- 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.
I thought it was going to be a "new car", as Legard and others have said.deus1066 wrote:On the BBC qualifying programme today, Martin Whitmarsh claimed there is an aero package on the way for Silverstone worth up to 0.5 secs.
mkay wrote:I thought it was going to be a "new car", as Legard and others have said.deus1066 wrote:On the BBC qualifying programme today, Martin Whitmarsh claimed there is an aero package on the way for Silverstone worth up to 0.5 secs.
Aero package, according to MW, is made up of the following:
Front Wing
Rear Wing
Bargeboard?
Deflector?
0.5 sec? Nah, more like 0.1-0.2
He never mentioned that the update in silverstone would be worth 0.5 secs. He said from a big update they would hope for a 0.5 seconds gain as a target. MW didn't give any figure directly relating to the upgrade package for silverstone. Xxdeus1066 wrote:On the BBC qualifying programme today, Martin Whitmarsh claimed there is an aero package on the way for Silverstone worth up to 0.5 secs.
deus1066 wrote:On the BBC qualifying programme today, Martin Whitmarsh claimed there is an aero package on the way for Silverstone worth up to 0.5 secs.
Where? They didn't even have enough in the tank to get to the pits in qualifying 3.Ratatouille wrote:As a matter of fact, you will see that even in FP3 they were still holding something in the tank.
Oh, cheers. That makes everything so clear and so well backed up.So there are your facts SegeDUMBnum.
I'm not sure they do suffer from instability under braking, not in its true sense. What you saw in Turkey was the front of the car nodding like a 'donkey' under heavy braking over bumps. Braking instability is usually yaw from the rear, not pitch from the front.segedunum wrote:They are not sandbagging. They're running more wing and downforce than virtually everyone else and yes, they are using the F-duct, as confirmed by Martin Whitmarsh. Is there any evidence that they aren't?
The stability of the car under braking is noticeably bad. You could visibly see it in Turkery.
More rear DF helps reduce tyre wear as the car slides less, more likely suspension geometry and weight distrubution than anything else.ringo wrote:The car is a long way from redbull still. It won in Canda, but still has it's weaknesses.
One of it's strength is it's tyre wear balance. It wears the front and rear more evenly than the redbull.
The redbull treats the fronts ok, but wears the rears more severely. It could be because of their massive accelration, gearing, traction, downforce in the rear.
It's difficult to toe the line.thestig84 wrote:Err wrong place for that Ringo. You have mentioned it in the Canadian GP thread already. Its a post on relative performance not the technicalities of the 25.
So i just moved the car related stuff into the car threads.
