2017 Mclaren F1 Team - Honda

[stevesingo]

And I'm waiting for you to provide the drag coefficients of all cars.
Please, give us your facts.

MCL32 Monza Cd: .96, .82 with DRS. Not verified but reliable source.

... Well, what I have heard on Monza the teams run something like 0.7 drag, 0.96 is more like Barcelona or something like this.

Of course you have...

Don't be too upset if I don't believe you.

[stevesingo]

Sector 2, GP Brazil , look at 30 lap onward. I am not a team insider capable to answer your question. You are the one who pretend exactly to know how much Honda PU is underrated.

You quote the race pace which adds factors such as fuel saving, tyre preservation, running detuned to make the engine last longer, difference in compound, different strategies etc. Why don't you compare qualifying pace where none of these variables exist and where we know everyone is going as fast as they can?

And you're using just one specific track with a high full throttle percentage to suit your argument. How about comparing over various tracks with differing characteristics?

Qualification GP Brazil:

VER: S1 17.609 S2 34.963 S3 16.477
PER: S1 17.21 S2 35.534 S3 16.483
ALO: S1 17.746 S2 35.197 S3 16.674

It seems that with harder compounds RedBull outperforms McLaren even more but the difference with Mercedes customer teams stays the same.

Brazil is the last GP, historical comparisons are meaningless given many outside of the track factors.

You need to some checking on those numbers. VES didn't run the slower tyre in Qualifying, and I don't think he set those sector times either.

[baybars]

Sector 2, GP Brazil , look at 30 lap onward. I am not a team insider capable to answer your question. You are the one who pretend exactly to know how much Honda PU is underrated.

You quote the race pace which adds factors such as fuel saving, tyre preservation, running detuned to make the engine last longer, difference in compound, different strategies etc. Why don't you compare qualifying pace where none of these variables exist and where we know everyone is going as fast as they can?

And you're using just one specific track with a high full throttle percentage to suit your argument. How about comparing over various tracks with differing characteristics?

Qualification GP Brazil:

VER: S1 17.609 S2 34.963 S3 16.477
PER: S1 17.21 S2 35.534 S3 16.483
ALO: S1 17.746 S2 35.197 S3 16.674

It seems that with harder compounds RedBull outperforms McLaren even more but the difference with Mercedes customer teams stays the same.

Brazil is the last GP, historical comparisons are meaningless given many outside of the track factors.

I think you make a type error.
Perrez's best sector time 17.521 not 17.21

correct number of best sector times
VER: S1 17.560 S2 34.853 S3 16.397
PER: S1 17.521 S2 35.534 S3 16.482
ALO: S1 17.740 S2 35.197 S3 16.652

source:https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... rmation-37
verstappen (and all Renault powered teams)motor's mode was ultrasafe mode because of possibble reability issues

[techman]

mclaren = highest rake angle, dont worry. in 2017 mclaren philosophy. run max drag and downforce, and say how good mclaren is in corners and if mclaren is slow on straights because of it just blame the engine. a simple example compare the rear wing of the redbull versus mclaren in monza 2017. rebull is very skinny compared to the parachute mclaren were running
good news next year there is no hiding for mclaren. just get exposed.

[Andres125sx]

so happy that mclaren and honda parting ways. now its no where to hide for mclaren next year. any deficit with be compared with redbull and highlighted, and mclaren chassis weakness will be very visible.

Well, his chassis is receiving several compliments from the whole paddock despite suffering the HUGE handicap of the worst PU by far. That´s something. What has Newey achieved with the worst engine of the paddock?

. adrian newey has done wonders even with a low power engines before by reducing drag and increasing efficiency i.e running skinny rear wing angle, mclaren are no where in comparison to adrian newey philosophy. mclaren philosophy, run high drag boast about how good in corners and blame engine.

Maybe when he was at the designing table he was NOT told the engine would improve dramatically and will be competitive in no time, as Prodomou was told. Designers must be sheers to know what will be the real potential of the engine before it hit the track?

[Andres125sx]

Well, his chassis is receiving several compliments from the whole paddock despite suffering the HUGE handicap of the worst PU by far. That´s something. What has Newey achieved with the worst engine of the paddock?

Hm, as far as I know the chassis don't have a power, neither they are driven by compliments. If I remember right, in the last race the so called worst engine drive the McLaren chassis ahead of one works team, ahead of one of its customer teams, and ahead of one Mercedes customer teams. Not bad for a worst engine ...

Exactly, in the last race, despite the PU, the chassis was so good they were able to beat some works team.... Or you´re trying to imply Honda PU is at Mercedes level of perfomance?

Did you read/hear Alonso saying not even with slipstream + DRS + full ERS he was able to close the gap with Massa? Those are facts


Poor STR, I´m seeing a future were people expect STR to finish into top 5 because they´re using the awesome Honda PU, and when they finish far far away, some people will blame James Key, because anything can fail, except Honda...

