McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

[PlatinumZealot]

I think you guys are just bandying around Mclaren's performance to fit an agenda. And it's so humorous, I have seen a multitude of threads all over the internet saying Mac was the faster car after that q3 performance only because one of the Bulls didn't pole. I saw it from Q1 that the Bulls had everything under control, they were "exploring" different ways of approaching racing - while Mclaren were desperate to get that pole for their 700th GP. The way Hamilton and Button were wringing the necks of those cars..

My technical instincts pointed to a compromise for the mclarens, and a conservative approach for the Bulls. And it turned out to be true.

And yes that was only Qualifying...

I genuinely observed that the Mclaren was lacking in the race. It doesn't matter if it was setup or some mysterious reason, they were not fast enough in Korea. What it is, is what it is. Potential doesn't count; the same car that was 2 seconds off in winter testing is the same one today, It's all about being fast when it matters, and the car was simply too slow to win in Korea. Doesn't matter how people twist it.

I even notice that RedBull actually had better tyre life than the Mclarens even though the Mclaren was the more under steering of the two. There is much for the Mclaren engineers to sort before India.

[MIKEY_!]

Why? Dry running does not make downforce. Hamilton thought webber's car was a good one second faster in race. Makes sense as that's the only explanation of why Button could catch him even though he was being back up by Hamilton. And let's face it, Dry running was equal for every one. RedBull just has that bit extra to play with.



I need Mclaren to have a dominant car for next year, but I'm not pretending that they have caught the bulls. A dominant car is a car that allows you flexible strategies and comfortable leads. Exactly what Vettel and Webber have been having for the last few races.

Japan and Singapore were just bad luck on RedBull's part, but they had the top pace there as well.

But teams will often run a different balance in the wet, also the tires behave differently for memory which will require a different setup. It was the same for RBR too but it shows up a potentially poorer car. And anyway one teams educated guess is not necessarily the same as another teams one.

[myurr]

I think you guys are just bandying around Mclaren's performance to fit an agenda. And it's so humorous, I have seen a multitude of threads all over the internet saying Mac was the faster car after that q3 performance only because one of the Bulls didn't pole. I saw it from Q1 that the Bulls had everything under control, they were "exploring" different ways of approaching racing - while Mclaren were desperate to get that pole for their 700th GP. The way Hamilton and Button were wringing the necks of those cars..

My technical instincts pointed to a compromise for the mclarens, and a conservative approach for the Bulls. And it turned out to be true.

And yes that was only Qualifying...

I genuinely observed that the Mclaren was lacking in the race. It doesn't matter if it was setup or some mysterious reason, they were not fast enough in Korea. What it is, is what it is. Potential doesn't count; the same car that was 2 seconds off in winter testing is the same one today, It's all about being fast when it matters, and the car was simply too slow to win in Korea. Doesn't matter how people twist it.

I even notice that RedBull actually had better tyre life than the Mclarens even though the Mclaren was the more under steering of the two. There is much for the Mclaren engineers to sort before India.

Likewise you appear to have an agenda and it's also quite humorous.

You seem unable to accept that whatever the reason the front end of the McLaren was uncharacteristically bad in Korea and they still came 2nd and 4th. You also rightly point out that the car was a little oversteery in Q3, but had chronic understeer in the race. Understeer also doesn't immediately equal better tyre life - all it does is change the stresses put into the front and rear tyres, so if you're always cooking the rears then you want understeer to stop you being able to put as much energy through them. McLaren weren't cooking the rears so the understeer wasn't helping them.

Be it damage, changing conditions, whatever, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that this is where the car is at. They won in Suzuka (with very strong pace until Button had to save fuel), they got pole in Korea, and they still had the pace to finish second in the race. Ferrari were as quick as Red Bull once Alonso was free, so this wasn't some electrifying pace from Red Bull, it was a clear problem for McLaren. Also even if the loss of 10 points of downforce is only worth 0.3 seconds per lap, that may only be the difference in ultimate pace. The difference in normal laptime when having to conserve tyres over a stint with a badly imbalanced car may well be 1 second or more.

McLaren have very clearly taken a step forward in the last two race weekends, even if they still haven't had a clear race in which to show the potential. Potential counts for far more than you claim - the championship is over for this year, but potential will be carried over into next years cars. I still believe that McLaren are in a relatively good place from which to build a championship challenge next year. It's never going to be easy but hopefully they'll be able to give their drivers a chance to fight for it.

[kalinka]

Maybe...just maybe McL went for an extreme qualy setup, and that's why Lewis was so quiet after the qualy. Maybe he would be happier with P3 with a race-setup rather than P1 with all-qualy setup? Maybe it was Whitmarsh's call because of the 700th race, and he decided that over Hamilton's preference ?
Honestly, I'm just speculating here, beacuse I'm perplexed too with their race pace. I don't know what would mean setting up a car either way, but maybe someone here knows. Also could a qualy setup make so much difference in race ? Could an extreme qualy-setup makes a car understeer in race under high fuel load ?

