2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[mwillems]

By "always fast on a straight line," do you mean 2024? And do you mean the time it takes to drive a straight line in full throttle mode without the help of the DRS? In that case, yes. And as we discussed earlier in the spring, perhaps McLaren uses the hybrid part differently. Trying to transfer as much energy (power, torque) as possible during the initial acceleration, when the acceleration is most intense.

This year, many top speed numbers are reported and used to make commentary on the speed of the Mclaren. Usually negative. For most of the year, even at the start of the year, the car is around parity with other cars with DRS closed.

The car is now actually better than average with DRS closed, so in most Qualy laps, the cars efficiency with DRS closed has not been an issue. There isn't much DRS at this track anyway, so the car wasn't going to have a speed issue in terms of one lap pace.

Interestingly, that trait that we were talking about in spring, where the car dropped speed before high energy braking zones, I think that was down more to the fact that before Miami, we needed to scrub more speed before the corner due to the Aero deficiencies or to how much energy we were getting into the tyres.

We still aren't as fast as others with DRS open, but you are right, that scubbing of speed at the end of the straight has also been an improvement to the car, as we can carry more speed on the straight for longer as we can attack the corner as we'd prefer to. It didn't impact the top speed number by much though.

How exactly do you implement the passage of a straight section in the shortest time? If the maximum speed is limited, and it is always limited in one way or another, then you need to reach maximum speed as quickly as possible and then maintain it until the braking point. I think McLaren deliberately decided to sacrifice a little peak maximum speed in exchange for the most effective acceleration.

The work is very complex, because we have to take into account the exit from a slow corner, when the intense acceleration begins, then the straight itself. The work of aerodynamics, suspension, engine and gear ratios in a gearbox, how tenaciously the rear tires bite into the road surface. All this is important. I agree, the peak maximum speed at the end of the straight alone does not mean anything.

Because there are two states with different rules and outcomes. The first state, DRS closed, which is for the majority of the straights, is performing well. It is only the second state, DRS open, that is less effective, but even then it isn't universally "bad". The cars are still comparable for a small period after DRS is open as the DRS effect needs to kick in and the cars push on. By the time the speed difference is of consequence, this period lasts for less than 5% of the straight and because of the speeds involved, a 1-2% gain in that 5% of the time the car is on the straight (4kph say at 220kph) is miniscule. Look at any of the deltas when we "lose time" on the straight. We don't lose time on the straight overall.

Because the Mclaren is actually quicker than most cars when DRS is closed, the overall time spent on the straight, for the Mclaren, is about the same as most of the front runners, from start to finish. Any difference is negligible. Although, qualifying differences have also been negligible too. But it should be looked at in terms of overall time lost and gained on the car. DRS efficiency is absolutely minor in terms of where the car can improve, I think.

I totally understand why the team don't make it a focus, there are far more important areas. If you take the idea that we should be fastest from the start, then the main benefit of DRS, overtaking, becomes even less important. So I think it is right to focus on downforce and DRS closed efficiency.

But in terms of measuring the performance of the cars and corners, I would introduce mini sectors than span corners from specified entry and exits, and the straights in between, measuring min speed, max speed and average speed in each, which I think is a for more effective indicator of what the cars are doing. You could go even further.

Maybe I will do something tonight, if I get the chance, to show what I mean.

[CjC]

Russell thinks McLaren ran max power in FP2. Why would they do that though?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10639177/

[f1rules]

Lando confirming the impression many have. Right now they basicly turn up with a setup close to spot on and just have to do small adjustments

“I don’t think it’s a lot,” he said. “We’re always able to come to a circuit now and be within millimetres of margin straightaway.“

[Szabi1112]

Russell thinks McLaren ran max power in FP2. Why would they do that though?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10639177/

Whats the sense of running max or nearly max power in FP2?

[CjC]

Russell thinks McLaren ran max power in FP2. Why would they do that though?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10639177/

Whats the sense of running max or nearly max power in FP2?

Exactly! I find it hard to believe. It a) gives them a false sense of hope and b) uses un-necessary engine mileage

[mwillems]

Russell thinks McLaren ran max power in FP2. Why would they do that though?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10639177/

I don't think so. When I looked at the data, I thought it more likely we were a little conservative.

But then again, never write off a Red Bull. Who knows about Merc, but they are a second behind so they may well be tuned down more, but it is still a big gap.

