Mclaren Mercedes MP4-25

[Hangaku]

then this system doesn't seem to be providing much in the way of a straight line speed advantage versus everyone else at all.........

Au contrare - in all but FP2 where Kubica stole second place from Button, McLaren topped the speed trap all weekend in all sessions. With this in mind, and also knowing that their aero setup was plain broken, I'd say that this device might be very effective indeed.

[myurr]

Like straight line speed doesnt care

You don't spend all winter testing something new and cool that doesn't contribute much to the lap time at the majority of circuits. Cornering speed and downforce is what you really need and McLaren are certainly lacking that.

No they're not - they went with a lower downforce setup than they should, as they have repeatedly said. This was a mistake, and the fact they could put more downforce on the car and run with softer suspension setting whilst trading some of that straight line speed suggests that their performance wasn't so bad in the end. Certainly in the second stint Hamilton's overall performance was faster than Massa and the Mercedes, and even before his problem faster than Vettel, and second only to Alonso.

Really, if you can gain 6km/h in straight line speed with that or even more you could add alot more downforce to the car, thus it increases downforce indirectly.

I'm afraid it's not that simple as it's all compromises and tradeoffs. Besides, if as has been claimed, McLaren bizarrely got their downforce/drag ratios screwed up in qualifying (surely it should have been obvious?), and then for the race, then this system doesn't seem to be providing much in the way of a straight line speed advantage versus everyone else at all.........

You can't blame a difference of over around a second in qualifying in one sector purely on set up problems. The race turned out to be much nicer for them as they could effectively get some free lap time on the straights without chewing up their tyres with the advantage they had, but it's a serious stretch to try and replicate that on other circuits. There is something definitely not right..........

[/quote]

Actually you can blame that setup change - and you even say why in your own post - teams have always had a slight bias towards preferring more downforce for qualifying and then a little less in the race. Hence when asking the most of the tyres the McLaren was off the pace, and coupled with the too firm suspension it was far too skittish over the bumps, but in the race where it was more about conserving the tyres they were fine.

So in summary the MP4/25 was set up with too little downforce and too stiff a suspension, both things that can be easily rectified, but over a race distance it was just fine and not far from the ultimate pace.

[rifrafs2kees]

Like straight line speed doesnt care

You don't spend all winter testing something new and cool that doesn't contribute much to the lap time at the majority of circuits. Cornering speed and downforce is what you really need and McLaren are certainly lacking that.

Really, if you can gain 6km/h in straight line speed with that or even more you could add alot more downforce to the car, thus it increases downforce indirectly.

I'm afraid it's not that simple as it's all compromises and tradeoffs. Besides, if as has been claimed, McLaren bizarrely got their downforce/drag ratios screwed up in qualifying (surely it should have been obvious?), and then for the race, then this system doesn't seem to be providing much in the way of a straight line speed advantage versus everyone else at all.........

You can't blame a difference of over around a second in qualifying in one sector purely on set up problems. The race turned out to be much nicer for them as they could effectively get some free lap time on the straights without chewing up their tyres with the advantage they had, but it's a serious stretch to try and replicate that on other circuits. There is something definitely not right..........

Who the hell is this moron putting forth a heap of dog pile? You seem to think you know it all. You are so good, you've got it all figured out in one race. I seem to remember somebody telling you to quell your enthusiasm for redbull as their reliability was questionable. Whether it was a spark plug or a crankshaft that went wrong, the fact is their car broke. What do you do? You work for an F1 team? You know all the variables that go into losing or gaining a second? Besides the usual camber, toe in, aerodynamic/drag ratio, reynolds number, and so on, you don't know anything most of us don't already know. Redbull and ferrari did better in the first race...BIG DEAL. They qualified a second ahead..BIG DEAL. It doesn't mean there is something fundamentally wrong with the mp4-25. We are here to discuss F1 meaningfully. In doing so, we make note of trends and facts. We don't have the facts because we don't have any inside info to compare. So our only thing really is TRENDS and astute obseravations. Until you have that shut that (red) BULL up for a second. People like Gascoyne have been on the inside building cars for years and they still can't get it right. Don't try to act like you, however, are very enlightened about the subject. Even Newey has come up with some dogs in his lifetime.

[Poleman]

I seem to remember somebody telling you to quell your enthusiasm for redbull as their reliability was questionable. Whether it was a spark plug or a crankshaft that went wrong, the fact is their car broke.

I guess that was me...and ufortunately i was right.

