Handbags! Duh!Pup wrote:What department does Tinky Winky work in?
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
McLaren have chosen some interesting design routes on their new competitor. In addition to our own technical analysis, McLaren's Tim Goss and Paddy Lowe explain why some decisions have been made in light of the regulation changes.
Handbags! Duh!Pup wrote:What department does Tinky Winky work in?
Define appreciable. A 10th is huge. Races have been won by less, and qualifying has been won by less.segedunum wrote:A certain amout of measuring is what testing is for. However, at this late stage you work on more practical and pressing matters, such as getting the speed out of your car in racing and qualifying trim because you have such limited time. You can't do that if you've got devices hanging off the back of your car and you're looking at other things. You can't change something fundamental if it doesn't work now.Giblet wrote:Measuring is what testing is for. I thought that was already known by everyone in this thread at least.
As said many pages back, data being useful depends on it being relevant and you being able to do something about it. In a sport like Formula One, data collected now is hardly going to be relevant in a few weeks because the window changes so fast. It also won't help you change anything fundamental with the car. Either it makes a difference to the time or it doesn't - that's what testing is for.They need as much baseline data now as they can get.
Yes, which is why they don't have time for R and D projects.There is no in season testing to get more data later, other than very limited straight line tests.
Assuming that's what it's doing, but we have no idea that is what they're trying other than a comment from someone a few pages back.Out of curiosity, should they just eyeball it, or ask Lewis if it is working based on his butt dyno?
The bottom line is if it makes an appreciable difference to their times with and without then it's worth doing, as long as it's positive. If it doesn't then it realy doesn't matter what other measurements they take. I just see this as another McLaren data overload trip. If it doesn't work then why has it made it on to the car?
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
electronics at ToyotaPup wrote: What department does Tinky Winky work in?
Raptor22 wrote:segedunum wrote:Those can argued to be passive systems influenced by external factors, and even then we've had a few bannings.Raptor22 wrote:that did not stop platform or Adaptable compression dampers from being fitted. With these the degree of compression damping was dependant on the internal valving hitting a threshold that opens another valve to allow faster compression.
If it's a passive system then you might get away with that, but if there is driver input of any kind then it's illegal no matter which way you cut it.With a driverride height adjust system you will get away having a pin that holds the rockers in one postion and when its removed the rocker slips into another positon lowering hte ride height. Its a not return system and therefore there is no feedback loop and hence not actove control and therefore legal.
I disagree, there are many systems on an F1 that are driver influenced but not "active control".
The only exclusion in article 10 is "no changes to the suspension system are allowed while the car is in motion."
This does not exclude a system where the driver can alter the cars ride height while it is stationary in the pits.
So your arguement around driver input has no baring in this matter.
In fact the rules does not specifically prohibit changing the ride height while in motion either because any activation of the suspension changes the roll centre and that can be argued to be an alteration while in motion. what you have presented is merely your interpretation of the rules.
The safe way is for a driver operated device in the cockpit that can be activated when the suspension is unloaded in the pits.
but I am pretty sure it could be successfully argued that a passive system can be activated by the driver while the car is in motion.
Platform dampers are allowed and those change the state of damping while in motion.
The rules intention is to avoid active systems working off a feedback loop but does not ban reactive systems.
Does it actually make a tenth's worth of difference for the effort that it seems to be making? That's the only metric that matters right now. Given that they still don't even know if it's working right then I'd say they've no idea how much it will give them.Giblet wrote:Define appreciable. A 10th is huge. Races have been won by less, and qualifying has been won by less.
No. It's measure, quantify, check and action. The latter is the real kicker, because without it the former three are useless. I still question the whole 'data gathering' thing at this late stage. It's highly doubtful they're going to turn all that data they seem to be gathering into action. It will take weeks - if the data is actually still relevant by then.We already went through all this, and you are so wrong. Measure, quantify.
They might, they might not. McLaren has a history of gathering a ton of data at the expense of many other things, and I still question it. "They know what they're doing" is probably not why any of us comment on this forum. A lot of organisations are rather data obsessed, so it's not an unusual thing.Guess what, Mclaren knows what they are doing, and you clearly don't.