[Emag]

It's bollocks. Top speeds almost nearly identical and acceleration traces also similar between Merc and McLaren. McLaren is making most of the time in S2 corners. On the straights they're gaining 0.15s on the first one and 0.15 on the last one. Not all of it is engine modes because McLaren is running with a less loaded rear wing compared to Mercedes.

Of course, the gap is not 1 second to Mercedes because that would be huge. But it's looking like it would be more than 0.3s anyway (assuming things remains the same which they may not).

It's almost guaranteed we will have a wet quali tomorrow though, which will make things complicated.

[LionsHeart]

This year, many top speed numbers are reported and used to make commentary on the speed of the Mclaren. Usually negative. For most of the year, even at the start of the year, the car is around parity with other cars with DRS closed.

The car is now actually better than average with DRS closed, so in most Qualy laps, the cars efficiency with DRS closed has not been an issue. There isn't much DRS at this track anyway, so the car wasn't going to have a speed issue in terms of one lap pace.

Interestingly, that trait that we were talking about in spring, where the car dropped speed before high energy braking zones, I think that was down more to the fact that before Miami, we needed to scrub more speed before the corner due to the Aero deficiencies or to how much energy we were getting into the tyres.

We still aren't as fast as others with DRS open, but you are right, that scubbing of speed at the end of the straight has also been an improvement to the car, as we can carry more speed on the straight for longer as we can attack the corner as we'd prefer to. It didn't impact the top speed number by much though.

How exactly do you implement the passage of a straight section in the shortest time? If the maximum speed is limited, and it is always limited in one way or another, then you need to reach maximum speed as quickly as possible and then maintain it until the braking point. I think McLaren deliberately decided to sacrifice a little peak maximum speed in exchange for the most effective acceleration.

The work is very complex, because we have to take into account the exit from a slow corner, when the intense acceleration begins, then the straight itself. The work of aerodynamics, suspension, engine and gear ratios in a gearbox, how tenaciously the rear tires bite into the road surface. All this is important. I agree, the peak maximum speed at the end of the straight alone does not mean anything.

Because there are two states with different rules and outcomes. The first state, DRS closed, which is for the majority of the straights, is performing well. It is only the second state, DRS open, that is less effective, but even then it isn't universally "bad". The cars are still comparable for a small period after DRS is open as the DRS effect needs to kick in and the cars push on. By the time the speed difference is of consequence, this period lasts for less than 5% of the straight and because of the speeds involved, a 1-2% gain in that 5% of the time the car is on the straight (4kph say at 220kph) is miniscule. Look at any of the deltas when we "lose time" on the straight. We don't lose time on the straight overall.

Because the Mclaren is actually quicker than most cars when DRS is closed, the overall time spent on the straight, for the Mclaren, is about the same as most of the front runners, from start to finish. Any difference is negligible. Although, qualifying differences have also been negligible too. But it should be looked at in terms of overall time lost and gained on the car. DRS efficiency is absolutely minor in terms of where the car can improve, I think.

I totally understand why the team don't make it a focus, there are far more important areas. If you take the idea that we should be fastest from the start, then the main benefit of DRS, overtaking, becomes even less important. So I think it is right to focus on downforce and DRS closed efficiency.

But in terms of measuring the performance of the cars and corners, I would introduce mini sectors than span corners from specified entry and exits, and the straights in between, measuring min speed, max speed and average speed in each, which I think is a for more effective indicator of what the cars are doing. You could go even further.

Maybe I will do something tonight, if I get the chance, to show what I mean.

Yes, I understand you well. You can draw a graph where two parabolas will be drawn. Whose integral will be greater (area under the parabola) will have an advantage.

[mwillems]

It's bollocks. Top speeds almost nearly identical and acceleration traces also similar between Merc and McLaren. McLaren is making most of the time in S2 corners. On the straights they're gaining 0.15s on the first one and 0.15 on the last one. Not all of it is engine modes because McLaren is running with a less loaded rear wing compared to Mercedes.

Of course, the gap is not 1 second to Mercedes because that would be huge. But it's looking like it would be more than 0.3s anyway (assuming things remains the same which they may not).

It's almost guaranteed we will have a wet quali tomorrow though, which will make things complicated.

Whenever I see the traces so simialr apart from a little less speed around the track, and then this delta, so uniform in the increase across the lap..



