MP4-21

manchild · Post 23 Jan 2006, 22:49

Well, the middle isn't changed that much and nose is very similar to one used on 4/19.

That long dragon tail intrigues me a lot

Sigmund · Post 23 Jan 2006, 23:36

It looks like the lenght of this 'tail' has to do with new back crash rules.
As rear resitance is increased of 50% , I suppose the tail is of sort of cellular structure which can temper rear shock or something like that.

on the other way it seems to have something to deal with aero

It seems to get some airflow stabilization at the low rear, probably to reduce drag effect.

Guest · Post 24 Jan 2006, 05:29

Where is the pivot for the top front wishbones?
In some of the photos it looks like the "wishbone" is hinged and the first 150mm is part of the chassis.
Wonder if that would work better with the drooping lower wishbones.

Guest · Post 24 Jan 2006, 16:33

i dont think so, or otherwise theyd probably use it

bernard · Post 29 Jan 2006, 18:18

It hasn't been too evident from the pictures posted above, but that Mclaren is frighteningly well packaged at the rear. The tightest at the moment I would say. Too bad the engine is shite once again.
BTW, has someone heard any more info on that new engine mercedes is building? I guess it could be called an evolution, but apparently it's a lot more than just an evolution, more like a redesign on some of the worst parts.

Anyway, tight rear and explosive engine are never a match made in heaven.

DiESEL[P] · Post 29 Jan 2006, 19:14

Yeah I noticed the rear packing, it's hard to see, but it is very very tight. They did say they were focusing on packing the rear as tight as possible...

bernard · Post 29 Jan 2006, 23:04

Interesting reading the latest headlines:

Renault quick and reliable - Alonso
Cosworth cautiously optimistic
Renault in good shape - Fisichella
Mclaren has engine problem - Raikkönen

Kimi:

"I wasn't expecting anything before I came, and I knew we have issues with certain things, but we're going to get there and there will be some improvement," Raikkonen told Autosport.

"The biggest part of the problem is the engine, but things are happening and in the coming weeks we'll improve it," he added. "They (Mercedes) are not where they should be and need to improve. On the engine side we've got a lot of work to do."

Not looking good at all. And somebody still dared to say it is Mclaren's decision whether Kimi stays or not.
It seems Mclaren just cannot learn, they've been fighting with the same problems since 2000, that's six years. No wonder people are leaving left and right, something just is amiss over at woking. Or should I dare to say Mercedes? Lets hope they don't buy the remaining half so at least the chassis will still be good in the future.

jezzwa · Post 30 Jan 2006, 03:39

fo shizzle, i totally agree Mercedes are the weakest link in the Mclaren chain at the moment. i just don't understand how they can have the same issue for so many years surely they would have realised what is the problem by now.

ginsu · Post 30 Jan 2006, 11:19

BTW, Merc builds notoriously unreliable road cars. Supposedly, every Merc has at least a couple of bugs when they're brand new.

peroa · Post 30 Jan 2006, 11:32

ginsu wrote:BTW, Merc builds notoriously unreliable road cars. Supposedly, every Merc has at least a couple of bugs when they're brand new.

They have or had quite some problems on the electronics side.
But didn`t it get better the last couple of years?

wowf1 · Post 30 Jan 2006, 20:59

Well to be honest the traditional reliability of a road car engine by Mercedes has nothing to do with reliability of an F1 Mercedes engine. Different (and better) engineers, different location, different management, almost everything.

Also, did anyone notice the Mclaren mechanic holding the fire extinguisher behind the car in manchild's post up there! ^ Obviously a precaution, but I can even imagine Norbert Haug dousing the silly thing with foam just so pics of the Mclaren on fire don't get out!

DaveKillens · Post 31 Jan 2006, 02:47

In racing,you can build a 100% reliable car, but it won't win any races through sheer pace. Or you can build a very quick car, but most likely to fail many times.
The idea is to balance risk against performance, something all teams do. Obviously Mclaren have been leaning towards performance more than reliability. Just the opposite was Renault mid season last year, where they made the decision to be reliable.
Although we all know the outcome of last year's races, Mclaren came oh-so-close to winning it all. But for a few mishaps (for instance Kimi's suspension failing on the last lap, or JPM's tennis injury, or his habit of collecting backmarkers) it is possible McLaren may have won both the manufacturer's and driver's title. My personal opinion is that Mclaren did make the correct risk\speed decisions, but fell short because of just poor luck, some shoddy driving by Juan, and Renault's flawless mid-season strategy.

bernard · Post 31 Jan 2006, 03:17

DaveKillens wrote:My personal opinion is that Mclaren did make the correct risk\speed decisions, but fell short because of just poor luck, some shoddy driving by Juan, and Renault's flawless mid-season strategy.

True, but the problems Mercedes and Mclaren are facing aren't a consequence of a concious choice, but rather mistakes in manufacturing, materials and car servicing. In other words quality control. This has been known for a long time, but no impovement has been made.
It's good press for mclaren to explain away a DNF with the decision to win or not finish at all, when in reality that intern at the factory forgot to do one part of the manufacturing process.

West · Post 31 Jan 2006, 09:54

peroa wrote:
ginsu wrote:BTW, Merc builds notoriously unreliable road cars. Supposedly, every Merc has at least a couple of bugs when they're brand new.
They have or had quite some problems on the electronics side.
But didn`t it get better the last couple of years?

I believe they had their biggest recall in their history in 2004, around 2.3 million cars. Most of the culprit has been the E-Class. Mercedes (along with Volkswagen and Audi) rank near the bottom of the J.G. Initial Quality reports.

I think it's funny how the F1 engines are engineered to similar fashions to their road cars. Supposedly the delay for a new McLaren Mercedes road car is to fix quality control on their road cars.

RH1300S · Post 31 Jan 2006, 12:49

DaveKillens wrote:In racing,you can build a 100% reliable car, but it won't win any races through sheer pace. Or you can build a very quick car, but most likely to fail many times.
The idea is to balance risk against performance, something all teams do. Obviously Mclaren have been leaning towards performance more than reliability. Just the opposite was Renault mid season last year, where they made the decision to be reliable.
Although we all know the outcome of last year's races, Mclaren came oh-so-close to winning it all. But for a few mishaps (for instance Kimi's suspension failing on the last lap, or JPM's tennis injury, or his habit of collecting backmarkers) it is possible McLaren may have won both the manufacturer's and driver's title. My personal opinion is that Mclaren did make the correct risk\speed decisions, but fell short because of just poor luck, some shoddy driving by Juan, and Renault's flawless mid-season strategy.

Fair comment and a pretty good assessment IMHO. I would add that Mercedes Ilmor made hard work of it all with all those lost grid places when the had to change engines before the race. Maybe you don't just blame Mercedes? Perhaps there were installation issues that helped the demise of so many engines?