[marcush.]

the key is to get the car spot on in terms of balance so you can maximise on the tyre life .
understeer or oversteer is just as bad ,the abused axle will determine the life of the set of rubber and will not allow for ´constanrt quick laps .In the last races Mclaren always had it spot on at least for Button but korea was a struggle evewn more for Jenson.
with the short time available in the dry it was more important to concentrate on longh run behavior and live with the result you get in qualy..

[tok-tokkie]

I don't understand how the marbles can degrade the front wing. The mesh on the brake ducts keeps out anything bigger than a grain of cooked rice because it would clog the small air passage inside the brake cowlings. Are there any small air passages like that on the front wings? It would take a squash ball sized marble to block the front wing air gaps. There are no marbles stuck on the front wing in the photo posted by myurr. Or is it just rubber debris sticking to the wing creating surface roughness affecting the boundry layer? Hardly likely.

We used to see the radiator inlets being cleared out during a refeuling stop. Clean the front wing slots now during a tyre change?

[SiLo]

The way Hamilton and Button were wringing the necks of those cars..

I'm pretty sure both Mclarens were driven very cleanly, especially after watching Lewis' lap, the only issue he had was opening the DRS early in the last corner. Whereas everytime I watch Vettel qualify, he is on the ragged edge, cutting corners, running right out to the edge of the track for every corner. Hamilton's lap in comparison was rather calm.

[mekanikal_grip]

I think you guys are just bandying around Mclaren's performance to fit an agenda. And it's so humorous, I have seen a multitude of threads all over the internet saying Mac was the faster car after that q3 performance only because one of the Bulls didn't pole. I saw it from Q1 that the Bulls had everything under control, they were "exploring" different ways of approaching racing - while Mclaren were desperate to get that pole for their 700th GP. The way Hamilton and Button were wringing the necks of those cars..

My technical instincts pointed to a compromise for the mclarens, and a conservative approach for the Bulls. And it turned out to be true.

And yes that was only Qualifying...

I genuinely observed that the Mclaren was lacking in the race. It doesn't matter if it was setup or some mysterious reason, they were not fast enough in Korea. What it is, is what it is. Potential doesn't count; the same car that was 2 seconds off in winter testing is the same one today, It's all about being fast when it matters, and the car was simply too slow to win in Korea. Doesn't matter how people twist it.

I even notice that RedBull actually had better tyre life than the Mclarens even though the Mclaren was the more under steering of the two. There is much for the Mclaren engineers to sort before India.

Hi,

It's a consensus up and down the paddock that McLaren have the quickest car at the moment. What was pretty evident was that they did not optimise their setup on friday. I would imagine their usual programme was hampered by the weather and their low fuel running (sat) was the only decent running they had. Hence the good q2/3 times.

RBR like many others went conservative on tyres whereas Mclaren were quite aggressive. I would imgine they were at or close the limit of temp at times

the story about the rubber stuck in the gills is correct, it was a pretty big piece as opposed to a collection of smaller pieces, I saw it myself. He's not been too lucky in recent months...!

[kalinka]

ANY pictures of that marbles on the wing ? Not that I think it's not true, but it's somewhat strange that nobody was able to catch that detail after the race...

[Richard]

the story about the rubber stuck in the gills is correct, it was a pretty big piece as opposed to a collection of smaller pieces, I saw it myself.

Were you there?

Hamilton said in the post race interviews that he had a good look at the wing and could see nothing wrong with it.

Lets face it, any car competing with RB in quali has to compromise the race set up, and vice versa.

[PhillipM]

The way the wing was swinging about when the car was porpoising down the end of the straights, I wouldn't be surprised if the strakes had been knocked off/worn down on the underside perhaps?
I thought I saw something come off the front wing in the race but I wasn't sure if it was just debris from the track, could have been a tyre marble though!

[PlatinumZealot]

S

Likewise you appear to have an agenda and it's also quite humorous.

You seem unable to accept that whatever the reason the front end of the McLaren was uncharacteristically bad in Korea and they still came 2nd and 4th. You also rightly point out that the car was a little oversteery in Q3, but had chronic understeer in the race. Understeer also doesn't immediately equal better tyre life - all it does is change the stresses put into the front and rear tyres, so if you're always cooking the rears then you want understeer to stop you being able to put as much energy through them. McLaren weren't cooking the rears so the understeer wasn't helping them.

Be it damage, changing conditions, whatever, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that this is where the car is at. They won in Suzuka (with very strong pace until Button had to save fuel), they got pole in Korea, and they still had the pace to finish second in the race. Ferrari were as quick as Red Bull once Alonso was free, so this wasn't some electrifying pace from Red Bull, it was a clear problem for McLaren. Also even if the loss of 10 points of downforce is only worth 0.3 seconds per lap, that may only be the difference in ultimate pace. The difference in normal laptime when having to conserve tyres over a stint with a badly imbalanced car may well be 1 second or more.

