2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[mwillems]

My observations:

....

There is something similar to the RB quandary in that the ride height ...

I'm sure there's a lot more than just bumps. Ferrari don't perform well in high speed corners and they prefer lower temps for their tyres. Merc do well where the downforce levels are higher (except for Brazil lol). But we've seen RB struggle previously at bumpier circuits and McLaren seem to have gone down a similar development path (shaped tunnel roof with low throat height, stiffer & low ride height) and it seems to have resulted in the same or a similar characteristic so it shouldn't be hugely surprising

This year Singapore wasn't that bumpy as they'd resurfaced much of the bumpy sections of the track.. that was part of the problem for RB who were expecting something far bumpier and just didn't nail the setup with the unexpected conditions. But I could be misinterpreting comments - could be it was just less bumpy than expected (but still bumpy).

At COTA we can extrapolate Charles' race based on a decent (not even optimal) strategy and he'd have finished ahead of Lando. Lewis' strategy was pretty poor and he finished significantly ahead there. Of course both cars ended up being illegal (marginal in at least Ferrari's case) and from that we should perhaps conclude that McLaren left more margin on the table. But I think we could say it was still a large swing compared to races before and after it - at smoother circuits where Macca don't have issues with bumps they're clear 2nd fastest or competitive with RB. At COTA it was at best level with Merc/Ferrari and at Vegas at best level 3rd with Merc

It's true we weren't as fast as Ferrari and Merc at Austin but as you say, they ran a config that rendered the car illegal so.... would they have been as competitive? Not sure to be honest, a bit slower at least. But we still weren't slow there, particularly in Qualy which is where we tend to see the cars performance step back a little if the track doesn't suit. So even finishing 4th and starting 2nd is a good result.

Stepping back you can certainly see that there is an impact at bumpy tracks but the results seem to suggest they are nothing more than the car can handle.

I'm not sure what was going off here and why it all turned around, but you'd think the track is continuing to rubber in and the tyres will be happily getting into their operating window in the cold temps after 5 or 6 laps on the hards.

As SmallSoldier said there may well be an element of setting the car up for the race, but the turnaround in terms of raw speed in the race surely surpasses any setup compromises the team made, this felt like the conditions also came to the car in quite a big way.

[organic]

There is something similar to the RB quandary in that the ride height ...

I'm sure there's a lot more than just bumps. Ferrari don't perform well in high speed corners and they prefer lower temps for their tyres. Merc do well where the downforce levels are higher (except for Brazil lol). But we've seen RB struggle previously at bumpier circuits and McLaren seem to have gone down a similar development path (shaped tunnel roof with low throat height, stiffer & low ride height) and it seems to have resulted in the same or a similar characteristic so it shouldn't be hugely surprising

This year Singapore wasn't that bumpy as they'd resurfaced much of the bumpy sections of the track.. that was part of the problem for RB who were expecting something far bumpier and just didn't nail the setup with the unexpected conditions. But I could be misinterpreting comments - could be it was just less bumpy than expected (but still bumpy).

At COTA we can extrapolate Charles' race based on a decent (not even optimal) strategy and he'd have finished ahead of Lando. Lewis' strategy was pretty poor and he finished significantly ahead there. Of course both cars ended up being illegal (marginal in at least Ferrari's case) and from that we should perhaps conclude that McLaren left more margin on the table. But I think we could say it was still a large swing compared to races before and after it - at smoother circuits where Macca don't have issues with bumps they're clear 2nd fastest or competitive with RB. At COTA it was at best level with Merc/Ferrari and at Vegas at best level 3rd with Merc

It's true we weren't as fast as Ferrari and Merc at Austin but as you say, they ran a config that rendered the car illegal so.... would they have been as competitive? Not sure to be honest, a bit slower at least. But we still weren't slow there, particularly in Qualy which is where we tend to see the cars performance step back a little if the track doesn't suit. So even finishing 4th and starting 2nd is a good result.

Stepping back you can certainly see that there is an impact at bumpy tracks but the results seem to suggest they are nothing more than the car can handle.

I'm not sure what was going off here and why it all turned around, but you'd think the track is continuing to rubber in and the tyres will be happily getting into their operating window in the cold temps after 5 or 6 laps on the hards.

As SmallSoldier said there may well be an element of setting the car up for the race, but the turnaround in terms of raw speed in the race surely surpasses any setup compromises the team made, this felt like the conditions also came to the car in quite a big way.

