2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[mwillems]

When did he break a rib?

Silverstone

That said, he hasn't said when he broke it, I think?
We just know when the scan was. It might have been a few weeks before, some moderate pain that didn't go away so got the scan after Silverstone.

[onewingedangel]

How did he break it?

Not Zak again?

[BMMR61]

With only just over a week till the return of F1 at the Dutch GP it may be time to start looking at what's likely to be happening. Andrea Stella has previously hinted at one major upgrade before the season is over, here he is boldly talking about plenty more in the toy box.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... t7LhOnCBLI

With the Imola major upgrade that produced such great results being the only real upgrade across the first 14 weekends (apart from a front wing to complement this at the following Imola round), it shouldn't surprise if McLaren bring something decent soon, maybe even at Holland. With Mercedes scoring some good results McLaren need to keep the pressure on if the WCC is to be won.

[_cerber1]

Stella: However, we are satisfied with our results on the track, so we have decided to stop a number of updates in some areas and transfer some of our efforts and resources to another aspect. In the second half of the season, we will use various improvements and hope that this will help us become even faster.

[mwillems]

Stella: However, we are satisfied with our results on the track, so we have decided to stop a number of updates in some areas and transfer some of our efforts and resources to another aspect. In the second half of the season, we will use various improvements and hope that this will help us become even faster.

Do you have a link?

[Emag]

Stella: However, we are satisfied with our results on the track, so we have decided to stop a number of updates in some areas and transfer some of our efforts and resources to another aspect. In the second half of the season, we will use various improvements and hope that this will help us become even faster.

So it seems its like I speculated. There were plenty of talks about upgrades in the beginning of the season, which failed to materialize after Miami.

They were lucky that their developments there brought unexpected improvements, which led them to cancel some upgrade plans specifically targeting certain weaknesses.

But it could have been the other way around, so understanding why it happened that way is very important. Which would also explain the small number of performance upgrades brought since Miami.

On another note, it does seem like RedBull might have been cheating. It's being rumored that they were forced to scrap an illegal rear braking system from Miami and onwards.

Apparently it modulated braking pressure to the left or right tire depending on the corner it was going through. Not only would it induce extra rotation, it would help rear tire wear as well.

I am not fully convinced yet, because if it was true, I don't see why they would handle it in quiet and not disqualify RedBull out of the races they were running an illegal car.

On the other hand, considering how dominant they were in China, the sudden drop off in Miami is hard to explain.

[BMMR61]

The huge amount of speculation in the F1 media about the "clarification" on asymmetrical braking effect coming from the FIA answers at a superficial level the closing of the gap. On closer inspection it doesn't sync with Ferrari's relative gap which is still as great to Red Bull as before.

[Swed3121]

Stella: However, we are satisfied with our results on the track, so we have decided to stop a number of updates in some areas and transfer some of our efforts and resources to another aspect. In the second half of the season, we will use various improvements and hope that this will help us become even faster.

So it seems its like I speculated. There were plenty of talks about upgrades in the beginning of the season, which failed to materialize after Miami.

They were lucky that their developments there brought unexpected improvements, which led them to cancel some upgrade plans specifically targeting certain weaknesses.

But it could have been the other way around, so understanding why it happened that way is very important. Which would also explain the small number of performance upgrades brought since Miami.

On another note, it does seem like RedBull might have been cheating. It's being rumored that they were forced to scrap an illegal rear braking system from Miami and onwards.

Apparently it modulated braking pressure to the left or right tire depending on the corner it was going through. Not only would it induce extra rotation, it would help rear tire wear as well.

I am not fully convinced yet, because if it was true, I don't see why they would handle it in quiet and not disqualify RedBull out of the races they were running an illegal car.

On the other hand, considering how dominant they were in China, the sudden drop off in Miami is hard to explain.

As for the disqualification, the device wasn’t illegal at that point, just something the FIA didn’t like so it was clarified as to be illegal

[Emag]

The huge amount of speculation in the F1 media about the "clarification" on asymmetrical braking effect coming from the FIA answers at a superficial level the closing of the gap. On closer inspection it doesn't sync with Ferrari's relative gap which is still as great to Red Bull as before.

Well, does it really?

McLaren's average gap until China was ~0.7s to RedBull and around 0.35s to Ferrari. Come to Miami, and it's ~0.1-0.15s to Ferrari and slightly less than that to RedBull, but now the other way around. Beyond that, we have only 2 "normal" races and it becomes difficult to gauge Ferrari because they encountered problems during their development plan.

The only race prior to Miami where RedBull was close to Ferrari was Australia, but we couldn't even get a proper read on that one since Max couldn't finish the race. The only benchmark is Perez which is hardly a reliable data point. So really, the closed gap to Ferrari makes sense, and a 0.4s improvement, while still quite impressive for a single upgrade package, is a little bit more believable than the 0.6-0.7s they would have needed to gain relative to RedBull.

[BMMR61]

Stella: However, we are satisfied with our results on the track, so we have decided to stop a number of updates in some areas and transfer some of our efforts and resources to another aspect. In the second half of the season, we will use various improvements and hope that this will help us become even faster.

So it seems its like I speculated. There were plenty of talks about upgrades in the beginning of the season, which failed to materialize after Miami.

They were lucky that their developments there brought unexpected improvements, which led them to cancel some upgrade plans specifically targeting certain weaknesses.

But it could have been the other way around, so understanding why it happened that way is very important. Which would also explain the small number of performance upgrades brought since Miami.

On another note, it does seem like RedBull might have been cheating. It's being rumored that they were forced to scrap an illegal rear braking system from Miami and onwards.

Apparently it modulated braking pressure to the left or right tire depending on the corner it was going through. Not only would it induce extra rotation, it would help rear tire wear as well.

