McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[kalinka]

I agree 100% with raptor22.
It's a quite clear and well planned test method that McLaren uses. It's a step by step method where you're eliminating as much variables as you can, and concentrating to understand that specific and most important one : tyres.
As for 2010 tyre testings, yes, all teams had tested Pirellis in 2010, but by the first 2011 test, Pirelli changed compounds significantly, using the 2010 data, so the 2010 Pirelli test was more useful for Pirelli than the teams...
Actually McLaren is now the only team with some baseline data regarding 2010 car+new Pirelli compounds. I don't know why is that so hard to understand, that this way they are sure that everything they experience now with new Pirellis, is due to new car's characteristic, and not some unknown reason.

EDIT : Also they would be very stupid if they go for a very high nose, because as many others noticed, they need a lower nose because of the free airflow to the sidepod channels. Even if you look at the upper front suspension arm, even that arm is bent down in the middle ( it's not straigth as on other cars ), to improve airflow to the sidepod channel.

[raymondu999]

I was just thinking. How much of a help in terms of tyre modelling would that Valencia test with the mp4-25 have been? The tyres have been changed practically every test anyways

[Raptor22]

they changed the compounds not the mechanical construction of the tyre.

So what that means is that with a given lateral and friction force the tyre casing will deform in a certain way. With the compounds Pirellie used at the end of 2010 the teams will have built up a model that predicts how the tyre carcass behaves due to the adhesion.
Pirelli would have a curve that will predict the adhesion generated by other compounds at the same temperature and pressure.
So the 2010 test was very useful.

[kalinka]

Sorry to posting again :

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 11766.html

"Q: Did Pirelli’s wet-weather test at Abu Dhabi help?
JN: Pirelli used the Abu Dhabi test as a data gathering exercise. We saw a big development in the tyres between Abu Dhabi and the first test of this year. They have changed some of the compounds and some of the construction of the tyres quite dramatically. I think that will continue. They are coming up a very steep learning curve with us."

I was referring to this interview with Jonathan Neale.

[Raptor22]

ah thanks for that. Iread another report that said only compound was changed. Can't trust the bloody media can you.

Either way, with a change in construction Pirelli can still predict a change in behaviour of the tyre construction after the 2010 test. That test would have verified whether their construction is working and therefore they can provide the teams with updated predictions on how revised constructions will perform.

[ringo]

EDIT : Also they would be very stupid if they go for a very high nose, because as many others noticed, they need a lower nose because of the free airflow to the sidepod channels. Even if you look at the upper front suspension arm, even that arm is bent down in the middle ( it's not straigth as on other cars ), to improve airflow to the sidepod channel.

As James Hunt would say..

..

The nose height doesn't affect the L side pods in any noticeable way. The L sidepods are very very effective regardless of the nose configuration.
The L sidepods effectiveness is what permits the underside of the nose to have less responsibility for the flow around the flanks of the sidepods, since the air flow gong to the rear is very very good over the L shape.
They don't need a lower nose, they just have one becuase the sidpods allow them to without any ill effects.
However it doesn't change the trend that higher is better.

The underside is probably an inch lower than the ferrari or redbull. The underside is more critical, the upper side of the L pods aren't affected by the flow near the floor, i'm just worried about the flow going underneath.

[ringo]

Please forgive me if I will come across as faecisious but I am growing tired of drumming this point home.
The biggest change of all for 2011 is the Pirelli tyre. It has a different characteristic to the Bridgestone in all performance areas. The tyre is also the most important aspect of the car since all the downforce, power, torque, and lateral forces move through the contact patch. This has a direct bearing on many decisions that determine the design philosophy of the car. THe designer needed to make certain assumptions last year on these tyres that would determine suspension geometry. Weight distribution is pretty much fixed to ensure a neutral car so thats one aspect the designer can work toward in comfort.

How the cars aerodynamic performance affects pitch and yaw needs to be isolated from the mechanical contributors to grip and pitch stability (Damping spring rate anti dive anti squat etc).
McLaren s approach was to first isolate the tyre performance and verify that. Then they introduced the new car to the tyre and ran know aerodynamic components for which they understand behaviour in pitch and yaw. Right so now they understand how the suspension contributes to grip and pitch and yaw control.
he last element they introduce is the fianl aerodynamic package for which they have modelled performance so they need to verify that performance on the track.