I'd be cautious about looking at the race pace as representative..

I think it's worth considering what happened with the tyres/strategy - Oscar ran an effective 2-stop whilst everyone else (except Hamilton) was on an effective one-stop.

The puncture on lap 16-20 caused piastri to pit for hards from their first set of hards and then came a final stop for mediums that was mandatory.. he then set laps that were 3 seconds per lap quicker than others around.

This meant:

A) he had newer tyres than most drivers for the majority of the race

B) he ran on the best race tyre (hard) for much longer than most which shouldn't be underestimated in its impact

C) he was able to use the medium stint when the car was at its lightest and graining wasn't a concern unlike when everyone else used it at the start. It meant he could push like hell without fears of destroying the tyres.

To address B further, Perez ran a 1-stopper with hard-hard essentially and the gains relative to Max thanks to this were huge. Not having to run the medium tyre when tanks were heavy and the tyre grained up was a big benefit

[mwillems]

I'm going to have to ponder that, it's a lot to get through

It's still secondary to the idea that bumps are any more than an annoyance though, and possibly reinforces the idea that the issue lies more in the tyres this weekend. But I'll need to look at the data to understand more.

[AR3-GP]

Was Mclaren's pace actually that bad this weekend? Lando really messed up the opportunity for data collection. He's normally faster in the races than Piastri.

I don't think there were major issues. Qualy set them off on the backfoot and it's just too competitive to slip up in qualy like that.

[mwillems]

Only in Qualy I thought, the race I had put down to the car coming to life, but they are interesting points and I'm going to go back and have a rethink.

[diffuser]

I'm sure there's a lot more than just bumps. Ferrari don't perform well in high speed corners and they prefer lower temps for their tyres. Merc do well where the downforce levels are higher (except for Brazil lol). But we've seen RB struggle previously at bumpier circuits and McLaren seem to have gone down a similar development path (shaped tunnel roof with low throat height, stiffer & low ride height) and it seems to have resulted in the same or a similar characteristic so it shouldn't be hugely surprising

This year Singapore wasn't that bumpy as they'd resurfaced much of the bumpy sections of the track.. that was part of the problem for RB who were expecting something far bumpier and just didn't nail the setup with the unexpected conditions. But I could be misinterpreting comments - could be it was just less bumpy than expected (but still bumpy).

At COTA we can extrapolate Charles' race based on a decent (not even optimal) strategy and he'd have finished ahead of Lando. Lewis' strategy was pretty poor and he finished significantly ahead there. Of course both cars ended up being illegal (marginal in at least Ferrari's case) and from that we should perhaps conclude that McLaren left more margin on the table. But I think we could say it was still a large swing compared to races before and after it - at smoother circuits where Macca don't have issues with bumps they're clear 2nd fastest or competitive with RB. At COTA it was at best level with Merc/Ferrari and at Vegas at best level 3rd with Merc

It's true we weren't as fast as Ferrari and Merc at Austin but as you say, they ran a config that rendered the car illegal so.... would they have been as competitive? Not sure to be honest, a bit slower at least. But we still weren't slow there, particularly in Qualy which is where we tend to see the cars performance step back a little if the track doesn't suit. So even finishing 4th and starting 2nd is a good result.

Stepping back you can certainly see that there is an impact at bumpy tracks but the results seem to suggest they are nothing more than the car can handle.

I'm not sure what was going off here and why it all turned around, but you'd think the track is continuing to rubber in and the tyres will be happily getting into their operating window in the cold temps after 5 or 6 laps on the hards.

As SmallSoldier said there may well be an element of setting the car up for the race, but the turnaround in terms of raw speed in the race surely surpasses any setup compromises the team made, this felt like the conditions also came to the car in quite a big way.

I'd be cautious about looking at the race pace as representative..

I think it's worth considering what happened with the tyres/strategy - Oscar ran an effective 2-stop whilst everyone else (except Hamilton) was on an effective one-stop.

The puncture on lap 16-20 caused piastri to pit for hards from their first set of hards and then came a final stop for mediums that was mandatory.. he then set laps that were 3 seconds per lap quicker than others around.

