Details about the windtunnel
AR3-GP wrote: ↑03 Feb 2024, 18:22You are taking events in isolation. Mclaren was part of the reason that Newey didn't excel at Mclaren. He and Ron didn't click in many ways. This was why Newey left Mclaren.Darth-Piekus wrote: ↑03 Feb 2024, 18:19I happen to watch F1 for a long time and Newey has screwed up a few times. The 1994 Williams comes to mind, the first Layton House of 1988, the MP4-16 of 2001, the MP4-17 of 2002, the MP4-18 as his biggest screwing and the 2006 Mclaren also. In his career he did screw up some times.
The achievements of McLaren over the last 12 months, when considering the restrictive force of the cost cap is quite extraordinary. The misstep of the original design/build of the MCL60 necessitated some very major upgrades which naturally carried a large financial cost, but upgrades they were made, and they were effective. It always seemed that the aero was the main weakness in not just the MCL60, but it's predecessor which, not unlike Mercedes, completely missed the dartboard of the new "ground effect" rules. Yet the underlying chassis, those parts not able to be changed for the "B spec" car, wasn't far off the mark. The (qualifying) gap to Red Bull came down from over a second to less than half a second, achieved with a mishmash composite of a failed car brought alive by fresh thinking (team restructure) and a belief realised in the correlation between wind tunnel, simulations and actual performance.
The cars at Indy are not struggling for weight savings as the F1 Teams do, that allows them use liveries like that… I’m sure that if weight wouldn’t be such a constrain, we would see a livery from the team with less black in it… There is a reason why the Gulf livery was run at Monaco, that’s the one race where some additional weight is not as detrimentalhaza wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 17:22Love the teams livery but jeez the white like the Indy team would have made it
https://x.com/mclarenf1/status/17548878 ... CA5OmEDv0w
I think this is true in part. But the rate of development went beyond just shedding of Naivety. It was monstrous gains to propel Mclaren to second fastest or joint second fastest on Merit and becoming the challengers of Red Bull.Farnborough wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 13:18The situation I find harder to judge, prior to the running of new car, is that last season the step change was just that and not "development" as such.
This should be seen in that context that obviously brought significant gain by that fundamental change in aero from naive to contemporary. I dont feel its indication of in year development performance though.
Development now, in truest sense, is looking like intense head-to-head this year, and not just against RB.
The absolute lap times last year had very low spread in pure pace of the whole field, looks like its going to be closer still this year with most understanding their direction of technical in more thorough form. I like seasons like this, but it takes huge focus to not let opportunities slip past ungrabbed.
Think it's going to be intense.
It would only make sense to hire him as a replacement to Peter Prodromou. Which, although I regret to say this because Peter was one of the key figures in McLaren's turnaround last year, I believe the team would go for it if they had the chance.Ground Effect wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 19:48So the possibility of a Newey "get out clause" was mentioned a few comments above, I don't mean this to be an off topic subject that could get out of control, but does anyone think McLaren's current technical structure allows such a hire?