I am not fully convinced yet, because if it was true, I don't see why they would handle it in quiet and not disqualify RedBull out of the races they were running an illegal car.

On the other hand, considering how dominant they were in China, the sudden drop off in Miami is hard to explain.

As for the disqualification, the device wasn’t illegal at that point, just something the FIA didn’t like so it was clarified as to be illegal

I think the FIA did the "clarification" note so as to not characterise the brake feature as outright cheating but the old "unfair advantage" which forever has been the goal of F1 design teams. When Gordon Murray's Brabham 'fan car' appeared, the authorities had a chat after the walkover win in Sweden 1978 and it was quietly decided by the team to withdraw the car from and further racing. Plenty of less sensational cases have happened over the years as well as Ferrari's 2020 PU retreat after the 2019 unit had been quietly deemed not within the rules. When a team makes a breakthrough which is not seen as within "the spirit or letter of the rules" then a private agreement is usually reached.

[BMMR61]

The huge amount of speculation in the F1 media about the "clarification" on asymmetrical braking effect coming from the FIA answers at a superficial level the closing of the gap. On closer inspection it doesn't sync with Ferrari's relative gap which is still as great to Red Bull as before.

Well, does it really?

McLaren's average gap until China was ~0.7s to RedBull and around 0.35s to Ferrari. Come to Miami, and it's ~0.1-0.15s to Ferrari and slightly less than that to RedBull, but now the other way around. Beyond that, we have only 2 "normal" races and it becomes difficult to gauge Ferrari because they encountered problems during their development plan.

The only race prior to Miami where RedBull was close to Ferrari was Australia, but we couldn't even get a proper read on that one since Max couldn't finish the race. The only benchmark is Perez which is hardly a reliable data point. So really, the closed gap to Ferrari makes sense, and a 0.4s improvement, while still quite impressive for a single upgrade package, is a little bit more believable than the 0.6-0.7s they would have needed to gain relative to RedBull.

I think you're largely correct, I have changed my mind - I paid insufficient attention among all the social media noise. I've looked at the disparity of Max's qualifying and race results up to China and after China and there seems to be a consistent and very significant dip in form. I ignored the Spa figures as Max's grid penalty was significant and his Q3 performance in the wet was so exceptional as to not represent the true picture of car performance.

In the first 5 races Max won 4 of 5 (1 retirement) an average of 19 seconds the margin, in the next 8 Max won 3 of 8, 4.5 seconds negative the margin. In qualifying pace to the next fastest, Max averaged 0.32, then from Miami only 0.08 seconds.

China was the end of the walkover, after that Max had to fight for everything. It looks like the order of 0.25 seconds was lost to the nearest competitor. No win by Max after Miami was more than 4 seconds rather than 25 before. I have changed my mind and something definitely happened to Red Bull. What ever way you analyse it Red Bull, Max, and Checo lost competitiveness immediately after China.

[_cerber1]

Do you have a link?

No, this is information from a local F1 news site. I think it can be found in X.

[mwillems]

The huge amount of speculation in the F1 media about the "clarification" on asymmetrical braking effect coming from the FIA answers at a superficial level the closing of the gap. On closer inspection it doesn't sync with Ferrari's relative gap which is still as great to Red Bull as before.

Much of the speculation has been debunked, with large portions of it people trying to fit a narrative around their favourite villain.

Doesn't mean that it wasn't because of people's favourite villain, it just means everything is guesswork with little but some passing coincidences that point towards a few possible teams.

[BMMR61]

The huge amount of speculation in the F1 media about the "clarification" on asymmetrical braking effect coming from the FIA answers at a superficial level the closing of the gap. On closer inspection it doesn't sync with Ferrari's relative gap which is still as great to Red Bull as before.

Much of the speculation has been debunked, with large portions of it people trying to fit a narrative around their favourite villain.

Doesn't mean that it wasn't because of people's favourite villain, it just means everything is guesswork with little but some passing coincidences that point towards a few possible teams.

I was of the belief that the speculation was as much a product of media commentators, blogger, Youtubers and so on with space to fill before hostilities resume next weekend. So much hot air has been expelled from every orifice in the last week but then I got to thinking about coincidence.

FIA clarification on asymmetrical braking (a modern version of McLaren's "fiddle brake" of 1997) was issued for a reason. It could have been insider suspicions, well founded or otherwise, that the persistent advantage that RedBull had had in F1 for more than 2 years had some kind of exploitation of the rule definitions. FIA's technical group wouldn't have issued the paper without some reason, and may have even identified a "villain" as you put it, and had words with them.

Before this speculation appeared close followers of F1 were remarking on the loss of pace and overall drivability of the RB20. This lack of drivability in retrospect could be aligned to the time Perez's pace fell away from Max's (after round 5). Speculation yes, coincidence maybe. When McLaren came to Miami with their major upgrade on Lando's car it was expected to trim RedBull's advantage, not obliterate it. Miami was the beginning of RedBull's performance slide, first thought to be merely circuit specific, kerbs related etc etc. Kerbs didn't fit the bill as the deficit has been at every circuit. Max has at times complained about the car being "underiveable" - that's pretty unusual for a car which only recently looked like totally dominating the season. It does seem incredible that in an era of small incremental gains that RedBull have lost all their significant advantage so suddenly.

If a "villain" has been identified and spoken to in private that a certain technical interpretation and application will not be permitted then which team fit the criteria of suddenly losing a good few tenths of pace? Yes it does represent (educated) guesswork and speculation but Red Bull do seem to be in trouble with getting their RB20 into the sort of shape that dominated through to China.

[mwillems]

That reason doesn't have to be that someone was taking advantage of it though. That reason could be that someone requested clarification, for instance, wanting to see if there was something to be done. Because that reason is totally unknown to us, anything beyond that is pure guesswork.