This meant:

A) he had newer tyres than most drivers for the majority of the race

B) he ran on the best race tyre (hard) for much longer than most which shouldn't be underestimated in its impact

C) he was able to use the medium stint when the car was at its lightest and graining wasn't a concern unlike when everyone else used it at the start. It meant he could push like hell without fears of destroying the tyres.

To address B further, Perez ran a 1-stopper with hard-hard essentially and the gains relative to Max thanks to this were huge. Not having to run the medium tyre when tanks were heavy and the tyre grained up was a big benefit

Alonso pitted on lap 2 for hards and got graining in the last 25% of that stint as well.

Tire graining happens when tyres are lower than the optimal working temperature and bits of the tyre rips of and sticks to the tyre itself thus reducing grip.

Tire blistering, the rubber boiling, is similar to graining. This time the tires are above the optimal working temperature.

One important distinction to note between the two is that you can drive out graining - if you get the tires up to a good temp and spend a couple laps working them out, they will be essentially back to normal.

Blistering, on the other hand, means that the fundamental properties of the tire have been altered and there is no going back from that - you have degraded tires.

[FittingMechanics]

I'd be cautious about looking at the race pace as representative..

I think it's worth considering what happened with the tyres/strategy - Oscar ran an effective 2-stop whilst everyone else (except Hamilton) was on an effective one-stop.

The puncture on lap 16-20 caused piastri to pit for hards from their first set of hards and then came a final stop for mediums that was mandatory.. he then set laps that were 3 seconds per lap quicker than others around.

This meant:

A) he had newer tyres than most drivers for the majority of the race

B) he ran on the best race tyre (hard) for much longer than most which shouldn't be underestimated in its impact

C) he was able to use the medium stint when the car was at its lightest and graining wasn't a concern unlike when everyone else used it at the start. It meant he could push like hell without fears of destroying the tyres.

To address B further, Perez ran a 1-stopper with hard-hard essentially and the gains relative to Max thanks to this were huge. Not having to run the medium tyre when tanks were heavy and the tyre grained up was a big benefit

A. Piastri had good pace even before he was forced onto suboptimal strategy (he was P7 before anyone ahead did a pitstop).
B. He did two pistops under green conditions (PER 0, VER 1, RUS 1, HAM 1, ...)
C. His second stint was long - comparable to stint VER and PER did to end the race. He didn't do Red Bull laptimes but he also was not bad.

I think it is fair to say the pace was pretty good as it is not like Piastri knew he would have two 20 lap hard stints and he was able to push massively. His race was heavily compromised by the collision with Hamilton where he didn't use up his tires completely - then second stint he was hoping there is a new safety car so he probably extended his stint longer than would have been ideal. Last stint 7 lap stint is to be ignored as it is not comparable.

Timing of the second safety car was just unlucky - too early for a medium stint which meant everyone reset their gap and could race to the end.

[mwillems]

I'd be cautious about looking at the race pace as representative..

I think it's worth considering what happened with the tyres/strategy - Oscar ran an effective 2-stop whilst everyone else (except Hamilton) was on an effective one-stop.

The puncture on lap 16-20 caused piastri to pit for hards from their first set of hards and then came a final stop for mediums that was mandatory.. he then set laps that were 3 seconds per lap quicker than others around.

This meant:

A) he had newer tyres than most drivers for the majority of the race

B) he ran on the best race tyre (hard) for much longer than most which shouldn't be underestimated in its impact

C) he was able to use the medium stint when the car was at its lightest and graining wasn't a concern unlike when everyone else used it at the start. It meant he could push like hell without fears of destroying the tyres.

To address B further, Perez ran a 1-stopper with hard-hard essentially and the gains relative to Max thanks to this were huge. Not having to run the medium tyre when tanks were heavy and the tyre grained up was a big benefit

You may have a point. Net pitstop time was around 16 seconds, which was quite short.

Something that stands out is that Oscar did his fastest lap and the fastest lap of the race at the start of his short stint on Mediums (Lap 47). This lap was 1 tenth faster than Max's fastest lap, which was set on 20 lap old hards and with 3 laps more fuel (Lap 44). There's no way Oscar wasn't burning rubber at that point with no need to take care of the tyres.

That said, Oscar also had some damage, so there is an unknown as to exactly how much time he was losing from that.
Like Oscar, Max also did 2 stints on Hard with a longer stint than Oscar on the meds but didn't have to contend with the traffic that Oscar did.

