Mclaren Mercedes MP4-25

[Roger the knife]

Finally shown their colours 1m19.583s

3 hundredths of a second slower than Kobayashi on Tuesday.

EDIT: Although Hami's time may have been set on a longer stint than Kobayashi's, apparently.

rather more like 0.37 quicker...

[horse]

Finally shown their colours 1m19.583s

3 hundredths of a second slower than Kobayashi on Tuesday.

EDIT: Although Hami's time may have been set on a longer stint than Kobayashi's, apparently.

rather more like 0.37 quicker...

I'll get my coat.

[ISLAMATRON]

1m19.583... McLaren and THE BOSS are back and in full effect!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK4ThkJKqMo[/youtube]

[Giblet]

Seg, Mclaren and THE BOSS heard you, and didn't like what you were saying

[SZ]

Acquiring terabytes of data at this late stage of testing when there are other things to concentrate on is rather overkill.

You don't know much about aerodynamics if you think they're acquiring terabytes of data with what they're running. It's far, far less.

The car is built and certainly hasn't gone as fast as it can go yet.

A highly redundant comment that currently applies to all teams.

Any team with a plan will have an upgrade pre race 1. This is normal.

Comparisons with their CFD and wind tunnel data is one thing so any improvements they make from one to the other will be relevant, but one is entitled to question what they're doing now.

Validating their tunnel/CFD data to track performance... which is what every team does at this stage.

They're going to have to analyse that data and then act on it by manufacturing actionable new parts etc., which will take weeks if not months, by which time the whole window of data that they are operating with will have moved completely and will be heavily influence by the performance of other teams.

Again, every team analyses their launch data and goes away and designs new parts.

If they start hacking away at what parts they've got - e.g. an out-of-cycle release - then it's a clear issue. McLaren, at this stage last year, was doing as much with their diffuser already. It's not happened this year. They're at least ahead of where they were, every new part that's gone on the car is tooled/a long lead time part.

McLaren won't be the first organisation, or the last, to get bitten by the data overload bug because they think it gives them a warm and comfortable feeling. It also gives the legions of people in front of workstations in the back something to do I guess.

What do you think 'people in front of workstations' are doing at any team at the moment, seriously? They're ALL analysing launch spec test data.

Just because McLaren is running some very obvious instrumentation - and it's very obvious what data they're trying get more information on, which concerns the only significant rule change for the year - doesn't mean every other team isn't doing the same with other channels. Every car out there has an instrumented floor, suspension loads, etc... they're all 'people sitting in front of workstations' analysing test data at the moment.

I fail to see what relevance that has here. Yes, they started with a dog of a car because that was their fault. You're the one playing on McLaren's track record here, so................. It's a major stretch to suggest that the improvements they made were down to acquiring a ton of data pre-season. Put simply, McLaren couldn't afford to be where they were, they got parts on to the car and KERS certainly masked quite a bit.

Wrong. McLaren did indeed acquire a lot of data pre-season that went into redesigned parts. KERS doesn't mask diffuser issues - not as if LH pressed a button and it unstalled itself.

I love the 'intensive test program' and 'innovative test equipment' comments by the way. Loving the corporate speak.

Pitot tubes have existed for centuries, I've made a point of stating that it's standard equipment in any aero facility.

I can certainly understand the logic of that as I've said before, but not at this late stage and especially not if they know the car is behaving as they want. You then concentrate on getting the speed out of the car, which is what testing now is all about, because only then can any data you collect actually be relevant.

Don't quite think there's any team out there that has a car with 150kg+ of fuel on board 'behaving as they want'.

Until they start going backwards with a rash of out-of-cycle parts, or until you can print what fuel loads they've been running and a part development schedule, you've about as much proof as anyone here that they're slow - bugger all.

You're applying some totally flawed logic. (From experience) you don't acquire data once you're fast, you acquire it to get fast.

I don't doubt that many teams will start gathering more data to compare against what they think they should be getting on track, but that's exactly what it will be for. I don't think you're going to see many teams collecting data for the sake of it because a lot of teams are clever enough to know that when you collect data you have to analyse it for something useful, turn it into something you can change and even then you won't be able to change the central philosophy with which the car is built.

In your haste to be hypercritical you've very clearly missed what they're looking at. It's quite specific, and concerns the only major aerodynamic change this year. The extra pitot tubes are all capturing the same phenomena at different places, something that's a complete prick to simulate in CFD or replicate at scale in a wind tunnel. About half the grid aren't doing what McLaren's doing because they simply don't have the resources in their test program to acquire the data, people to analyse it or any capital to act on it.

It doesn't look like pisstaking either, it just appears to be a validation exercise for now. If it turns out to be a problem for McLaren, this particular problem's going to be the same for everyone else.

