McLaren MP4-28 Mercedes

[bhall]

Apologies. I can see that I misinterpreted what you said before.

[FW17]

If the McLaren does require new mounting points for the suspension, there are two options – to build a new chassis, which takes 90 days or cut the affected area out of the existing chassis and bond in new pick up points, but this adds weight and requires the chassis to be in Woking, which will not be possible over the China/Bahrain period.

But even if they start building a new one now, the chassis wouldn’t be ready until the Canadian Grand Prix, round seven of the championship, at the earliest.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/04/m ... me-to-fix/

90 DAYS???????

[BorisTheBlade]

Me? Not telling that I am right, but they already said that they rushed upgrades on the timeline ("experimental updates" in Malaysia). Logically speaking, if their normal pace of effectively updating the car is the same as red bull, who clearly proved they can consistently bring updates that work inmediately, they will stay behind red bull. They need to bring updates at a faster rate then them, for catching up in pace only. Surpassing them you need to increase the pace of updating even more.

China might be more about smaller updates to get the car to work optimal. Throwing in big updates makes that more difficult, but after that they certainly need to be finding bigger chunks of performance through updates. Atleast that is my view on it (again I am not claiming that I can't be wrong).

There is still the possibility that one single problem could have severely hamstrung them. Plus diminishing returns might favour them.

[infy]

Most likely 90 days for something FIA related. Like re-doing the crash tests.

[ringo]

Ok, so were switching from front wing problems to suspension.
The suspension to me was the most obvious problem. It's the only thing that is drastically different on the car.
The pick up points as i suspected are the issue.
Both front and rear.

[bhall]

What aspect of the car's suspension makes it good with low ride height but bad with high ride height? Or do we think something unlocked in the car's performance at low ride height masks suspension ills?

[marcush.]

eyeball engineering part1:
the front suspension is basically rockhard and all we see in terms of movement is the sidewalls compressed by downforce and road vertical inputs.
No damping in the sidewalls =much vertical oscillations =lots of rideheight change at the throat -tea tray -big fluctuations in downforce especialy when the central part of the floor /difusser is stalled due to the throat choking.
with small throat opening you casnnot run big rake -so youe overall downforce level will be reduced .

eyeball engineering part 2 :
Mclaren has chosen massive antidive geometry at the front -leading to a front suspension not really responding to spring and damper adjustments as a lot of the vertical force is catered for by the antidive ...well ,the tyres still deflect.

[Pup]

So that's all it takes, is it? One out of work engineer who's last job in F1 I believe was telling people how to pack a lorry (a job from which he apparently was fired) says that because McLaren seem worried, that it just gots to be the suspension, and suddenly we're right back where we were three weeks ago.

Because they seem worried. Yes, ladies, we are indeed diagnosing the car's problems by interpreting frowny faces from the pit crew.

Never mind that suspension mechanics are possibly the most straightforward and best understood bit that comes within 50 feet of an F1 car. Never mind that anyone on pit lane who knows anything about suspensions has said that it's not the problem. Never mind that the geometry of the suspension looks exactly like every other McLaren for the past 3 years. Never mind that all the work McLaren have done to fix the problem has been on the opposite frickin end of the car. Like, literally the bits farthest from the front suspension as is possible without adding a trailer hitch. Never mind that McLaren themselves have said that the problem is with the aerodynamics.

Gotta be the suspension.

[ringo]

I suppose you prefer a Journo with no technical background or F1 experience?

[Pup]

I prefer someone who bases what he says on more than pouty faces.

I mean, really...

The fact they are obviously concerned about the development and how quickly they can improve things probably means the problems are down to suspension and the pick up points into the chassis which are quite difficult to change quickly.

Really.

[ringo]

Well he knows how long it takes to solve problems in f1, be they mechanical or aerodynamic.
He says aero problems, when analyzed by mclaren, usually take less time to solve when they know what the problem is. I believe this is true. Mclaren have never really have a purely aero related problem that they could not solve in reasonable time.
They tend to find solutions pretty quickly; as we've seen in the past years.
That to me is a good argument and observation, especially based on his experience in F1. Can't really say all that is based on pouty faces.

The front wing couldn't be a true problem for the car in terms of how poor the ride is. Ride is more mechanically related than aero.
Looking on smooth and bumpy tracks, mechanical problem will set the bases for differences in those situations.
Aero on the other hand would make the car equally bad on both smooth and bumpy tracks.

I feel Mclaren are pushing the envelop in terms of suspension. They may be going down a path that no team has gone down. Maybe due to philospohy or what seems right or wrong, other teams have not gone down that path, but Mclaren a trying something which to them would give a huge advantage if it is done correctly and if it works as how they think it should.