The gap to the leaders before the SC was 25 seconds. More than the 16 seconds we lost on the next pitstop, so we still had a net gain from the safety car in relation to Max as the pack closed. It would have hindered us against those directly around us and we could certainly have finished higher without it. But it was a net gain in time to the leaders so when the comparison in speed is made to our current rivals, RB, it looks like we just weren't that close at all to the front runners.

The damage before the first pit didn't seem to slow down Oscars times, in fact Max and Oscar pitted on the same lap and for some reason through the in and outlap, Max lost 4 seconds to Oscar.

This gives the impression that on outright pace we were not close in pace to the leader, at least that's my opinion at this point.

It's worth noting that whilst Oscar did make progress early on in the race in terms of track position, there were 9 people in front of him that pitted earlier which granted Oscar 5 of his position gains that would have gone back after his next pit. All of those 5 finished ahead of Oscar.

[SmallSoldier]

There is something similar to the RB quandary in that the ride height ...

I'm sure there's a lot more than just bumps. Ferrari don't perform well in high speed corners and they prefer lower temps for their tyres. Merc do well where the downforce levels are higher (except for Brazil lol). But we've seen RB struggle previously at bumpier circuits and McLaren seem to have gone down a similar development path (shaped tunnel roof with low throat height, stiffer & low ride height) and it seems to have resulted in the same or a similar characteristic so it shouldn't be hugely surprising

This year Singapore wasn't that bumpy as they'd resurfaced much of the bumpy sections of the track.. that was part of the problem for RB who were expecting something far bumpier and just didn't nail the setup with the unexpected conditions. But I could be misinterpreting comments - could be it was just less bumpy than expected (but still bumpy).

At COTA we can extrapolate Charles' race based on a decent (not even optimal) strategy and he'd have finished ahead of Lando. Lewis' strategy was pretty poor and he finished significantly ahead there. Of course both cars ended up being illegal (marginal in at least Ferrari's case) and from that we should perhaps conclude that McLaren left more margin on the table. But I think we could say it was still a large swing compared to races before and after it - at smoother circuits where Macca don't have issues with bumps they're clear 2nd fastest or competitive with RB. At COTA it was at best level with Merc/Ferrari and at Vegas at best level 3rd with Merc

It's true we weren't as fast as Ferrari and Merc at Austin but as you say, they ran a config that rendered the car illegal so.... would they have been as competitive? Not sure to be honest, a bit slower at least. But we still weren't slow there, particularly in Qualy which is where we tend to see the cars performance step back a little if the track doesn't suit. So even finishing 4th and starting 2nd is a good result.

Stepping back you can certainly see that there is an impact at bumpy tracks but the results seem to suggest they are nothing more than the car can handle.

I'm not sure what was going off here and why it all turned around, but you'd think the track is continuing to rubber in and the tyres will be happily getting into their operating window in the cold temps after 5 or 6 laps on the hards.

As SmallSoldier said there may well be an element of setting the car up for the race, but the turnaround in terms of raw speed in the race surely surpasses any setup compromises the team made, this felt like the conditions also came to the car in quite a big way.

In Qualy, quick warm up of the tires was key for performance… In the race, that can be detrimental since you can end up outside of the optimal window… Realizing that, if the car setup was geared towards “a longer” operating window, you suddenly have what we experienced, higher performance threshold compared to the rest (you can abuse the tires a bit more since you won’t overheat them as much as others)

[mwillems]

I'm sure there's a lot more than just bumps. Ferrari don't perform well in high speed corners and they prefer lower temps for their tyres. Merc do well where the downforce levels are higher (except for Brazil lol). But we've seen RB struggle previously at bumpier circuits and McLaren seem to have gone down a similar development path (shaped tunnel roof with low throat height, stiffer & low ride height) and it seems to have resulted in the same or a similar characteristic so it shouldn't be hugely surprising

This year Singapore wasn't that bumpy as they'd resurfaced much of the bumpy sections of the track.. that was part of the problem for RB who were expecting something far bumpier and just didn't nail the setup with the unexpected conditions. But I could be misinterpreting comments - could be it was just less bumpy than expected (but still bumpy).

