I doubt so. The teams in front will yet again be Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. Why? Because they are the only teams so far that have tested the 2017 spec tires. All the other teams will have to wait, whereas Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull already have valuable data. They know how the cars behave with these tires, thus they also have data on how the suspension should be set up, how it the suspension should be engineered.godlameroso wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see them closer to the front next year. I believe after Monaco, the whole year has been nothing but a long test session. They could have fixed their suspension issue, but they didn't even try which suggests their efforts were focused elsewhere. With good reason, with wider cars this year's suspension will be useless next year. Front wing and chassis interactions do translate next year, so if you look at all the FW iterations and see relative performance stay the same, then I can see how you could draw certain conclusions. However if you take a long game approach it almost makes sense.
It was open to everyone. But McLaren and others didn't think it would be financially feasible to develop a mule car alongside the 2016 & 2017 car.WaikeCU wrote:I doubt so. The teams in front will yet again be Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. Why? Because they are the only teams so far that have tested the 2017 spec tires. All the other teams will have to wait, whereas Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull already have valuable data. They know how the cars behave with these tires, thus they also have data on how the suspension should be set up, how it the suspension should be engineered.godlameroso wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see them closer to the front next year. I believe after Monaco, the whole year has been nothing but a long test session. They could have fixed their suspension issue, but they didn't even try which suggests their efforts were focused elsewhere. With good reason, with wider cars this year's suspension will be useless next year. Front wing and chassis interactions do translate next year, so if you look at all the FW iterations and see relative performance stay the same, then I can see how you could draw certain conclusions. However if you take a long game approach it almost makes sense.
Testing the 2017 spec tyres should be open for everyone. Sadly it isn't.
The only real advantage is that the drivers of this 3 teams have already a good sing on how will this tyres behave and relate that to the engineers. All data collected on daily basis is shared between all F1 teams, plus although only 3 teams are present wilt mule cars, all teams have their representatives present at the event so over all, yes small advantage to the testing teams already.a1b2i3r45 wrote:It was open to everyone. But McLaren and others didn't think it would be financially feasible to develop a mule car alongside the 2016 & 2017 car.WaikeCU wrote:I doubt so. The teams in front will yet again be Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. Why? Because they are the only teams so far that have tested the 2017 spec tires. All the other teams will have to wait, whereas Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull already have valuable data. They know how the cars behave with these tires, thus they also have data on how the suspension should be set up, how it the suspension should be engineered.godlameroso wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see them closer to the front next year. I believe after Monaco, the whole year has been nothing but a long test session. They could have fixed their suspension issue, but they didn't even try which suggests their efforts were focused elsewhere. With good reason, with wider cars this year's suspension will be useless next year. Front wing and chassis interactions do translate next year, so if you look at all the FW iterations and see relative performance stay the same, then I can see how you could draw certain conclusions. However if you take a long game approach it almost makes sense.
Testing the 2017 spec tyres should be open for everyone. Sadly it isn't.
PABLOEING wrote:
What would you put in place of the BP logo? Samsung, Apple?FW17 wrote:PABLOEING wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw9yvJ4WIAA-w4S.jpg
That is just UGLY
maybe it will look good without that BP logo
What makes you so sure they didn't try, rather than couldn't solve it? I can understand that there is an argument to be made for canceling all 2016 suspension-development because the suspension layout as well as the 2017 tyre characteristics will be sustainability different. However, if mistakes were made in the 2016 car's suspension design, Mclaren should have gone to the bottom of it and found out where and why it all went wrong. Although resources are always finite, suspension members, foremost the internal ones, do not require a great amount of CFD or wind tunnel time. So that wouldn't have been an issue. Putting in some effort to learn from the mistakes should have been possible without hurting 2017 development time. The learning itself could be very valuable.godlameroso wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see them closer to the front next year. I believe after Monaco, the whole year has been nothing but a long test session. They could have fixed their suspension issue, but they didn't even try which suggests their efforts were focused elsewhere. With good reason, with wider cars this year's suspension will be useless next year. Front wing and chassis interactions do translate next year, so if you look at all the FW iterations and see relative performance stay the same, then I can see how you could draw certain conclusions. However if you take a long game approach it almost makes sense.