[j.yank]

MCL32 Monza Cd: .96, .82 with DRS. Not verified but reliable source.

... Well, what I have heard on Monza the teams run something like 0.7 drag, 0.96 is more like Barcelona or something like this.

Of course you have...

Don't be too upset if I don't believe you.

Hopefully you will believe on other people: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-the-d ... mula-1-car

[techman]

Exactly, in the last race, despite the PU, the chassis was so good they were able to beat some works team.... Or you´re trying to imply Honda PU is at Mercedes level of perfomance?

Did you read/hear Alonso saying not even with slipstream + DRS + full ERS he was able to close the gap with Massa? Those are facts


Poor STR, I´m seeing a future were people expect STR to finish into top 5 because they´re using the awesome Honda PU, and when they finish far far away, some people will blame James Key, because anything can fail, except Honda...

Personally all my respect i had for alonso is gone. he is more a crybaby and a honda hater. i dont even take anything coming from his mouth seriously anymore. no team wants him, he had only one option mclaren or out. so happy renautlt is powering mclaren because there is no way mclaren will be faster than redbull. Would you bet if mclaren finish above redbull in constructor title. if so say yes and if i win just remove you avatar and leave the forum and i will do the same if mclaren finished ahead of redbull. which i know will not happen. mclaren are in for a shock.

[Andres125sx]

What respect?

[stevesingo]

... Well, what I have heard on Monza the teams run something like 0.7 drag, 0.96 is more like Barcelona or something like this.

Of course you have...

Don't be too upset if I don't believe you.

Hopefully you will believe on other people: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-the-d ... mula-1-car

Well "what I've heard", is different to what you have read. You should try referencing a source, it helps.

Cd is meaningless without frontal area. CdA is what determines drag.

[diffuser]

And I'm waiting for you to provide the drag coefficients of all cars.
Please, give us your facts.

MCL32 Monza Cd: .96, .82 with DRS. Not verified but reliable source.

... Well, what I have heard on Monza the teams run something like 0.7 drag, 0.96 is more like Barcelona or something like this.

Don't forget that if your "0.7 drag" number is based on historical numbers, this year's cars & tires are significantly larger. There would be a large increase in those numbers, for all teams, simply because of the evolution of the formula.

Tires +20% larger
FW +20cm
RW +15cm

[j.yank]

MCL32 Monza Cd: .96, .82 with DRS. Not verified but reliable source.

... Well, what I have heard on Monza the teams run something like 0.7 drag, 0.96 is more like Barcelona or something like this.

Don't forget that if your "0.7 drag" number is based on historical numbers, this year's cars & tires are significantly larger. There would be a large increase in those numbers, for all teams, simply because of the evolution of the formula.

Tires +20% larger
FW +20cm
RW +15cm

Look here for the Cd formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

Note that: "The reference area depends on what type of drag coefficient is being measured. For automobiles and many other objects, the reference area is the projected frontal area of the vehicle. This may not necessarily be the cross sectional area of the vehicle, depending on where the cross section is taken..... For airfoils, the reference area is the nominal wing area. Since this tends to be large compared to the frontal area, the resulting drag coefficients tend to be low, much lower than for a car with the same drag, frontal area, and speed."

[Alonso Fan]

MCL32 Monza Cd: .96, .82 with DRS. Not verified but reliable source.

... Well, what I have heard on Monza the teams run something like 0.7 drag, 0.96 is more like Barcelona or something like this.

Don't forget that if your "0.7 drag" number is based on historical numbers, this year's cars & tires are significantly larger. There would be a large increase in those numbers, for all teams, simply because of the evolution of the formula.

Tires +20% larger
FW +20cm
RW +15cm

Yes seems like old data. Have a look at the f 2000 specs posted here

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1861

Also has a great explanation about cd and A.
Cd on its own is useless. CdA is the meaningful number. Drag doesn't depend on A because you could use 1m^2 as your A and cd would change accordingly.

Heres what Reca mentions

First of all a premise.

It’s not the Cd per se that matters, it’s the SCd.
So to say that a car has a Cd of 0.19 is absolutely useless if you don’t know the reference surface used to calculate it, and notice, I don’t want to know “it’s the frontal surface” because there are several ways to define the frontal surface, I want to know the number, X m2.
The Cd is just an arbitrary number, you measure the SCd, divide it by an arbitrary, reference surface and you have a Cd. Historically that reference surface for cars is the frontal surface (although as I said there are different way to define it), but it could equally be the plan area of the roof, of the bonnet, whatever, it doesn’t matter because at the end of the day you still need to know the SCd, hence both the Cd and the reference surface.