It wasn't actually. They managed to throw together some improvements with the resources they have, and KERS gave them a huge mask, but there was no way they were going to catch up with Brawn or Red Bull. Fundamentally, the car just wasn't up to it. It's virtually impossible to change the philosophy of a car after it is built given the complexity and the work that's already gone in. It's like trying to turn an ocean liner.Why can't you change something fundamental? Last years car was fundamentally flawed, and by the end of the year, it was fundamentally fast.
Uh, huh. I didn't actually say McLaren were idiots, but I'll skip. If you've got something useful to add be my guest.They say the definition of insanity...
Formula One is a world of absolutes. There is precious little grey. You either win or you don't. There is goodness knows how much collective experience behind the phrase 'leopards don't change their spots'. It's why it exists. If you don't have that then I suggest spending your time more wisely on some life experience.....and the thinking in absolute extremes (you say leopards can't change their spots or instruments mean mistakes).
Testing is for testing and proving development (which is a good use of instruments given the circumstances) and testing what they will do in qualifying and races when they don't otherwise get a chance. McLaren appear to be developing.Testing is for testing things. They are 'testing'.
I think this may be the crux of the issue right here - supposition does not a fact make. We'll find out soon enough, so no need getting your underwear in a bunch.segedunum wrote:Given that...
It's cleaned and ironed.Pup wrote:And before you say otherwise, it is, most obviously, in a bunch.
pardon, but how can you be so sure??conni wrote:McLaren can design,build and fit a new wing in 4 days if they have the data to prove somthing needs changing
conni
In response to the text in bold. I have never once stated that the car had to be moving. I merely stated that the ride height could be changed by the driver. Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.segedunum wrote:This is specifically to do with the ride height and suspension and not other systems on the car which may or may not be actively controlled.Raptor22 wrote:I disagree, there are many systems on an F1 that are driver influenced but not "active control".
That's the only way it could be done - but that wasn't what you were arguing before. Even then, it's highly unlikely that a driver initiated system would be allowed since it could be used while the car is in motion. You can't just say "Oh, we only use it when the car is stationary at a stop". That tac has been used before.The only exclusion in article 10 is "no changes to the suspension system are allowed while the car is in motion." This does not exclude a system where the driver can alter the cars ride height while it is stationary in the pits. So your arguement around driver input has no baring in this matter.
A clear distinction can be made between passive and reactive suspension travel and the set, default ride height of the car. You're rather splitting hairs now. That's how there are regulations on the ride height of the car but suspensions can be allowed.In fact the rules does not specifically prohibit changing the ride height while in motion either because any activation of the suspension changes the roll centre and that can be argued to be an alteration while in motion. what you have presented is merely your interpretation of the rules.
It doesn't matter what the intention of the rules is, they are clear, and no you can't get around them by arguing you have something that isn't active. A reactive system is unlikely to be successful anyway since setting the default ride height of the car requires a non-passive system of some kind to change the baseline.The rules intention is to avoid active systems working off a feedback loop but does not ban reactive systems.
Giblet wrote:A 10th of a second a lap is what, 6-7 seconds over a race distance? Oh that's not worth pursuing at all.
You got laughed out of this thread for thinking that Mclaren are panic measuring, by experts, but here you are again.
It's a shame, you have some good posts until you start arguing, and the cookoo clock goes off.
And on the check and action front, what should they do for chcking and action, at the track? Make a new wing out of duct tape and paper?
Think about it.
As far as I can figure out, Button and Hamilton are doing the action bit. The team can still do their tyre and set up evaluations. It just happens that a geek has stuck a measuring device on the car, and it probably makes negligible difference to the car's performance.segedunum wrote:It's measure, quantify, check and action. The latter is the real kicker, because without it the former three are useless. I still question the whole 'data gathering' thing at this late stage. It's highly doubtful they're going to turn all that data they seem to be gathering into action. It will take weeks - if the data is actually still relevant by then.