McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

Mandrake wrote:RE the race in Korea:

The main difference between Qualy and Race is the fuel load. More than 100kgs make a huge difference in Handling. Fuel weight is not handling neutral.

That is why MGP have problems in the race, either being competitive in the beginning, or in the end.

If McLaren sacrificed Long running for low fuel runs it's perfectly understandable that the car performs weirdly in the race. Adding front wing at the stop has then increased aero on the front which in turn made the handling worse the more fuel was burned.
It's nothing to do with fuel weight tbh... They were just as fast as the RBR on full loads on options. It was purely and simply that they weren't managing to get the primes to work properly.

Mandrake
Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

beelsebob wrote:It's nothing to do with fuel weight tbh... They were just as fast as the RBR on full loads on options. It was purely and simply that they weren't managing to get the primes to work properly.
The speed was there, but at the expense of good handling / tire life. This is a big IF, but had they spent more time for long runs, the car might have been slower in qualy, but the overall handling in the race would have meant better tire life, better handling. With Parc Fermé rules it's always a compromise between perfect qualy setup and perfect race setup!

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

Mandrake wrote:
beelsebob wrote:It's nothing to do with fuel weight tbh... They were just as fast as the RBR on full loads on options. It was purely and simply that they weren't managing to get the primes to work properly.
The speed was there, but at the expense of good handling / tire life. This is a big IF, but had they spent more time for long runs, the car might have been slower in qualy, but the overall handling in the race would have meant better tire life, better handling. With Parc Fermé rules it's always a compromise between perfect qualy setup and perfect race setup!
s/for long runs/on prime tyres/

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

Looking at the onboard lap on the FOM website (it's the onboard they chose for Korea); Lewis didn't hit the limiter even with DRS on in qualifying at the end of the long straight. I wonder - could it be that maybe they geared the cars wrong for the race? It would tie in with their new DRS system which they brought in I believe in Suzuka? Singapore?
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

raymondu999 wrote:Looking at the onboard lap on the FOM website (it's the onboard they chose for Korea); Lewis didn't hit the limiter even with DRS on in qualifying at the end of the long straight. I wonder - could it be that maybe they geared the cars wrong for the race? It would tie in with their new DRS system which they brought in I believe in Suzuka? Singapore?
I don't think that's the issue, because they were clearly faster in the straight line sections (even at the end of the straights) than the bulls. Plus, they were mighty in the acceleration zones. If anything, I think they hit the gearing better than the bulls.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

A reaction to the problems at Spa & Monza when they hit the limiter too soon?

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

They were good in the traction; yes, but how were they clearly faster in the straight sections? The McLarens were constantly around 1 - 2 tenths faster than the Bulls in Sector 1 if memory serves me correct. Part of that would be traction related; based on their traction out of 1 and 2.

richard - I don't remember them hitting the limiter at Spa; but in Monza they were hitting it with DRS open; a lot. I mean their lack of race pace though. Generally if you're not hitting the limiter quite a lot in qualifying (with DRS available all willy nilly) then you won't be anywhere near it in the race and so... yeah.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

feynman
feynman
3
Joined: 02 Mar 2010, 20:36

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

myurr wrote:http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/10/r ... designers/

'Some teams' is plural, so more than one....
Not wanting to bang on about this, but I just think it's wise to be careful.

Korea was one of the races that James Allen didn't attend. He is largely relying on the exact same team post-race press releases as we all are.

That article would be before any pre-race team conference calls, most team engineers would still be flying home or flying somewhere between Korea and India.
The article is composed of an FIA press release, an article from AMuS, and I would suggest (especially the terminology used) the McLaren press release.

All nicely recomposed and paragraphed and all that. All very loose and conversational, and in this case I would argue there is enough elbow room in the language used to suggest that 'some' may not necessarily have to be used plurally, it could mean one.


... I guess I am not so much talking about blocked-up McLaren front wings anymore, but probably wandering into the problem of unsourced articles. It could perfectly well be referring to the exact same press release we were talking about, so not double-sourcing or independently confirming, it's just the same source retyped.