At COTA we can extrapolate Charles' race based on a decent (not even optimal) strategy and he'd have finished ahead of Lando. Lewis' strategy was pretty poor and he finished significantly ahead there. Of course both cars ended up being illegal (marginal in at least Ferrari's case) and from that we should perhaps conclude that McLaren left more margin on the table. But I think we could say it was still a large swing compared to races before and after it - at smoother circuits where Macca don't have issues with bumps they're clear 2nd fastest or competitive with RB. At COTA it was at best level with Merc/Ferrari and at Vegas at best level 3rd with Merc

It's true we weren't as fast as Ferrari and Merc at Austin but as you say, they ran a config that rendered the car illegal so.... would they have been as competitive? Not sure to be honest, a bit slower at least. But we still weren't slow there, particularly in Qualy which is where we tend to see the cars performance step back a little if the track doesn't suit. So even finishing 4th and starting 2nd is a good result.

Stepping back you can certainly see that there is an impact at bumpy tracks but the results seem to suggest they are nothing more than the car can handle.

I'm not sure what was going off here and why it all turned around, but you'd think the track is continuing to rubber in and the tyres will be happily getting into their operating window in the cold temps after 5 or 6 laps on the hards.

As SmallSoldier said there may well be an element of setting the car up for the race, but the turnaround in terms of raw speed in the race surely surpasses any setup compromises the team made, this felt like the conditions also came to the car in quite a big way.

In Qualy, quick warm up of the tires was key for performance… In the race, that can be detrimental since you can end up outside of the optimal window… Realizing that, if the car setup was geared towards “a longer” operating window, you suddenly have what we experienced, higher performance threshold compared to the rest (you can abuse the tires a bit more since you won’t overheat them as much as others)

My own feelings are that this was a baked in deficiency of the car as a result of the low DF package that the car does not work well in, rather than any choice the team had. Other than slapping on a bigger wing which I don't even think they had the option of doing, I doubt there wasn't an option that made the car work well in Race AND Q, so the choice was to have it set up for the race. Naturally if you had the option, you'd set it up for both. You can still say that it is set up for the race, but I think it might mask the reasons why it was set up for the race. They couldn't get it to work for both.

The way the tyres worked were a surprise to the team over the weekend, particularly in Q, where they did not last anywhere near what they thought they would, and I don't think it explains the porpoising, which seemed to come back as a result of the setup we were running which I think was a compromised setup that basically found time where they could and they had to just suck up the performance cost that came with it.

Not that this makes me right, it's just another opinion but this article suggests much the same as I have this weekend. And before anyone quotes it back at me that he says Q3 was possible, I'll add that I said this weekend that it may have been possible but at the back of the top 10 but we were a solid Q2 car

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... kMLYa.html

I also think that the large gap remained in the race vs Ferrari and RB, albeit smaller than the gulf in Q, we were just better than most of the other teams and that flattered the race performance of the car, which wasn't brilliant here as it was at other tracks recently.

[FittingMechanics]

It's worth noting that whilst Oscar did make progress early on in the race in terms of track position, there were 9 people in front of him that pitted earlier which granted Oscar 5 of his position gains that would have gone back after his next pit. All of those 5 finished ahead of Oscar.

Completely disagree.

On Lap 16. Running order is:
1. VER
2. LEC
3. RUS
4. GAS
5. ALB
6. OCO
7. PIA
8. HAM
9. SAR
10. PER


13. SAI

No one did a pitstop from ahead of PIA - all his gains were on track - of those listed only PER and SAI did their pistop at the start of the race (during safety car). He had a good (and lucky) start to reach P13 and then did his overtakes to P7 at which time RUS pitted and then he had collision with Hamilton.

To me - no one ahead of Piastri at that time had an advantage pitstop or strategy wise. If RUS was about to do a 35 lap stint on hards then Oscar could do a 30+20 lap on mediums or something of the sort.

In the end, all these comparisons are super unreliable as you lose so much time when you are trying to overtake someone. From having to push the tires to driving in dirty air it is just not comparable. It is likely that Piastri (or Norris) pace would have been even better if he started in top 5.

[mwillems]

It's worth noting that whilst Oscar did make progress early on in the race in terms of track position, there were 9 people in front of him that pitted earlier which granted Oscar 5 of his position gains that would have gone back after his next pit. All of those 5 finished ahead of Oscar.

Completely disagree.

On Lap 16. Running order is:
1. VER
2. LEC
3. RUS
4. GAS
5. ALB
6. OCO
7. PIA
8. HAM
9. SAR
10. PER


13. SAI

No one did a pitstop from ahead of PIA - all his gains were on track - of those listed only PER and SAI did their pistop at the start of the race (during safety car). He had a good (and lucky) start to reach P13 and then did his overtakes to P7 at which time RUS pitted and then he had collision with Hamilton.