[segedunum]

Actually you can blame that setup change - and you even say why in your own post - teams have always had a slight bias towards preferring more downforce for qualifying and then a little less in the race.

You can't blame that on the huge performance difference we saw in one sector, that ended up being rather mitigated in the race. The gap is just too large. A rather stiffer suspension should have rather helped their cornering speed. It didn't.

EDIT: I just wonder if they went for a stiffer suspension set up to ring more grip out of the car because they purely wanted to maximise their straight line speed for some reason. It's just impossible to believe they screwed things up that badly and didn't see what was in front of them.

I refuse to go back into discussing the race, because we've been there.

[segedunum]

then this system doesn't seem to be providing much in the way of a straight line speed advantage versus everyone else at all.........

Au contrare - in all but FP2 where Kubica stole second place from Button, McLaren topped the speed trap all weekend in all sessions.

I'm wondering from the point of view of what would have happened to that if they had biased their car in favour of more downforce - assuming they have royally screwed up their set up in the way that they supposedly had. I'm sceptical about that to be honest because it's difficult to believe they wouldn't see what should have been slapping them in the face. You take a few kp/h off that and there is no real advantage versus the time they have to find in downforce.

However, I now know that many people can't take these avenues of discussion because it's impossible to comprehend that McLaren's clever little system might not be effective at all............... It's absolutely impossible to go anywhere near there. Taboo. Off-limits.

[rifrafs2kees]

Actually you can blame that setup change - and you even say why in your own post - teams have always had a slight bias towards preferring more downforce for qualifying and then a little less in the race.

You can't blame that on the huge performance difference we saw in one sector, that ended up being rather mitigated in the race. The gap is just too large. A rather stiffer suspension should have rather helped their cornering speed. It didn't.

I refuse to go back into discussing the race, because we've been there.

Who said you should discuss the race? We are discussing cars here. You are the one who seems know a car's capabilities and deficiencies from a race weekened. You are the one who has been salivating about red bulls performance in here. Yet, you are the one who has not analysed the entire lap times to make conclusions. I know because you said the mclarens were off pace during the race, when I saw otherwise from watching the laptimes. And other people in here have borne withness to that fact. I didn't watch the race on tv by the way. My only insight as to what was happening was lap times. And by the way, I think red bull did a fantastic job and they seem to be in an advantageous position. What I will not accept is that somehow, you know Mclaren is in serious trouble eventhough Hamilton put them on the podium. If we want sensationalism and exageration, we'll read newspapers on f1.

[wesley123]

then this system doesn't seem to be providing much in the way of a straight line speed advantage versus everyone else at all.........

Au contrare - in all but FP2 where Kubica stole second place from Button, McLaren topped the speed trap all weekend in all sessions. With this in mind, and also knowing that their aero setup was plain broken, I'd say that this device might be very effective indeed.

and even then, the mclaren really sucks aero wise, so you do not know what their drag is, it might even bring the team an 15km/h advantage, afterall i think it has high drag. The design is complicated to, faulty things will be harder to fix, and the chassis itself is much more complicated. I could understand that the sidepods would be stalling, in this case it will cause huge drag, but due to the slit wich acts as an airfoil in front of it will stop this stall, also it expains the hot air exits, afterall that placements will stop it from stalling, it isnt the most efficient way but it stops stalling, air exiting lower would screw up diffuser performance.

[gillard26]

My first post so go easy haha...

I would say on race pace the car looks good in the number 2 drivers hands. It would have to agree that macca just went the wrong way on set up. I can only presume they thought they had a good margin on the rest of the field and went as slim as possible on the aero to help the tires that they were so concearned about ( with the history they have with them . Juging by the length of the staraight and the aero gizmo they have i would say they sprung the car stiff to manage the cars ride height at high fuel loads and they for sure didnt think there would be a huge ripple in the track. I think fuel corected the ferrari is about 2 tenths up in the hands on alonso followed by vetel with hamilton and mcca about another 2 thenths back. but time will tell i spose.

These cars are so aero complex its mental. Even if u look at a go kart a setup change of 1 psi in air pressure or 1mm can make a huge differance. a 1psi air pressure adjustment on my kart has given me 3tenths and im not lewis hamilton for sure. Think of all the possible setups on this beast lol

[Richard]

comprehend that McLaren's clever little system might not be effective at all

It could be super effective, but the rest of the car is a dog? Or it could be ineffective and the rest of the car is average? Or it could be a hindrance that is holding back an otherwise fantastic car?