This is just plain and simple good scientific method and Mercedes ar using it too. However they fel that last years baseline was no good so they did not use last years car and instead have opted for a simple aero package consisting of last years front and rear wings blah blah blah.

If anyone feels they know better than McLaren how to test an Fq car then please do apply for a job there so that your voice can be heard.

Mclaren could test how the tyre noise affects the driver's comfort or how the gavity of the moon pulls on the water in the radiators. It wont change the fact that the other teams are experiencing the same thing and there's little that can be done about certain given conditions. Testing for little nuances doesn't automatically give you an advantage.
It gives better understanding yes, but how does it quickly translate into turning a slower car into a superior one? Do the new parts they develope require another round of painstaking testing again?

Mclaren is the best at research and innovations yes, but sometimes i think that they are over doing it. They spend more time crosschecking the innovations than ensuring the car is the best.
2010 was evidence enough that all the data collection in the world can't be turned over quick enough to make a fundamentally inferior car superior.
Not to say the 26 is inferior, i don't know how quick it is, but if it's going to take another 6 months for the data to be of use then they already lost the season.

Why can't they just make a no no nonsense superior car?

The car is a science fair on wheels, and they're getting more kicks out of the innovations and cross checks for their simmulator deity than actually making anoher Brawn or RB6.

[Poleman]

Frankly i wouldnt have any interest at all having another Brawn/RB6 on the grid.Maybe McLaren is over doing it but its just what i want to see from them.Unless we want Formula 1 turn into GP2 and ask from RedBull to provide a chassis for everyone on the grid.

[CHT]

I agree 100% with raptor22.
It's a quite clear and well planned test method that McLaren uses. It's a step by step method where you're eliminating as much variables as you can, and concentrating to understand that specific and most important one : tyres.
As for 2010 tyre testings, yes, all teams had tested Pirellis in 2010, but by the first 2011 test, Pirelli changed compounds significantly, using the 2010 data, so the 2010 Pirelli test was more useful for Pirelli than the teams...
Actually McLaren is now the only team with some baseline data regarding 2010 car+new Pirelli compounds. I don't know why is that so hard to understand, that this way they are sure that everything they experience now with new Pirellis, is due to new car's characteristic, and not some unknown reason.

EDIT : Also they would be very stupid if they go for a very high nose, because as many others noticed, they need a lower nose because of the free airflow to the sidepod channels. Even if you look at the upper front suspension arm, even that arm is bent down in the middle ( it's not straigth as on other cars ), to improve airflow to the sidepod channel.

I dont think Mclaren is the only team on grid that understand the importance of tyres testing and they are definitely not the only team that make revolutionary changes to their 2011 car.

If Mclaren have unlimited test time or they are 3 months away from the first race, then I would agree that Mclaren testing method could be constructive, because they will have enough time to redesign the car and parts to suit the tyres characteristic.

Since MP4-26 is such a revolution car to Mp4-25, I would seriously question how much of that MP4-25+2011 Pirelli test know-how can be transferred to MP4-26+2011 Pirelli.

"We are more confident that we can hit the ground running with a reliable package without doing thousands and thousands of kilometres on the track. You always learn something from mileage but it's a trade."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 360948.stm

From an earlier interview, Mclaren talk about trade off between on track testing and in house testing and also the importance of clocking mileage in testing. And I personally dont see them in a very good position at the moment.

[tkulla]

Hello, everyone. I am seeking asylum here as a refugee from the insanity of the Autosport MP4-26 thread. I appreciate the more technical discussion and look forward to learning more from the highly knowledgeable posters in the future.

Regarding the approach McLaren has chosen to testing, I think their approach makes sense. It's easy to be overly focused on that first race since we've all been waiting all winter for it, but it's a very long season without any testing so building a development database could be an advantage come the second half of the year. They might even see it as akin to the days when teams started the season with last year's car and then brought out a new one at the start of the European season. The delayed start to the season is sure to help them if this is the idea.

I for one am hoping that their "radical" aero approach works very well, because then other teams may try it instead of continuing down the Red Bull clone route. We'll certainly have much more to post about on these forums if that is the case.

