2018 McLaren F1 Team - Renault

[Bisonas]

Surely you guys can't be blaming the Renault engine for Mclaren's issues. No hiding this year for Mclaren when they can be directly compared to Red Bull. If the Renault engine is reliable in the Renault and Red Bull then the size zero philosophy will be shown to be faulty. In any case when you have a look in the car comparison thread you can see that while the Mclaren is easily the shortest car on the grid. Many of the other cars and especially the RB14's sidepods are much narrower then the MCL33's. Even the STR13's are slimmer and more aerodynamic then the MCL33. Surely it is time for Mclaren to refine it's philosophy in regards to chassis design.


viewtopic.php?f=12&t=27033&p=749092#p749092

No hiding this year for Mclaren in did.
They probably do have the shortest car on the grid and probably the shortest wheelbase but we have no idea how that, and how their aero philosophy will work.
It has its advantages and disadvantages.
AFAIK Short wheelbases cars are normally lighter, so they have some ballast to play with and try balancing the car on per track characteristics. They are better in the turn-in phase of a corner and better to especially low and maybe medium speed corners. Also they are better in the twisty sections of any track.
IMO its an advantages but only if you get it right. If you combine short wheelbase , with the appropriate aero philosophy and take good care of other balancing factors like CoG, suspensions etc, then it would be an advantage over longer wheelbase. The problem is that is easy to mess up, its hard to make it work in a perfect way. Mclaren is sticking on their philosophy. No one knows how it will perform.
They will have some Top speed problems, because short wheelbase its just not so TOP speed friendly.
But that its a drag issue also. Maybe they believe they can reduce drag a little bit to balance that deficit. I don't know. On high speed tracks, with long straights and high speed corners the short wheelbase car will suffer in theory.

About the sidebods, IMO the RB14's are narrower for sure, but kinda bulkier. It seems RB and some other cars squeeze the packaging pushing internals (Radiators etc) up, to give space to the sides. Thus the narrower sidepots . That gives a lot of space on the sides to channel air for sure, but IMO makes the rollhoop inlet bigger because now, you have to use it for cooling, much more than before and also raises the CoG. A CoG that is already raised this year from halo.
Mclaren Philosophy is wider but slimmer sidepots(not big inlets though) keeping radiators as low as possible for better CoG relying entirely on the sidepots inlets for cooling thus keeping a more linear downward shape of the sidepot upper surface and also helping to keep the roll hoop inlet as small as possible because you don't use it for cooling. (At least not as much as others)

All the above are just my opinions. I am not Aerodynamicist.
These are 2 different philosophies. I can't possible know which one is better.
But i am not willing to discard what Mclaren is doing, because RB did something different.
Only time will tell.

[carisi2k]

Maybe you can remind me again why they had those issues? I know of a faulty battery issue but I believe there was 6 other issues (breakdowns) in testing and the reasons I keep hearing are overheating but maybe I am wrong.

If as you say Mclaren have said they won't beat Red Bull in 2018 then what is this about?
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/146314-bou ... nd-renault

Can someone link me to where cyril took the blame for the blown turbo? For the life of me I can not find anything on that.

The question you should be asking is not why I am not working at Mclaren but why those who are working at Mclaren can't seem to see the evidence that is hitting them in the face. 3 years of failures with Honda when Mclaren dictated packaging dimensions which reduced PU reliability and performance. 1 pre season with Mclaren Renault that shows similar issues to that during their time with Honda. 5 seasons without a victory in F1. 4 seasons of Mercedes dominance with a low rake design with the most powerful power unit on the grid. Large airbox designs are prevalent in every other car on the F1 grid. Red Bull has only won 8 times in the PU era with a car similar in concept to Mclaren but even they have a larger airbox that feeds multiple areas with air.

[Bisonas]

Maybe you can remind me again why they had those issues? I know of a faulty battery issue but I believe there was 6 other issues (breakdowns) in testing and the reasons I keep hearing are overheating but maybe I am wrong.

