McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[Tozza Mazza]

"RB's strategy in the most recent couple of races has mostly involved massive amounts of luck, and free pit stops."

A) No one was getting by Vettel at Monaco unless they crashed him out. No luck needed there. He could have accomplished that drive on the tires cords.
B) How do we know what RB's dry race strategy was? The tire changes caused by the conditions might not have been the best for the RB strategy.

The point of the comments is to question McLaren's technical choices or event strategy? If RB strategy has them leading both championships, why does McLaren not emulate it.

Why doesn't McLaren sacrifices some race performance for a better starting position?

Brian

Because Mclaren's car has the best race pace, meaning they can sacrifice a couple of places in quali in order to optimize the car to its strengths. You've said it yourself, that Mclaren would have won the last two races, if Vettel hadn't been so lucky in Monaco, and in a way Canada. They're now the car to beat in the race. Stop asking stupid questions you've already answered!

[hardingfv32]

The post is clear to the average reader.

Regardless: The point of the comments is to question McLaren's technical choices or event strategy? If RB strategy has them leading both championships, why does McLaren not emulate it.

Why doesn't McLaren sacrifices some race performance for a better starting position? McLaren will shorting be abandoning any title hopes unless they change strategies.

Brian

[beelsebob]

The post is clear to the average reader.

Regardless: The point of the comments is to question McLaren's technical choices or event strategy? If RB strategy has them leading both championships, why does McLaren not emulate it.

Because emulating it requires a car that's a second a lap faster in qualifying which they don't have. Simple.

Why doesn't McLaren sacrifices some race performance for a better starting position? McLaren will shorting be abandoning any title hopes unless they change strategies.

Because it's just not that simple. You can't magically make a car a second a lap faster in qualifying without dumping a whole lot somewhere else. Don't under estimate the brains working for these teams – you can be sure they've got the car finely balanced on the most optimised strategies.

[myurr]

The post is clear to the average reader.

Regardless: The point of the comments is to question McLaren's technical choices or event strategy? If RB strategy has them leading both championships, why does McLaren not emulate it.

Why doesn't McLaren sacrifices some race performance for a better starting position? McLaren will shorting be abandoning any title hopes unless they change strategies.

Brian

There's a really very very simple explanation. McLaren cannot trade enough race pace for qualifying pace to overcome Red Bull's inherent design advantage in qualifying - the rear wing setup and blown diffuser configuration. So instead they, if anything, optimise the other way. They sacrifice some qualifying pace in order to have the best race car and be able to take the fight to Red Bull.

Unfortunately they, or specifically Lewis, haven't had much luck recently. That strategy requires passing and risk taking in the race, and that inevitably leads to mistakes and accidents.

I doubt there are many people who would seriously believe that were the cars swapped, with Lewis given the Red Bull and Vettel driving the McLaren, that their situations in the championships would be reversed and Hamilton would be having a much easier time of it.

[Tozza Mazza]

The post is clear to the average reader.

Regardless: The point of the comments is to question McLaren's technical choices or event strategy? If RB strategy has them leading both championships, why does McLaren not emulate it.

Why doesn't McLaren sacrifices some race performance for a better starting position? McLaren will shorting be abandoning any title hopes unless they change strategies.

Brian

I am an average reader thank you very much! The point of comments in this thread is to DISCUSS the technical aspect of the Mclaren MP4/26. Now, the car is just not built for one lap speed, unlike the RB7 (imagine mid 2000's Trulli in that car!). However the car has better race pace than the Red Bull does, so why try and fight the red bulls on their turf and risk losing your own turf, when the race is what really counts. No points for qualifying!!!

[hardingfv32]

"Because emulating it requires a car that's a second a lap faster in qualifying which they don't have. Simple."

And what is so hard about running less wing like RB? There was an impressive deference in rear wing setup between the two in Canada.

"Because it's just not that simple. You can't magically make a car a second a lap faster in qualifying without dumping a whole lot somewhere else. Don't under estimate the brains working for these teams – you can be sure they've got the car finely balanced on the most optimized strategies."

They are almost out of both championships. If McLaren's race pace is so much better why not give some of it up to emulate RB's obviously successful strategy? WHAT TECHNICAL ISSUE is preventing this?

"No points for qualifying!!!"

Unfortunately they have very few race points. Mclaren doesn't seem to be doing well on their on turf.

Brian

[beelsebob]

Because emulating it requires a car that's a second a lap faster in qualifying which they don't have. Simple.