I could imagine Fernando say: "Before we have a GP2 engine, now we have a GP2 car at last!"FW17 wrote:I wish someone goes for a short wheelbase car with wide low sidepods
The car would be incredibly fast and nimble through slow and medium speed corners while sacrificing high speed stability, however the fat tyres would take care of that.
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj5 ... q2ktzc.jpg
I find this curious as well, rear suspension is mounted on the transmission, but they basically remained with the same rear suspension, didn't even bother changing the mounting points or anything like that. All the suspension changes were aimed at ever more elaborate brake ducts. Again, things that actually translate to next year.ME4ME wrote:What makes you so sure they didn't try, rather than couldn't solve it? I can understand that there is an argument to be made for canceling all 2016 suspension-development because the suspension layout as well as the 2017 tyre characteristics will be sustainability different. However, if mistakes were made in the 2016 car's suspension design, Mclaren should have gone to the bottom of it and found out where and why it all went wrong. Although resources are always finite, suspension members, foremost the internal ones, do not require a great amount of CFD or wind tunnel time. So that wouldn't have been an issue. Putting in some effort to learn from the mistakes should have been possible without hurting 2017 development time. The learning itself could be very valuable.godlameroso wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see them closer to the front next year. I believe after Monaco, the whole year has been nothing but a long test session. They could have fixed their suspension issue, but they didn't even try which suggests their efforts were focused elsewhere. With good reason, with wider cars this year's suspension will be useless next year. Front wing and chassis interactions do translate next year, so if you look at all the FW iterations and see relative performance stay the same, then I can see how you could draw certain conclusions. However if you take a long game approach it almost makes sense.
If Wazari is correct in his statement in the MP4-31 thread that Mclaren instead tried to cover the issue with additional rear downforce, which in turn required more front downforce and therefore extensive front wing development, then that would have taken far more resources away from the 2017 project.
I don't see why Mclaren wouldn't have had time and resources to solve the issue, if as you say their season was a long test session after Monaco. The opposition even managed to design and build test mules with modified suspension for Pirelli.
Because Eric Boullier was actually asked about it and he said there was no point putting resources into something that will be different next year anyway and I agree with him. McLaren must put all there energy into next year not worry about impressing a few people on the internet this year.ME4ME wrote:What makes you so sure they didn't try, rather than couldn't solve it? I can understand that there is an argument to be made for canceling all 2016 suspension-development because the suspension layout as well as the 2017 tyre characteristics will be sustainability different. However, if mistakes were made in the 2016 car's suspension design, Mclaren should have gone to the bottom of it and found out where and why it all went wrong. Although resources are always finite, suspension members, foremost the internal ones, do not require a great amount of CFD or wind tunnel time. So that wouldn't have been an issue. Putting in some effort to learn from the mistakes should have been possible without hurting 2017 development time. The learning itself could be very valuable.godlameroso wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see them closer to the front next year. I believe after Monaco, the whole year has been nothing but a long test session. They could have fixed their suspension issue, but they didn't even try which suggests their efforts were focused elsewhere. With good reason, with wider cars this year's suspension will be useless next year. Front wing and chassis interactions do translate next year, so if you look at all the FW iterations and see relative performance stay the same, then I can see how you could draw certain conclusions. However if you take a long game approach it almost makes sense.
If Wazari is correct in his statement in the MP4-31 thread that Mclaren instead tried to cover the issue with additional rear downforce, which in turn required more front downforce and therefore extensive front wing development, then that would have taken far more resources away from the 2017 project.
I don't see why Mclaren wouldn't have had time and resources to solve the issue, if as you say their season was a long test session after Monaco. The opposition even managed to design and build test mules with modified suspension for Pirelli.
They won't be able to lower the sidepods, because of the much bigger barge boards.FW17 wrote:I wish someone goes for a short wheelbase car with wide low sidepods
The car would be incredibly fast and nimble through slow and medium speed corners while sacrificing high speed stability, however the fat tyres would take care of that.
http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj5 ... q2ktzc.jpg