It's a big call to suggest that this would change the car's 'central philosophy'. Pull your head out of your a** and look at what they're actually acquiring data on.

McLaren - actually any capable engineering student working on a project - will have written the analysis tools long before heading out to track. Analysis isn't as big a task as you make it out be if it's planned.

As stated, every team is already out there acquiring aerodynamic data.

Data collection, acquisition and analysis is no substitute for thinking ahead and no solution for not doing that.

OK... though every motorsports professional would disagree with you.

DAQ is an integral part of development. You're assuming that because you can't see it on other cars that it's not there - a massive oversight on your part. All teams travel with a race aerodynamicist and some of the bigger operations have a small team of aerodynamicists that analyse acquired track aerodynamic data back at the factory in addition to people working on tunnel and CFD projects. They don't all sit around 'thinking ahead' without a base to go off, and that base is track data.

Contrary to your opinions, aerodynamic development is all about analysis.

[mstar]

i guess that was a 1 lap qualy run (of course fuel unknown)

[ISLAMATRON]

i guess that was a 1 lap qualy run (of course fuel unknown)

at least 3 laps... maybe up to 6 or 7

[Roger the knife]

I think it was several laps as he improved fastest lap a couple of times atleast..

[myurr]

i guess that was a 1 lap qualy run (of course fuel unknown)

at least 3 laps... maybe up to 6 or 7

Commentary gave him three timed laps of 1:19.9, .6 and then the .5. The foreign feed I had in another window gave him another three laps of unknown time after that. So including the out lap he had at least 7 laps worth of fuel in there, although the reliability of the feeds isn't the best.

[pete555]

EDIT2: I write something stupid.

EDIT3: Seems like it was the final of a three lap run:

15:50 Di Grassi and Hamilton are also out for some late laps.

15:52 Hamilton is the man on the move as he sets the best time of the day - 1m19.952s

15:54 Hamilton improves to a 1m19.684s. He's fastest of the whole test now.

15:55 There's even more on the next lap from Hamilton as a 1m19.583s extends his advantage at the top.

Not quite a single flying lap.

[bonjon1979]

Acquiring terabytes of data at this late stage of testing when there are other things to concentrate on is rather overkill.

You don't know much about aerodynamics if you think they're acquiring terabytes of data with what they're running. It's far, far less.

The car is built and certainly hasn't gone as fast as it can go yet.

A highly redundant comment that currently applies to all teams.

Any team with a plan will have an upgrade pre race 1. This is normal.

Comparisons with their CFD and wind tunnel data is one thing so any improvements they make from one to the other will be relevant, but one is entitled to question what they're doing now.

Validating their tunnel/CFD data to track performance... which is what every team does at this stage.

They're going to have to analyse that data and then act on it by manufacturing actionable new parts etc., which will take weeks if not months, by which time the whole window of data that they are operating with will have moved completely and will be heavily influence by the performance of other teams.

Again, every team analyses their launch data and goes away and designs new parts.

If they start hacking away at what parts they've got - e.g. an out-of-cycle release - then it's a clear issue. McLaren, at this stage last year, was doing as much with their diffuser already. It's not happened this year. They're at least ahead of where they were, every new part that's gone on the car is tooled/a long lead time part.

McLaren won't be the first organisation, or the last, to get bitten by the data overload bug because they think it gives them a warm and comfortable feeling. It also gives the legions of people in front of workstations in the back something to do I guess.

What do you think 'people in front of workstations' are doing at any team at the moment, seriously? They're ALL analysing launch spec test data.

Just because McLaren is running some very obvious instrumentation - and it's very obvious what data they're trying get more information on, which concerns the only significant rule change for the year - doesn't mean every other team isn't doing the same with other channels. Every car out there has an instrumented floor, suspension loads, etc... they're all 'people sitting in front of workstations' analysing test data at the moment.

I fail to see what relevance that has here. Yes, they started with a dog of a car because that was their fault. You're the one playing on McLaren's track record here, so................. It's a major stretch to suggest that the improvements they made were down to acquiring a ton of data pre-season. Put simply, McLaren couldn't afford to be where they were, they got parts on to the car and KERS certainly masked quite a bit.

Wrong. McLaren did indeed acquire a lot of data pre-season that went into redesigned parts. KERS doesn't mask diffuser issues - not as if LH pressed a button and it unstalled itself.

I love the 'intensive test program' and 'innovative test equipment' comments by the way. Loving the corporate speak.

Pitot tubes have existed for centuries, I've made a point of stating that it's standard equipment in any aero facility.

I can certainly understand the logic of that as I've said before, but not at this late stage and especially not if they know the car is behaving as they want. You then concentrate on getting the speed out of the car, which is what testing now is all about, because only then can any data you collect actually be relevant.