And what is so hard about running less wing like RB? There was an impressive deference in rear wing setup between the two in Canada.

What makes you think less wing will make them faster in either qually or the race. It's not like these teams run wing for the fun of it

Because it's just not that simple. You can't magically make a car a second a lap faster in qualifying without dumping a whole lot somewhere else. Don't under estimate the brains working for these teams – you can be sure they've got the car finely balanced on the most optimized strategies.

They are almost out of both championships. If McLaren's race pace is so much better why not give some of it up to emulate RB's obviously successful strategy? WHAT TECHNICAL ISSUE is preventing this?

There are likely to be many technical issues that contribute. A quick summation might include more overall downforce allowing the RBR to be on the DRS more often, and a more effective hot engine mapping.

The bottom line is that McLaren's car, despite being quicker in the race at the moment, is not quite fast enough to fend of the RB7. I'm sure that'll change one way or the other in the next few races. Lets hope it's towards the front, so that the championship closes up more.

[Tozza Mazza]

"Because emulating it requires a car that's a second a lap faster in qualifying which they don't have. Simple."

And what is so hard about running less wing like RB? There was an impressive deference in rear wing setup between the two in Canada.

"Because it's just not that simple. You can't magically make a car a second a lap faster in qualifying without dumping a whole lot somewhere else. Don't under estimate the brains working for these teams – you can be sure they've got the car finely balanced on the most optimized strategies."

They are almost out of both championships. If McLaren's race pace is so much better why not give some of it up to emulate RB's obviously successful strategy? WHAT TECHNICAL ISSUE is preventing this?

"No points for qualifying!!!"

Unfortunately they have very few race points. Mclaren doesn't seem to be doing well on their on turf.

Brian

Mclaren gambled on a wet race, so ran a lot more wing in Canada.

They are not out of either championship, we still have 12 races remaining, and based on merit, Mclaren should have won 3 out of the 7 so far. Counting anyone out this early would be stupid.

The last 2 races have shown Mclaren with a better race pace. There turf is there only hope at the moment.

[enkidu]

I've give McLaren a definite win on the strength of this 2011 car. Its taken some hits and seems to just go on and on without damage, if only the wheels/tyres can be stronger lol

[beelsebob]

I've give McLaren a definite win on the strength of this 2011 car. Its taken some hits and seems to just go on and on without damage, if only the wheels/tyres can be stronger lol

Indeed – much stronger than the 2010 car, which seemed to fall apart at another car looking at it.

[hardingfv32]

"Mclaren gambled on a wet race" IF... this was true it would be a sign of desperation.

There is no evidence that they were even biased toward a rain race setup. Statistically speaking this would just be wrong for the number 2 team to do.

Brian

[beelsebob]

"Mclaren gambled on a wet race" IF... this was true it would be a sign of desperation.

There is no evidence that they were even biased toward a rain race setup. Statistically speaking this would just be wrong for the number 2 team to do.

No evidence other than Whitmarsh saying "we set the cars up for a wet race"

[enkidu]

"Mclaren gambled on a wet race" IF... this was true it would be a sign of desperation.

There is no evidence that they were even biased toward a rain race setup. Statistically speaking this would just be wrong for the number 2 team to do.

No evidence other than Whitmarsh saying "we set the cars up for a wet race"

Yeah I remember the interview, he said its over 50% chance of rain so thats what we will go with. Thats not a gamble in my eyes, it'll be the other teams that gambled setting the cars up for a dry race.

[Tozza Mazza]

After qualy Whitmarsh said it was 60% probability of a wet race, which is more than likely. This is why, no 'desperation' but rather forward thinking.

[hardingfv32]

"There are likely to be many technical issues that contribute. A quick summation might include more overall downforce allowing the RBR to be on the DRS more often, and a more effective hot engine mapping."

I say there is nothing on the face of it that prevents Mclaren from running less rear wing.

Just some estimates:

1) RB ran with 50% less rear wing in Canada than McLaren based on FA observations from photos. So JUST for the discussion I say 50% less downforce. Say the rear wing is good for 30% of the cars downforce.

2) We know McLarens diffuser & exhaust layout is very similar to RB. Maybe the RB off throttle blowing is a little better, but how much time is spent off throttle? I'll be generous and say that RB's diffuser system is 25% better. Say the diffuser is good for 25% of the cars downforce.

So for Canada we have the RB's diffuser only making up about half of what they give away in downforce with their rear wing. McLaren issue is not their diffuser.

Brian