I think fuel. The car is heavier and that is why it is slower everywhere, including slow corners.

So the Merc is probably running slow. But that gap is quite big, so there is a lot to do. But because of how uniformly the gap increases and not many big peaks or troughs here or there, it also makes me think they aren't that massively far off.

But then there are little signs, like the gearing we use, regularly dropping down to 3rd or 4th where Red Bull don't, that makes me wonder if that is the way we are taking the corners, or if it is the fuel/engine mode requiring a lower gear. We'll see tomorrow.

[mwillems]

Yes, I understand you well. You can draw a graph where two parabolas will be drawn. Whose integral will be greater (area under the parabola) will have an advantage.

Ah, no. Alas I am not as clever as you. I would have split the corner into tertiles or quartiles of speed ranges and measured the average speed and the time spent in that range whilst in the corner. I didn't go to college or university, so a parabola sounds more like a type of hat to me.

But to be honest, the best metric is from when the brakes are hit on entry to when throttle is at 100%, and then just what was the time spent in that zone. And then in between the cornering zones you can measure total time spent in that "straight" zone, or represent it as an average speed.

[CjC]

Just read another article who state that Russell said after FP2 that Merc did run at full power.

We are just at the mercy of how well the journos understand what the drivers are saying

[mwillems]

There's no way they are a second off the pace with no more power to find.

Funny thing is, if you change the angle of the lines from Merc on the telemetry so that their first straight is roughly perpendicular to the Mclaren, then they are within a couple of tenths.

Merc are not so slow on the straight that they are losing that much time. Perhaps they might be a bit slower, but like I say, moving the lines so we are a little faster on the straights would still leave them within around 3 tenths of Mclaren, but who knows. Certainly they aren't a second off the pace and this will be because of the way they ran and not the capability of the car.

[LionsHeart]

Yes, I understand you well. You can draw a graph where two parabolas will be drawn. Whose integral will be greater (area under the parabola) will have an advantage.

Ah, no. Alas I am not as clever as you. I would have split the corner into tertiles or quartiles of speed ranges and measured the average speed and the time spent in that range whilst in the corner. I didn't go to college or university, so a parabola sounds more like a type of hat to me.

But to be honest, the best metric is from when the brakes are hit on entry to when throttle is at 100%, and then just what was the time spent in that zone. And then in between the cornering zones you can measure total time spent in that "straight" zone, or represent it as an average speed.

I just gave an example. You can display the picture in different ways. One option is to do it the way you wrote. Divide it into mini sectors and find the time in each sector. Based on this, get the average speed on each segment. In general, even on the telemetry that you attached, you can already see where the cars are fast. In general, telemetry is needed to visually show the pace and speed of the car.

[mwillems]

Yes, I understand you well. You can draw a graph where two parabolas will be drawn. Whose integral will be greater (area under the parabola) will have an advantage.

Ah, no. Alas I am not as clever as you. I would have split the corner into tertiles or quartiles of speed ranges and measured the average speed and the time spent in that range whilst in the corner. I didn't go to college or university, so a parabola sounds more like a type of hat to me.

But to be honest, the best metric is from when the brakes are hit on entry to when throttle is at 100%, and then just what was the time spent in that zone. And then in between the cornering zones you can measure total time spent in that "straight" zone, or represent it as an average speed.

I just gave an example. You can display the picture in different ways. One option is to do it the way you wrote. Divide it into mini sectors and find the time in each sector. Based on this, get the average speed on each segment. In general, even on the telemetry that you attached, you can already see where the cars are fast. In general, telemetry is needed to visually show the pace and speed of the car.

It does. But most people want a simple visualisation and impactful colours like on the top speed charts, so you want to break it down into the key numbers, not too many of them, in a way that is easily digested by the average fan. We've spoken at length so it might be worth me reiterating that it is those top speed charts that I think are quite misleading and I would replace with another tweetable and digestible visualisation.

[FittingMechanics]

After every Friday everyone and their mother thinks McLaren ran high engine modes.
Then comes Saturday and McLaren is on front row.
Then comes Sunday and the car is fastest or close to it.
When will they learn? The team does the same run plan every time, it is very similar to other top teams and there are no big changes in pace after it.

Mercedes had compromised hot laps with both drivers but they seem to think that we ran a glory run? Silly stuff.