For all we know the car may have something crazy like steer input variable damping or some other drug induced idea.

[Pup]

If we were halfway through the season, sure, but we've only seen two races that were only a week apart. And even so, we saw a great deal of improvement in the car just from taking a pair of snips to the diffuser, and McLaren said they think they have a handle on the problem and will have updates for China. That's all contrary to the very thing on which Gillan is basing his opinion.

According to everything else we've heard, the problem is manifesting itself in the diffuser. The aero fails when the car is too low or too high (or maybe just when it's too high, I don't know if we've been told that exactly). Whether the diffuser is the cause, or it's the flex in the rear tires, or whether it's something farther forward is anyone's guess, outside of McLaren. My guess is that we'll see small updates from front to back, including a tweak or two to the front wing, but it's only a guess - they may solve it with only a diffuser update. Of course, betting on a wing change is easy - we know eventually it will change, only question is when. It could be part of the 'fix', or any updates could be on hold until they get the fix. That is the real danger to McLaren - not that they're behind, but that all of their updates are also behind. They're tying their shoes while the other runners are sprinting away.

McLaren said that both the track and their updates had an effect on their performance in Malaysia. The smoother track meant that they could more easily keep the aero in it's working range, and the updates helped to widen that range. My assumption is that their poor "ride quality" - whatever that really means - is due to the limited setup options available to them because of the aero. That is, they've got to run the car too stiff and probably don't have enough leeway in front to back setup to get the car to the drivers' likings. And they're probably also limited in how they control tire wear and heat, which of course is paramount.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

If we were halfway through the season, sure, but we've only seen two races that were only a week apart. And even so, we saw a great deal of improvement in the car just from taking a pair of snips to the diffuser, and McLaren said they think they have a handle on the problem and will have updates for China. That's all contrary to the very thing on which Gillan is basing his opinion.

Agreed. One would think that McLaren are having some issues with the suspension, it took Ferrari a bit to get it sorted and I think this is normal.

Whitmarsh said there are some "fundamental problems" with the car. He said the car is currently "too peaky". "That they must have aerodynamic performance over the whole operating window and that's where the team has fallen out even though they have the peaks."


Of course we're unaware of exactly what all the changes in Malaysia actually were, cutting part of the floor and having success with it seems to indicate to me that the likely problem is Aerodynamic in nature as Whitmarsh has alluded to.

[ringo]

My assumption is that their poor "ride quality" - whatever that really means - is due to the limited setup options available to them because of the aero. That is, they've got to run the car too stiff and probably don't have enough leeway in front to back setup to get the car to the drivers' likings. And they're probably also limited in how they control tire wear and heat, which of course is paramount.

Aero wont be something that limits them from setting up the car. It's usually the other way around, the mechanical setup limits the aero performance. As we've learned with advances in FRIC and other concerns in relation to ride, ride height, squat, tyre stiffness etc. etc. Teams are looking in those avenues to expand aerodynamic performance.
Mclaren have one of the best aerodynamic teams, i doubt their aero is so much worse than last year that the car is doing so poorly. Poorer than a Force India.
The aero is a predetermined package that doesn't change over a weekend, and i believe it is producing the right amount of down force as intened;( at the intended ride height and conditions). However i feel this is produced in a narrow range of mechanical/dynamic settings. The mechanical being the trouble area.
And if the mechanical side of things cannot stay in that range, it is the aerodynamics that suffer.
I don't think the mechanical side of things is suffering because of aerodynamic range.

Ride quality is mechanical, Button says the car is balanced (aero is ok) but it has poor ride (un compliant mechanical).

I agree with your observation, but in reverse. To me at least, the aero bandaids they are making now is a compromise between performance and operating range due to the poor mechanicals.

Let's see what changes are made in China; keeping an eye on both the suspension mountings and the aero updates.

[marcush.]

even if it´s two domains you cannot separate aero and mechanical performance as the aeroloads play a dominant part in the setup and layout of the suspension.
you could devide the two maybe at very low speeds but that´s really only valid in a few corners .
So a "peaky" aeroplatform will affect your setup possibilities (wiindow) as much as a unbehaving suspension will throw the aeroplatform out of favourable parts of the Aeromap.
Take your choice which one is driving the other but the two will not live separately as the suspension does make the car a movable aero device in relation to the track surface.
Take into account that aero forces are hugely depending on temperature -track and ambient (think of radiated heat -sun-) the claim aero setups are predetermined is as true or false as the weather is not always predictable and so your vertical force may deviate from your assumptions and calcs big time dynamically .Add to this the front wing is working in ground effect when the rear wing doesn´t and you get an idea why a car may all of a sudden fall out of aero balance.