Whitmarsh's comments ("I was shocked" & "we made a mistake") show the team don't really know how to optimise the car.

We need time to see if McL can get the overall package working properly, and also to see if other teams think it is worth copying.

[Raptor22]

agreed Richard.

I is thought that it would be worth 6km/hr down the straights but whats that in terms of average speed? It can only be effectively used for 1km around a 4Km circuit then for 25% of the lap its worth 1% improvement. Thats not much since its total worth is only 0,25% to performance.

if you have bigger issues like poor damping or suspension performance you're going backward through the pack quickly.

Optimising a cars performance firstly requires getting the maximum from the tyres, then adding in the required aerodynamic performance to aid that.

In this case Mac certainly got their suspension set up lost, and this was clear from all the footage shown of the car through the mid sector through the bumpy bits. The rear end was all over the place.

Now it should be fairly obvious that to set the car up optimally you need to understand where you're losing time. if Mac were not sure whether the mid sector of the lap or the straights was were the time was being lost then I wonder if they are really on top of their ca and i also wonder if all the rigs they had all over the car in winter testing was not designed to uncover another aero deficiency?

[Spencifer_Murphy]

... It's absolutely impossible to go anywhere near there. Taboo. Off-limits.

No its not off limits mate, but you don't do yourself any favours with comments like:

then this system doesn't seem to be providing much in the way of a straight line speed advantage versus everyone else at all.........

When in fact there is data which proves this to be an inaccurate claim

You don't spend all winter testing something new and cool that doesn't contribute much to the lap time at the majority of circuits.

When Mclaren quite clearly did NOT spend all winter testing it. If you remember Mclaren used pitot arrays all over the car (also a point of rather stern comments from yourself) and infact only used an array near the rear wing towards the end of the winter testing schedule. (Yes there was flo-vis on the rear wing, but it was elsewhere including the diffuser, so we know they were testing other parts aswell as the wing...it was not as biased as you claim.)

Changeable aerodynamic device, that has no moving parts, so it is legal, as the driver is not a part of a system according to the rules, even if they act as one.

It's not that simple. There are regulations that rule out what a driver can have an involvement in, but there are specific rules on aerodynamics that don't make any exceptions for driver involvement. There are also regulations that can cover not just the cause but also the effect that any system can have on aerodynamics and where.

Let me make it clear first I am NOT saying you are wrong with what I am about to say (I do not have the knowledge atm to say such a thing) but when making claims such as the one in bold it would be better to quote such a rule or regulation. I say this because if you know it exists you must know where to find it, whereas I've never been aware of such a rule and I will admit when I first read that statement I was skeptical as to how truthful that was.

The car is just plain slow, unbalanced and doesn't want to go through corners.

Again, this simply is not true. Yes the car is lacking ultimate pace. However a car which is as disaterous as you claim (say for example the MP4-24 ) simply will not qualify in 4th place and finish 3rd. The Mclaren is clearly not as fast as the F10 or RB6, but its definately not "plain slow".

We are all entitled to our opinions, clearly I have mine and on this particular topic they tend to disagree with yours, and that it great, that is why we can have discussions here, its what makes Sport of all kinds so interesting, and passion (which you clearly have) is also fantastic. But the forceful way you state these opinions lead readers to assume that you are confusing your opinion with fact.

Finally, I sincerly hope you do not view this as a personal attack on you. Its just I wanted to respond to a few of your comments (the ones above) and felt that you might feel I was joining a group who you might feel are ganging up on you. It's most certainly not that.

No hard feelings I hope

[autogyro]

I think they over egged the pudding on set up and set the car with a nose down attitude and to much ride height on two hard suspension without sufficient ride height variation. (The RB6 stayed flat and low all through the race, proving a varable ride height that worked).
The problem is that the car has to many variables over the complete race distance and the team are not getting it to the right compromise.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I think they over egged the pudding on set up and set the car with a nose down attitude and to much ride height on two hard suspension without sufficient ride height variation. (The RB6 stayed flat and low all through the race, proving a varable ride height that worked).
The problem is that the car has to many variables over the complete race distance and the team are not getting it to the right compromise.

Do you rekon the team struggled with the ride hight as you suggest due to failing to cope with the bump in turn (6 is it?)?

As I recall hearing some car-to-pit radio from Lewis saying the car was bottoming out there in FP 1 or 2.

[pete555]

A rather stiffer suspension should have rather helped their cornering speed. It didn't.

Simplistic cack,
So every one will replace dampers with steel pins at monaco and singapore since stiffer suspension increases corner speed.