McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[beelsebob]

"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.

Again – what makes you think less wing would be faster?

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.

But as we saw in spain – RB have much much more downforce with the same level of wing than McLaren.

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.

Looking vaguely similar, and acting in very similar ways are no where near the same things. Study some fluid dynamics and you'll understand just how much a butterfly can cause a hurricane.

[Tozza Mazza]

Maybe a bit too generous. I think it would be much truer to real life if you divided either of those figures by 10 to 50 times. We are talking small performance differences. The difference between 1st and 2nd is a fine line indeed.

[Richied76]

i think alot of you may have missed the fact that mclaren got there gearing wrong in canada. Lewis said they were so slow on the straights because they uped the wing levels for a wet race but couldnt lower the gearing to compensate. "drag issues" as they put it.

Why so interesting you say?.....FUEL. if you cant rev 100% your going to save a hell of alot of fuel in the race. Mclaren knew there would be alot of safety cars and probably already under fueled the cars by 20kgs...But will lowered RPM i would say jenson crossed the line with 15-20kgs less than anyone else. This has to be one of the reasons Jenson was so fast in teh end of the race with less load going through the tires ect... We already know they can run the merc engine on 4 cylinders so even if they got super critical on the fuel they could have saved loads under the safety car. I wouldnt have been suprised if mclaren only put enough petrol for 60% of the race at full speed

[hardingfv32]

OK, I'll let give you the rain setup, BUT I'll take the pole on a dry setup.

1) I have a clear view of the track ahead
2) No DRS to help someone pass
3) High likelihood of pace car situations to pit and maintain track position and shorten the race.

On top of all this there is the issue of the quality of the rain. 60% chance of what?
A deluge that stops the race, a brief shower or just a day like in Canada where you had a little of everything.

And then there is the issue of WHAT is a rain setup. Remember that the rain setup must be made before qualifying. McLaren could not have compromised much to place in their normal 2011 qualifying position. Everyones performance was very close to normal.

Brian

[beelsebob]

i think alot of you may have missed the fact that mclaren got there gearing wrong in canada. Lewis said they were so slow on the straights because they uped the wing levels for a wet race but couldnt lower the gearing to compensate. "drag issues" as they put it.

Why so interesting you say?.....FUEL. if you cant rev 100% your going to save a hell of alot of fuel in the race. Mclaren knew there would be alot of safety cars and probably already under fueled the cars by 20kgs...But will lowered RPM i would say jenson crossed the line with 15-20kgs less than anyone else. This has to be one of the reasons Jenson was so fast in teh end of the race with less load going through the tires ect... We already know they can run the merc engine on 4 cylinders so even if they got super critical on the fuel they could have saved loads under the safety car. I wouldnt have been suprised if mclaren only put enough petrol for 60% of the race at full speed

That's an excellent point, and it would explain why Button seemed to be relatively slow compared to Vettel early in the race, but then massively fast after they knew that they had saved enough fuel.

[beelsebob]

OK, I'll let give you the rain setup, BUT I'll take the pole on a dry setup.

You can't – the cars are in parc ferme after they leave the pit lane in Q1. At that point, no changes can be made to the cars, except extremely limited ones like tyre changes.

[hardingfv32]

"We are talking small performance differences. The difference between 1st and 2nd is a fine line indeed."

I agree, but there is NO fine line when viewing the rear wings in Canada. RB 'looking" 50% smaller than McLaren. IF the rest of McLaren is close why the big wing discrepancy?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Agreed... but actually you can adjust the front wings before the start.

Brian

[beelsebob]

"We are talking small performance differences. The difference between 1st and 2nd is a fine line indeed."

I agree, but there is NO fine line when viewing the rear wings in Canada. RB 'looking" 50% smaller than McLaren. IF the rest of McLaren is close why the big wing discrepancy?

Because the rest of the McLaren isn't close. McLaren have made a car that is inherently slippier through the air than the RB7. That allows them to put big ass wings on the car without sacrificing enormous amounts of top speed.

RedBull have made a car that is inherently more downforcy than the MP4-26. That allows them to strip off a huge amount of wing without sacrificing the downforce necessary to get round the corner.

At the moment, the sum for the RB7 adds up somewhat better in qualifying, and for the MP4-26 in the race.

[beelsebob]

Agreed... but actually you can adjust the front wings before the start.

Which in terms of the setup of the car is a trivial thing. You're not able to adjust suspension setup, ride heights, rake angles, rear wing levels, gear ratios, brake setup (except some minor adjustments), etc. Saying "oh but you can adjust the front wing" is like saying "you can't set up this car factory to make CPUs, but you can set the rubber stamping machine at the end up to label them as CPUs"

[hardingfv32]

"i think alot of you may have missed the fact that mclaren got there gearing wrong in canada. Lewis said they were so slow on the straights because they uped the wing levels for a wet race but couldnt lower the gearing to compensate. "drag issues" as they put it."

This is driver babble.

So now we must add poor gearing to the high drag rain setup. And Button was having gear issues at the end of the race? Remember there is a rev limit. This doesn't add up. Again, McLaren qualidied just like they have been going all season with about the same time splits.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

For this discussion say the downforce levels are:

30% front wing
25% diffuser
30% rear wing
15% rest of the car/body

Now in Canada IF the McLaren rear wing was twice as bid as RB's, then that means they have to reduce the drag of some large amount on some other part of the car. Probably not the front wing because that would cause a big imbalance. I'm not sure there is much drag you can remove from the diffuser, so that leaves the rest of the body. You honestly thing the McLaren body has that much less drag to compensate for a rear wing that is twice as big?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"Which in terms of the setup of the car is a trivial thing"

I think you are completely wrong with this statement.

Brian

[beelsebob]

For this discussion say the downforce levels are:

30% front wing
25% diffuser
30% rear wing
15% rest of the car/body

Now in Canada IF the McLaren rear wing was twice as bid as RB's, then that means they have to reduce the drag of some large amount on some other part of the car. Probably not the front wing because that would cause a big imbalance. I'm not sure there is much drag you can remove from the diffuser, so that leaves the rest of the body. You honestly thing the McLaren body has that much less drag to compensate for a rear wing that is twice as big?

Yes.

[beelsebob]

Sorry, I thought that would have more impact like that. To elaborate slightly...

In the dumb model... the amount of frontal area removed by the U-pods is significant – arguably as much as half the rear wing. In the more complex model, where they can direct air to wherever they chose (like straight into those U-pods), they likely save even more drag than that.