So, what’s that Cd useful for ? Besides to make up a suitable number for advertising fooling ignorant (in the good meaning, ie people who don’t know) people pretending to have established a worldwide record, it’s useful only to know that, if you make a scale model, say at 50%, of the same car, exactly the same shape, exactly in proportion, then the SCd of that model will be 50% of the SCd of the real car, hence it’s useful for example, for wind tunnels. Alternatively the Cd is useful for wing sections, but that’s again because for these shapes, the reference surface is well defined.
But while comparing two very different shapes, for example two different cars like that Mercedes and a F1, the Cd per se is absolutely useless, you need to know the SCd, as a unit, because it’s that number that matters.

To not understand that leads to one of the biggest misconceptions in aero, you hear/read it everywhere... do you want to reduce the drag ? Reduce frontal surface, like if the frontal surface per se had something to do with drag... I even heard someone saying that the Tyrrell P34 had the same drag of the other 4 wheels cars because the frontal surface, due to the rear tyres, was the same...
Generally, while talking about similar shapes it could make sense, but not necessarily because working on the reduction of the frontal surface you are also changing the shape, and if you do it in the wrong way that could easily lead to an increment of the SCd, even if the plan area of the frontal surface is greatly reduced.
An example is the dimension of sidepods of a F1 car, how often you read that bigger sidepods isn’t good because of drag ? Well, it’s false, just look at the Williams, for years they had the smallest sidepods and likely the smallest frontal surface of the cars on the grid, does it mean that they had the car with the lowest drag ? Not necessarily, and in fact with the FW28, in an year when, with drastic power reduction the drag limitation is fundamental, they adopted a different approach.

Now, end of the, long, premise and back more specifically to the topic, to calculate the SCd of a F1 car, at least in first approximation, is quite easy, just take the formula for the drag (force), multiply it for the velocity and you have the power required.
Let’s use now 2005 data just because we don’t have idea yet about the peak speeds they’ll reach with the V8.
Assume the power, spent only for aero (hence removing transmission losses and tyre rolling resistance), was something in the order of 730-750 hp = 530-550 kW, use standard air density (1.225 kg/m3) and assume we are talking about Monza where peak speed was about 360 km/h = 100 m/s, and the SCd of a F1 car, in Monza trim, is :

SCd = (2 * Power) / (density * v^3) = (1100 * 10 ^ 3 [W]) / (1.225 [kg/m3] * 100 [m/s] ^3 ) = 1.1/1.25 = 0.88 [m2] => I said 530-550 so let’s say 0.85-0.88.
(what’s the Cd ? it depends by the reference surface I use, but we don’t care about it)

As for that Mercedes, I don’t know the reference surface but it’s probably between 2 and 2.5 m2, that would mean SCd = 0.38-0.475 m2.

Assuming that the right numbers are 0.85 m2 and 0.4 m2 then that means that, at a given speed, the Mercedes needs roughly 0.38/0.85 = 47 % of the power required (for aero only) by the F1. Nevertheless we should remember that F1 is a open wheel car designed first of all to generate downforce, the Mercedes is a car designed solely to reduce drag, so, at the end of the day, the F1 isn’t that bad.

Obviously with the right numbers you would have better accuracy, that’s just an example to show the method and the method doesn’t change.

At the end just a note. I assumed that the SCd of the car is constant with speed. But... it really is ? Well, better if we avoid to open that can of worms

[McMika98]

Yes seems like old data. Have a look at the f 2000 specs posted here

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1861

Also has a great explanation about cd and A.
Cd on its own is useless. CdA is the meaningful number. Drag doesn't depend on A because you could use 1m^2 as your A and cd would change accordingly.

Actually total drag is a function of Cd, A and speed; so all of them is important and cd is down to the net aerofoil package regardless of A. You could have the two identical car but say different surface finish/roughness and get very different Cd. At high speed even the minute difference in Cd will make a difference and same for A.
Week in week we have seen that Mclaren has one of the biggest A. So drag levels will diverge at high speeds. As it has been pointed out many times Mclaren does not gain as much as any other teams when operating DRS.

[Alonso Fan]

Yes seems like old data. Have a look at the f 2000 specs posted here

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1861

Also has a great explanation about cd and A.
Cd on its own is useless. CdA is the meaningful number. Drag doesn't depend on A because you could use 1m^2 as your A and cd would change accordingly.

Actually total drag is a function of Cd, A and speed; so all of them is important and cd is down to the net aerofoil package regardless of A. You could have the two identical car but say different surface finish/roughness and get very different Cd. At high speed even the minute difference in Cd will make a difference and same for A.
Week in week we have seen that Mclaren has one of the biggest A. So drag levels will diverge at high speeds. As it has been pointed out many times Mclaren does not gain as much as any other teams when operating DRS.

I know the drag formula. What I'm saying is that you could use a totally different reference area but the drag force would obviously be the same. The cd would be different to compensate.

About roughness yes you are correct. A rough body would have a lower cd compared to a smooth body of the same shape. It's why golf balls have dimples