McLaren have very clearly taken a step forward in the last two race weekends, even if they still haven't had a clear race in which to show the potential. Potential counts for far more than you claim - the championship is over for this year, but potential will be carried over into next years cars. I still believe that McLaren are in a relatively good place from which to build a championship challenge next year. It's never going to be easy but hopefully they'll be able to give their drivers a chance to fight for it.

what does Sebastian Vettel have to do with this?

[PlatinumZealot]

Hi,

It's a consensus up and down the paddock that McLaren have the quickest car at the moment. What was pretty evident was that they did not optimise their setup on friday. I would imagine their usual programme was hampered by the weather and their low fuel running (sat) was the only decent running they had. Hence the good q2/3 times.

RBR like many others went conservative on tyres whereas Mclaren were quite aggressive. I would imgine they were at or close the limit of temp at times

the story about the rubber stuck in the gills is correct, it was a pretty big piece as opposed to a collection of smaller pieces, I saw it myself. He's not been too lucky in recent months...!

Hello there. How did you know the mclaren setup was bad? It was very good to get pole on Friday. But it seems it was slower in the race then? that is what you are saying? What about Japan? It was good in qualifying and poor in the race for one of the drivers. The setup was changed for Korea to increase the tyre life in anticipation of heavy wear of the Korean track and both drivers experienced understeer. It is only speculation to think that the optimum setup would make the mclaren the fastest in BOTH qualifying and the race as the Bulls have been so far.

Did you find out if RedBull optimised their setup? Being easy to setup is a good trait of a car.

[raymondu999]

S

Likewise you appear to have an agenda and it's also quite humorous.

You seem unable to accept that whatever the reason the front end of the McLaren was uncharacteristically bad in Korea and they still came 2nd and 4th. You also rightly point out that the car was a little oversteery in Q3, but had chronic understeer in the race. Understeer also doesn't immediately equal better tyre life - all it does is change the stresses put into the front and rear tyres, so if you're always cooking the rears then you want understeer to stop you being able to put as much energy through them. McLaren weren't cooking the rears so the understeer wasn't helping them.

Be it damage, changing conditions, whatever, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that this is where the car is at. They won in Suzuka (with very strong pace until Button had to save fuel), they got pole in Korea, and they still had the pace to finish second in the race. Ferrari were as quick as Red Bull once Alonso was free, so this wasn't some electrifying pace from Red Bull, it was a clear problem for McLaren. Also even if the loss of 10 points of downforce is only worth 0.3 seconds per lap, that may only be the difference in ultimate pace. The difference in normal laptime when having to conserve tyres over a stint with a badly imbalanced car may well be 1 second or more.

McLaren have very clearly taken a step forward in the last two race weekends, even if they still haven't had a clear race in which to show the potential. Potential counts for far more than you claim - the championship is over for this year, but potential will be carried over into next years cars. I still believe that McLaren are in a relatively good place from which to build a championship challenge next year. It's never going to be easy but hopefully they'll be able to give their drivers a chance to fight for it.

what does Sebastian Vettel have to do with this?

Nothing. That's why no one mentioned his name.

Hi,

It's a consensus up and down the paddock that McLaren have the quickest car at the moment. What was pretty evident was that they did not optimise their setup on friday. I would imagine their usual programme was hampered by the weather and their low fuel running (sat) was the only decent running they had. Hence the good q2/3 times.

RBR like many others went conservative on tyres whereas Mclaren were quite aggressive. I would imgine they were at or close the limit of temp at times

the story about the rubber stuck in the gills is correct, it was a pretty big piece as opposed to a collection of smaller pieces, I saw it myself. He's not been too lucky in recent months...!

Hello there. How did you know the mclaren setup was bad? It was very good to get pole on Friday. But it seems it was slower in the race then? that is what you are saying? What about Japan? It was good in qualifying and poor in the race for one of the drivers. The setup was changed for Korea to increase the tyre life in anticipation of heavy wear of the Korean track and both drivers experienced understeer. It is only speculation to think that the optimum setup would make the mclaren the fastest in BOTH qualifying and the race as the Bulls have been so far.

Did you find out if RedBull optimised their setup? Being easy to setup is a good trait of a car.

RBR said on record they did not do any low fuel running and just used FP3 for long-run pace setup work.

[PlatinumZealot]

Just reading between your lines. Let me just say it for you and get it off you chest; Vettel is the fastest driver, that is why with Mclaren's clear car advantage in Korea he still could show up that overhyped Hamilton in the race!

There, that is what you want me to accept.

Now that that is out of the way, what are you saying about the Quantum turbulence flux ducts for 2012 now?