To me - no one ahead of Piastri at that time had an advantage pitstop or strategy wise. If RUS was about to do a 35 lap stint on hards then Oscar could do a 30+20 lap on mediums or something of the sort.

In the end, all these comparisons are super unreliable as you lose so much time when you are trying to overtake someone. From having to push the tires to driving in dirty air it is just not comparable. It is likely that Piastri (or Norris) pace would have been even better if he started in top 5.

You're right, it was more than 5

I think 7 pitstops cleared track position for Oscar in those laps and you can see that in the race charts below.
Lando's DNF meant 8 cars cleared the way, out of the 12 positions he made in those initial 15 laps. Some of those passes were as a result of collisions and then the pit, but it is the same difference, there not that many genuine overtakes.

I also don't think Piastri was the only one pushing, so personally I don't think the data is that confusing. There is always noise in data of course, but there is plenty of data here to compare overall pace. There are charts here also that show you the gaps to those in front, so you can see when there is clear air etc, I can't see that his pace was great once you got past the midfield and on that front the safety car did shaft us. It was a net gain vs RB and Ferrari, and so I think the race gap to RB is not unrepresentative but that the finishing position relative to other midfield teams was.

We were also slower than Ocon who didn't pit at the SC and one stopped. In fact looking at Oscar vs Ocon, the pace over the race was broadly similar in times, despite us having fresher tyres vs a car that did not stop under the SC, and it's worth noting that the SC did not change the gap to Ocon. So you can argue we were 4th fastest car here.




Edit: Actually Oscar passed Lando before his crash, of course. Lando gained 1 position on Lap 1 despite losing to Oscar, whereas Oscar gained 5 positions. I'll try and watch the first few laps later to get a better view of lap 1.

[mwillems]

For a clearer picture the end of our race has us pitting and getting past Gasly for tenth.



You can see it is 4-5 laps for the mediums to come to us before we start to show our pace. Everyone got excited for the gap to Gasly dropping so fast. Actually Gaslys time was dropping relative to everyone at that point, his tyres had gone.

Compared to Ocon, who hards were 24 laps old when we pitted for fresh Mediums, we were never more than 1.3s a lap faster than him at the end. And we didn't make barely a dent on Hamilton who also had very old hards, but were faster than him earlier in the session.

Due to pitting a lap later, Hamilton lost over 15 seconds to Piastri, which he got back at the SC, so when you nullify them out, you can see that the gaps was relatively stable throughout the race and the cars had similar pace with Oscar losing out. In fact on Fresh meds we couldn't catch Hamilton, even after 7 laps of the meds.

I think P5 was the very best we could do with this car and this driver and that might have been a push, but position is nothing compared to the pace relative to the front runners, which took a step backwards in Vegas.

Every team has an Achilles heel, even the dominant RB. My feeling is that ours is not low speed corners, but low DF situations in general.

[toraabe]

Yep, Oscar did everything and more to make Vegas GP a good watch for McLaren fans. On a night of so many passing moves it was inevitable we would only see a few of Oscar’s, what we did see confirmed his credentials as a fast AND accurate racer.

Yep, some very tasty overtakes from Oscar.

Like this

Both williams and mc laren with drs open, but due to that Mc Laren is running their own gearbox with slightly loger final drive he is able too overtake Sargeant anyway. The Merc engine cuts at 13k and that is 350 km/h in a williams , merc or aston. Almost 360 km/h is no bad And he still has some revs left

[Peter Piper]

Yep, Oscar did everything and more to make Vegas GP a good watch for McLaren fans. On a night of so many passing moves it was inevitable we would only see a few of Oscar’s, what we did see confirmed his credentials as a fast AND accurate racer.

Yep, some very tasty overtakes from Oscar.

Like this

Both williams and mc laren with drs open, but due to that Mc Laren is running their own gearbox with slightly loger final drive he is able too overtake Sargeant anyway. The Merc engine cuts at 13k and that is 350 km/h in a williams , merc or aston. Almost 360 km/h is no bad And he still has some revs left

I don't think that's how gearboxes work do they? You can pick and choose which ratios you want to use at the start of the season regardless of who makes the gearbox.