Don't quite think there's any team out there that has a car with 150kg+ of fuel on board 'behaving as they want'.

Until they start going backwards with a rash of out-of-cycle parts, or until you can print what fuel loads they've been running and a part development schedule, you've about as much proof as anyone here that they're slow - bugger all.

You're applying some totally flawed logic. (From experience) you don't acquire data once you're fast, you acquire it to get fast.

I don't doubt that many teams will start gathering more data to compare against what they think they should be getting on track, but that's exactly what it will be for. I don't think you're going to see many teams collecting data for the sake of it because a lot of teams are clever enough to know that when you collect data you have to analyse it for something useful, turn it into something you can change and even then you won't be able to change the central philosophy with which the car is built.

In your haste to be hypercritical you've very clearly missed what they're looking at. It's quite specific, and concerns the only major aerodynamic change this year. The extra pitot tubes are all capturing the same phenomena at different places, something that's a complete prick to simulate in CFD or replicate at scale in a wind tunnel. About half the grid aren't doing what McLaren's doing because they simply don't have the resources in their test program to acquire the data, people to analyse it or any capital to act on it.

It doesn't look like pisstaking either, it just appears to be a validation exercise for now. If it turns out to be a problem for McLaren, this particular problem's going to be the same for everyone else.

It's a big call to suggest that this would change the car's 'central philosophy'. Pull your head out of your a** and look at what they're actually acquiring data on.

McLaren - actually any capable engineering student working on a project - will have written the analysis tools long before heading out to track. Analysis isn't as big a task as you make it out be if it's planned.

As stated, every team is already out there acquiring aerodynamic data.

Data collection, acquisition and analysis is no substitute for thinking ahead and no solution for not doing that.

OK... though every motorsports professional would disagree with you.

DAQ is an integral part of development. You're assuming that because you can't see it on other cars that it's not there - a massive oversight on your part. All teams travel with a race aerodynamicist and some of the bigger operations have a small team of aerodynamicists that analyse acquired track aerodynamic data back at the factory in addition to people working on tunnel and CFD projects. They don't all sit around 'thinking ahead' without a base to go off, and that base is track data.

Contrary to your opinions, aerodynamic development is all about analysis.

Really good post. =D>

[vasia]

Pffffffff. No I don't work for McLaren. Do you work for McLaren? Can you add anything to the discussion beyond "I don't like what you've said?"

I'm afraid trying to make a point that someone doesn't work for McLaren doesn't stop them from wondering, and asking, what it is they're actually doing and why they're doing it at such a late stage. All we've got so far is defensive posturing. Interesting.

I don't work for McLaren, but clearly it seems you can't add anything to the discussion either.

You can continue to go in circles here with your silly assumptions, but I am sticking to the FACTS:

The FACTS are:

- McLaren last year improved faster than anyone else.
- They did so partially by using some interesting test devices on the car.
- So far McLaren is using far more developed and integrated test devices, and are gaining a lot more data than last year
- A test ban remains in effect this season making it impossible to do proper testing during the season (except extremely limited straight-line runs)

So are you actually going to acknowledge this point, or are you going to give me another one of your useless "can you add anything to the discussion beyond ..." banter?

I'm not even the biggest McLaren fan around here, but you would have to be blind, ignorant, or both to not see that McLaren is gathering some extremely useful data here during testing, which will prove invaluable during the season.

Well said. Glad Im not the only one getting sick of hearing all those unfounded opinions made out to be fact.

[-X They're not opinions (I've offered no opinions on what McLaren are doing or even that they might be in trouble) and I've not made them out to be facts because I haven't made any. I'm simply wondering out loud what McLaren are doing and why they might be conducting what looks like a R and D project at such a late stage. People don't like it.

That's called an assumption, because you are making conclusions out of your "wondering"? Look up the word assumption in the dictionary before you post any more banter.

[tarzoon]

1m19.583... McLaren and THE BOSS are back and in full effect!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fW7MoINvQc[/youtube]

[vall]

1m19.583... McLaren and THE BOSS are back and in full effect!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fW7MoINvQc[/youtube]

oh well, do get exited too much This time is not much better that STR and C29 times.We have not seen all og F10 and Merc yet. If I remember correctly Alonso's long run lap times were better that Hamilton and MS.

[Lurk]

Data collection, acquisition and analysis is no substitute for thinking ahead and no solution for not doing that.

OK... though every motorsports professional would disagree with you.

I think you can remove "motorsport". Every professional collect and analyse data if he want to be competitive. The only difference is the kind of data he has to get.

And it's particulary true in aerodynamic domain because "real life" acquisition is the only way to know if data collected in windtunnel (or computed data for CFD users) are correct.



ps : sorry for my ignorance but I didn't catch the "THE BOSS" thing