If someone else goes on record saying marbles have been clogging up their front wings, and maybe they will this week if asked, then clearly argument over, but right now we've only heard this once, from one team, in one race, and in circumstances that make the story seem somewhat unlikely.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

Mandrake wrote:Fuel weight is not handling neutral.
If the tank is placed at the longitudinal and lateral CofG (can't think why they wouldn't put it on the lateral CofG, but still); other than fuel slosh; what would it actually affect though? Don't most teams do their best to put the tank there (CofG) anyways?
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

Mandrake
Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

You would try to place it there, but I don't know how well it can be placed. (Does anyone of us know?) If there was an indicator of 100% neutrality, how close could teams get to that?

Obviously the cars will sit lower, the fuel makes up for more than a sixth of the cars weight. In Road cars this affects suspension geometries/camber etc. does it do the same in an F1 car?

If we believe the talks from F1 teams, there is a difference in setup....RedBull for the first time this season lost out on Pole despite Vettel giving it 110%, but at the same time they were stronger in the race than in previous races. McLaren had the reversed phenomenon, first Pole but sacrificed race pace. I don't buy the story of marbles stuck in the front wing...

Boost
Boost
0
Joined: 14 Jun 2010, 19:21

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

raymondu999 wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Fuel weight is not handling neutral.
If the tank is placed at the longitudinal and lateral CofG (can't think why they wouldn't put it on the lateral CofG, but still); other than fuel slosh; what would it actually affect though? Don't most teams do their best to put the tank there (CofG) anyways?
Filling the tank also raises the CofG, though how much depends on the length of the tank.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

Lycoming wrote:
n smikle wrote: It's just the loss of DF caused the understeer. Nobody from Mclaren said anything bad about the setup like they did in Japan.
hamilton himself said something along the lines of "I guess we didn't have the right setup today" though I suspect it was a bit more than setup, they have had the best front end this year for sure as others have already noted.

and I would disagree that suzuka was the anomaly. it doesn't fully explain the excellent pace they had in qualifying at korea. Don't forget they brought an upgrades package to suzuka
source? he's just a driver anyway the engineer said 10 points were lost. That's about .2 to .3 seconds.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

feynman wrote:I guess it's just a pity Pirelli don't supply front wings to teams.

The McLaren pitwall were happy to let us spend half a week labouring under the illusion that Hamilton had punctured a rear in Japan, before the tyre company interjected with facts to put us straight.

Now we have that same pitwall insisting phantom chunks of rubber and unspecified damage to both front wings, on both cars, at the same time, and to the same detrimental effect on laptime ... apparently.

They took a best guess on dry setup, and landed a mile-off, good for a lap, voracious on fronts soon after.
I take mclaren's word seriously though. The airfoil can be easily spoiled by foreign matter under the wing. You don't need a huge 1 inch chunk of rubber to do it. Simple small lumps of rubber just behind the leading edge can disrupt the air flow significantly, direct loss of down-force and increase in drag.

The camera's will never be able to catch such things like rubber lumps under the front wing of all places, unless the camera guy has the wing put down on a work table.. so all this doubt based on the pictures is unfounded.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
559
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

beelsebob wrote:
raymondu999 wrote:Looking at the onboard lap on the FOM website (it's the onboard they chose for Korea); Lewis didn't hit the limiter even with DRS on in qualifying at the end of the long straight. I wonder - could it be that maybe they geared the cars wrong for the race? It would tie in with their new DRS system which they brought in I believe in Suzuka? Singapore?
I don't think that's the issue, because they were clearly faster in the straight line sections (even at the end of the straights) than the bulls. Plus, they were mighty in the acceleration zones. If anything, I think they hit the gearing better than the bulls.
Not much.. like 2km/hr faster.. no difference with that.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

Racing Green in 2028

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: McLaren MP4-26 Mercedes

Post

Boost wrote:
raymondu999 wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Fuel weight is not handling neutral.
If the tank is placed at the longitudinal and lateral CofG (can't think why they wouldn't put it on the lateral CofG, but still); other than fuel slosh; what would it actually affect though? Don't most teams do their best to put the tank there (CofG) anyways?
Filling the tank also raises the CofG, though how much depends on the length of the tank.
It can raise or lower it depending on how low the CofG was initially compared to the fuel tank. Which is why I said laterally and longitudinally on the CofG
失败者找理由,成功者找方法