[Pup]

There does seem to be a lot less effort being given to understanding the car than is being spent labeling it as "radical". Trolls and fear mongers. Personally, I don't really see the car as being all that radical to begin with. I mean, its different, but it's not really envelope pushing stuff - intuitively, it all makes a lot of sense. And since McLaren have already said that the car's aero matches their model, and since they've concentrated their testing on tires and the exhaust while doing very little in the way of aero work compared to last year or the year before, I think it's fair to say that they aren't too worried that they're stuck with a dog. I think their testing approach just hasn't worked out for them this year - the combination of lengthy setup changes plus unreliability means they haven't had the track time needed to get it dialed in.

I'd call last year's car 'radical' far sooner than this one.

There's two ways to judge a car's speed in testing - is it as fast as you thought it would be, and is it as fast as the other guys. I think they've met the first, and are a bit worried about the second.

That, or they're good actors.

[casper]

Mclaren pride itself in using innovative engineering solution to racing, and you cant take that away from them. They were the first team to construct the carbon fiber monocoque, J-damper, bridged FW, viking wings,etc. And we can't deny that these were effective solutions, which other teams copied. Because the 2009 rules forced the teams to limit field and wind tunnel testing times of F1 cars, all the F1 teams now has to rely more in Fluid Dynamics, so the need for a good and accurate base for the computer model. That's why we see Mclaren testing the car with all these attached gizmos. There's a reason for all these madness (so to speak). Since the team principal Martin Whitnmarsh has an engineer background (mech eng for BAE, worked on the Harrier and Hawk), this somehow influences the direction of the team's testing strategy.

Now, whether this strategy is effective or not, only time will tell. If you want authoritative (racing expert, not armchair critics)) answers to where the different teams stand after the Barcelona test, you can read Gary Anderson's analysis in
http://plus.autosport.com/premium/featu ... tech-blog/, but y have to pony up some cash to read the article.

Its a known fact that Pirelli intentionally made the tires last a lot less than Bridgestone, so the drivers has to consider this technical detail in their racing style and strategy, as quoted in http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89590. Making predictions about Mclaren's 2011 F1 final standings based on testing times is similar to reading tea leaves.

Like watching any other speectator sports, just sit back, relax , and enjoy the 2011 F1 show. It is there to entertain us.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

McLaren, like Mercedes have got some work ahead of them. But the season hasnt started and both said teams are being questioned, berated and held up as ammatuerish in some quarters, even on these pages.

Come Australia, I think people will be shocked to see how close this year will be on less durable tyres. If we get 10 Canadas it will be a classic among classics.
Let the people that know crack on and judge them after Qualifying at Oz. Even then, race pace will be decisive as one lap pace becomes less of an issue with more pitstops.

Under race conditions, perhaps Red Bull will suffer reliabilty problems again, this time there is even more to go wrong.
McLaren are pretty cool with things at the moment, and with more time they will have somthing worthy of the name.

[wesley123]

All this exhaust switching got me thinking.

Wouldnt it be possible(and legal) to have 2 cars ready, one fitted with the regular and the other with the ADEE, by this they dont have the switching times. For example new parts could then be fitted, by this they dont have loss of track time.

[kalinka]

Ringo, I dont't remember laughing out on any of your idea, so let me think that the low nose have ( at least something ) to do with those sidepods. I didn't say ( if I remember correctly ) that I'm absolutely right. I would never say something like that on this forum. I admit that I have no source for my idea. If you have for yours, I would like to see it. No offense.

Frankly i wouldnt have any interest at all having another Brawn/RB6 on the grid.Maybe McLaren is over doing it but its just what i want to see from them.Unless we want Formula 1 turn into GP2 and ask from RedBull to provide a chassis for everyone on the grid.

+1

Since MP4-26 is such a revolution car to Mp4-25, I would seriously question how much of that MP4-25+2011 Pirelli test know-how can be transferred to MP4-26+2011 Pirelli.

If you look at my prevois post, I was quoting Jonathan Neale, and he said it was important, and even he explains it in a quite understable way, why he thinks so. I just recommend you to trust him. You don't have to argue with me over this. In fact you were seriously questoned him, and not me ( or my idea ). I think neither of us could argue with him about this, so for me, my only option is to trust him.