If as you say Mclaren have said they won't beat Red Bull in 2018 then what is this about?
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/146314-bou ... nd-renault

Can someone link me to where cyril took the blame for the blown turbo? For the life of me I can not find anything on that.

The question you should be asking is not why I am not working at Mclaren but why those who are working at Mclaren can't seem to see the evidence that is hitting them in the face. 3 years of failures with Honda when Mclaren dictated packaging dimensions which reduced PU reliability and performance. 1 pre season with Mclaren Renault that shows similar issues to that during their time with Honda. 5 seasons without a victory in F1. 4 seasons of Mercedes dominance with a low rake design with the most powerful power unit on the grid. Large airbox designs are prevalent in every other car on the F1 grid. Red Bull has only won 8 times in the PU era with a car similar in concept to Mclaren but even they have a larger airbox that feeds multiple areas with air.

If Mercedes where so confident of their Aero philosophy (rake, wheelbase etc) and their aero superiority , they would have given engines to RB, or at least Mclaren when they where asked.
Its a common belief, at least from the majority of f1 world,maybe not you, that RB with Mercedes engines would beat Mercedes quite easy. Even Mclaren would challenge Mercedes last year if you ask me.

We all know why Mercedes and Ferrari didn't want to give engines to RB or Mclaren, and i don't blame them.
So, you can give them as much credit as you want about the PU, but leave the aero side out of it.

[Chicane]

When one can pull stuff from thin air to suit an agenda there is no need to look at the actual facts. What transpired between Honda and Mclaren is in the public domain and one is free to draw their own interpretations, also this thread is about Mclaren Renault team and i hope people stop harping about the past reducing this thread to a slanging match.

This is a respected technical forum and i hope ''some'' people stop making ludicrous baseless arguments kind of ones click bait journos resort to.

The issues faced by Mclaren testing with respect to power unit. Battery issues which Mclaren had no role to play in. Turbocharger failure on day 4, which has been owned by Cyril as due to Renault choosing to use an already used damaged turbo from earlier when servicing on the night of day 3 of second preseason test. Alonso's engine failure on day 2 of the test was due to an oil leak and we do not know who is responsible.

Mclaren had a couple of hydraulic leaks which is on their side. Mclaren are suffering engine cover burns due to formation of heat pockets. Renault works team and Williams too had this albeit to a lesser extent. Bob Bell has come out and said they are pushing the packaging limits to the limit because that is the only way to survive in F1. James Allison of Mercedes has come out and said their shrunk sidepods are giving an advantage of 0.25 seconds. The question is what Mclaren are doing differently than any other manufacturer?

Mark Priestly, a former Mclaren mechanic has come out and said even in works teams like Mercedes/Ferrari/Renault the aero department are putting immense pressure on the power unit department with respect to packaging. This thread is about Mclaren Renault but i will say one line that the pressure Mclaren put on Honda was no different than the pressures faced by power unit departments at any of the other works teams.

I know Mclaren are a top team and big things will be expected of them but people making false claims and assertions in order to batter them is not a cool thing. Give them half a season before making a judgement. Is it too much to ask? Criticize them but don't vilify based on an agenda which stands on no legs.

[techman]

If as you say Mclaren have said they won't beat Red Bull in 2018 then what is this about?
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/146314-bou ... nd-renault

Nice link. Mclaren did say they have to beat Redbull and Renault. Now they have to deliver in 2018

[Xero]

This is the problem with the extended media coverage on pre-season testing these days. Uneducated information gets thrown about and blow things way out of proportion, which get recycled around places like here and are taken as gospel.

McLaren's "overheating" issues are somehow being taken as fundamental cooling issues. Yes, they might need a slight packaging adjustment so iron out a heat pocket, but most teams do in pre-season testing. It's a common and relatively simple fix, much like the wheel nut issue, and the exhaust clip issue. McLaren ran with a damaged heatsink for the majority of testing, yet seemed to run fairly uncompromised. I wouldn't link that to any of the failures. I link those failures to the installation of a completely different PU, there's bound to be a couple of hiccups. This is not the same situation as last year, far far from it.

