Some cars perform better in a particular setting while others are more consistent. -
It was a twin-keeled design as well. Understeered like a pig and the unique front wing design did not reproduce the wind tunnel predictions on track. Head said that they went ahead though because it was working better than the conventional nose.Originally posted by Gazelle:Did the FW26 fling itself off the track?
The flaw was the lack of rigidity from such a design. -
If you cant, how can you pin point exactly where is the problem from the begining of the season. As far as I can remember, when MP18 was introduced the expectation was high and it is only when MP18 couldnt make it to race then people start to talk about the fundamental problem.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:That is left to the development team back at the factory and testing. The new drivers will still give feedback, like the old ones - some drivers are better at it, and some are not as good. There's nor eason to believe hiring Alonso will be a step backwards in this aspect.
And you still don't understand the difference, right? A flaw can usually be pinned down to one particular aspect of the design...I can't name what it is on the MP4-21, can you?
Otherwise it's just the package that isn't gelling as well as hoped. Going by your logic, you might as well say all the other teams' cars are 'flawed'.
Anyway, this season's Macca shines on high-downforce, low-grip tracks like Albert Park and Monte Carlo. Some cars perform better in a particular setting while others are more consistent.
Hey dude it is always easy to talk about thing which have already been said done and proven. However that doesnt really make you a very knowledgable person as far as F1 is concern. -
How would you actually draw a line to say which design was fundamentally flawed when the FW26 was actually one of the fastest car among the top team?Originally posted by Kuali Baba:It was a twin-keeled design as well. Understeered like a pig and the unique front wing design did not reproduce the wind tunnel predictions on track. Head said that they went ahead though because it was working better than the conventional nose.
The flaw was the lack of rigidity from such a design. -
Would apprciate if you could tell me how would you draw a line between what is and what is not fundamentally flawed?Originally posted by Gedanken:Other cars weren't unpredictably pitching themselves off the track. If you don't think that's fundamentally flawed, you need to reexamine your understanding of racing. -
Will 2 new drivers be able to provide better information than 2 drivers who have been with the team for a few seasons?Originally posted by Kuali Baba:That is left to the development team back at the factory and testing. The new drivers will still give feedback, like the old ones - some drivers are better at it, and some are not as good. There's nor eason to believe hiring Alonso will be a step backwards in this aspect.. -
Ged, would appreciate if you could qualify your statement about
"None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels"
dont try to tell me that is a bunch of bullshi.t, if you think otherwise would appreciate if you could explain to me and back it up with FACTS and not just some BIG TALK from the moderator. -
Did Mp18 only do one lap at barcelone? Get your fact right dude. dont try to rewrite history to suit your arguement just because you are MR. "Moderator"Originally posted by Gedanken:You really haven't been taking anything in, have you? One testing lap is not enough to prove that the car is fast. -
They'll be dealing with new cars. Any information the drivers retain from the previous cars will be irrelevant when they're starting from scratch.Originally posted by Gazelle:Will 2 new drivers be able to provide better information than 2 drivers who have been with the team for a few seasons?