The car is cooled to Renault's recommended specifications, so no compromises have been made. I remember reading McLaren have opted to use the sidepod intake to cool certain parts of the PU (can't remember which ones), where others use the rollhoop inlet, hence the difference in relative sizes. It's simply a different layout, comparisons are unfair and misleading.

I still find it amazing the amount of people willing to write McLaren off this early. Will just make it all the more sweeter when it does come good!

[Andres125sx]

1 pre season with Mclaren Renault that shows similar issues to that during their time with Honda.

Similar issues?

[Benii6]

If as you say Mclaren have said they won't beat Red Bull in 2018 then what is this about?
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/146314-bou ... nd-renault

I think you should read the article more carefully. He clearly said their target is to beat RedBull and Renault, as it should be. I mean, should their goal be running half a second behind them?
However, he didn't say they will beat them, which is what you seem to think.

[ivanlesk]

If as you say Mclaren have said they won't beat Red Bull in 2018 then what is this about?
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/146314-bou ... nd-renault

Nice link. Mclaren did say they have to beat Redbull and Renault. Now they have to deliver in 2018

They have deliver to you???
Or to prove samething to whom? In first year with new pu? Against RB with a lot more years with Renault and stabile development?

Are you so ignorant? Are you trolling deliberately? Or you started to watch f1 yesterday?

This means that Honda will win this year something? They will prove that McLaren was holding them back??

Could you all please stop this McLaren - Honda history crap?

[Monster Hesh]

I was just querying engine maps...

Whether Honda had really effective engine maps for power deployment during traction? If McLaren were having to learn alot, or whether Renault issue engine maps to their customers? because early MCL33 videos sounded like McLaren had alot of learning to do.

[PhillipM]

It's a new installation, even with all Renault's prior experience maps to tune for drivability will take some fine tuning to the actual car installation and setup, 3 years of tuning Honda vs 0 of tuning the Renault.
However, it's never been a secret that the Honda was terrible until last year when they put a lot of work into that, you'll probably find with the amount of knowledge behind the Renault motor that gets ironed out pretty fast over the first half of the season.

[PlatinumZealot]

Its not all about how tight it looks from the outside.. Under the skin the engineers try to open up as big space as possible for air flow. The engine and gearbox anciliaries have to be squeezed tighter against the engine as a result. Only clever designs can keep the cooling and servicing of these areas from getting too difficult. Apparently McLaren did the opposite of Toro Rosso and went in too aggressivley with their first time with Renault. After experiencing the power of influencing engine packaging details that comes with being a works team, McLaren should have known better becoming engine customers. McLaren took a risk and it didn't work. Renault arent willing to spend any resources on modifying the engine for them and it looks like McLaren has to make custom engine ancilliary parts to get around the problems.

[PhillipM]

It looks nothing like that, there were no issues bar a pocket at the rear of stagnant air, Renault themselves said there were no issues with the cooling.

[ivanlesk]

Did McLaren had any cooling issues, except burnt bodywork? Can't find any, did I missed something?
(Facts, links, or confirmations please)

[Ground Effect]

Its not all about how tight it looks from the outside.. Under the skin the engineers try to open up as big space as possible for air flow. The engine and gearbox anciliaries have to be squeezed tighter against the engine as a result. Only clever designs can keep the cooling and servicing of these areas from getting too difficult. Apparently McLaren did the opposite of Toro Rosso and went in too aggressivley with their first time with Renault. After experiencing the power of influencing engine packaging details that comes with being a works team, McLaren should have known better becoming engine customers. McLaren took a risk and it didn't work. Renault arent willing to spend any resources on modifying the engine for them and it looks like McLaren has to make custom engine ancilliary parts to get around the problems.

I don't think it's as complex as that. They had 5 breakdowns, one was a loose wheelnut, two were battery issues, one was a turbo problem, the last was a hydraulic leak, and a broken exhaust.
They also admitted that they could have done a better job preparing the car for the test. The issues aren't that serious.