2018 McLaren F1 Team - Renault

[PhillipM]

It could, traction is a self-exciting mechanism, the more you have the more you can generate because of weight transfer. If you're low on traction anyway because it's wet it can level the playing field somewhat.

[Ground Effect]

How good in the wet would a car with poor rear traction actually be? Can weather save its flaws?

Actually, the car seemed very strong on the wet day in Barcelona preseason and FP3 in Melbourne.

[diffuser]

I don't think mech grip plays as big a part in Canada as it does in Monaco. It's not like have anything like Monaco's s3 in Canada. S3 in Monaco has 3 subsequent, closely knit corners that are below 100KPH and the car never really gets into DF territory until the final corner (which has the straight). So it's brake for corner accelerate to less than 130KPH then brake for next corner, rince and repeat.

In Canada it's slow corner, long straight. So they're not stuck in that low DF speed. They'd get more bang from a improvement in Aero efficiancy than anything else. That's probably true for all the races till Hungry.

[Andres125sx]

I doubt they are having mechanical grip issues in a straight line. That's just to easy to do.

It gets complex in slow corners when you don't have the aid of DF and you have weight transfer, what's the suspension doing to counter that weight transfer?

Not that easy, since F1 cars are traction limited in a straight line even on 3rd gear, so any traction advantage some suspension provides, or some traction deficit some other suffer, can make a huge difference in a start

[Andres125sx]

With talk of the rear suspension being the culprit for some of the low speed performance of the car, I wonder if this suggests a flaw in the hierarchy of the car design team. Clearly, the aero team is ruling the roost at McLaren and over ruling the chassis guys. I'm not sure this is a recipe for success, as there is an inherent imbalance in the car design.

Also as a fan of the team I have to question why it has taken them 3 years to realise this. Even from the scraps of data us fans get to see, we've been saying that the car simply is not good in the low speed stuff. Why were no measures taken to address this till now? Poor show McLaren.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a good synergy between the different departments responsible for the car concept.

You´re replying yourself, aero is a lot more important than suspensions, to the point they are prone to make several sacrifices for a better aero.

When a F1 team do something you think it´s stupid, I suggest you to stop thinking they´re stupid, and start thinking what are you missing. That´s what I personally do, anyone inside a F1 team is a top proffesional, they´re far from stupid

[godlameroso]

I don't think mech grip plays as big a part in Canada as it does in Monaco. It's not like have anything like Monaco's s3 in Canada. S3 in Monaco has 3 subsequent, closely knit corners that are below 100KPH and the car never really gets into DF territory until the final corner (which has the straight). So it's brake for corner accelerate to less than 130KPH then brake for next corner, rince and repeat.

In Canada it's slow corner, long straight. So they're not stuck in that low DF speed. They'd get more bang from a improvement in Aero efficiancy than anything else. That's probably true for all the races till Hungry.

I feel the McLaren is one very difficult aero upgrade away from the verge of being contenders.

[diffuser]

I doubt they are having mechanical grip issues in a straight line. That's just to easy to do.

It gets complex in slow corners when you don't have the aid of DF and you have weight transfer, what's the suspension doing to counter that weight transfer?

Not that easy, since F1 cars are traction limited in a straight line even on 3rd gear, so any traction advantage some suspension provides, or some traction deficit some other suffer, can make a huge difference in a start

Easy by comparison to accelerating out of a corner, not easy in general.

I'd be willing to bet that the difference between all rear suspensions in accelerating in a straight line to a pre-downforce speed is next to 0. The driver getting it right has a far bigger delta in those situations.

[diffuser]

I don't think mech grip plays as big a part in Canada as it does in Monaco. It's not like have anything like Monaco's s3 in Canada. S3 in Monaco has 3 subsequent, closely knit corners that are below 100KPH and the car never really gets into DF territory until the final corner (which has the straight). So it's brake for corner accelerate to less than 130KPH then brake for next corner, rince and repeat.

In Canada it's slow corner, long straight. So they're not stuck in that low DF speed. They'd get more bang from a improvement in Aero efficiancy than anything else. That's probably true for all the races till Hungry.

I feel the McLaren is one very difficult aero upgrade away from the verge of being contenders.

Can't argue with that, the current points leader finished 3ird @ monaco, was .5 seconds off the pace in quali, was .3 off in that quali S3 and ALO was only .1 further back in that same s3.

[PhillipM]

And yet we have many cars that show far better startline traction than others.
Accelerating in a straight line is only easy if you don't have to compromise your suspension for cornering, aero platform control, and tyre wear and heat. Many of the cars deliberately run slightly on the shoulders of the tyres down the straight for example to spread tyre wear and heat...

[Nuvolari]

With talk of the rear suspension being the culprit for some of the low speed performance of the car, I wonder if this suggests a flaw in the hierarchy of the car design team. Clearly, the aero team is ruling the roost at McLaren and over ruling the chassis guys. I'm not sure this is a recipe for success, as there is an inherent imbalance in the car design.

Also as a fan of the team I have to question why it has taken them 3 years to realise this. Even from the scraps of data us fans get to see, we've been saying that the car simply is not good in the low speed stuff. Why were no measures taken to address this till now? Poor show McLaren.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a good synergy between the different departments responsible for the car concept.

You´re replying yourself, aero is a lot more important than suspensions, to the point they are prone to make several sacrifices for a better aero.

When a F1 team do something you think it´s stupid, I suggest you to stop thinking they´re stupid, and start thinking what are you missing. That´s what I personally do, anyone inside a F1 team is a top proffesional, they´re far from stupid

I didn't say they were stupid, although being top professionals in their field doesn't make them immune to stupidity. I suggest you don't bow to such authority so easily.

The point was, they clearly compromised on some aspect of the design based on a hypothesis they followed for the car concept as a whole. It doesn't always turn out exactly how you expect in reality. How quickly do they come to terms with it and how quickly can they react to the issue? Is it something baked in to the design that can only be resolved in the next year? All the time your competitors are moving forwards. Catching up is hard but taking such a risk on a big compromise is shooting yourself in the foot.

[Nuvolari]

With talk of the rear suspension being the culprit for some of the low speed performance of the car, I wonder if this suggests a flaw in the hierarchy of the car design team. Clearly, the aero team is ruling the roost at McLaren and over ruling the chassis guys. I'm not sure this is a recipe for success, as there is an inherent imbalance in the car design.

Also as a fan of the team I have to question why it has taken them 3 years to realise this. Even from the scraps of data us fans get to see, we've been saying that the car simply is not good in the low speed stuff. Why were no measures taken to address this till now? Poor show McLaren.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a good synergy between the different departments responsible for the car concept.

It's a new rear suspension so we can't say it took them 3 years to realise this to be fair. Last year the suspension was getting regular praise in AMuS and allegedly they were one of the teams that had the ride height trick. They had to redesign it because that trick got further clamped down on and obviously they had the engine change.

Fair point re: suspension rule changes, however even last year their low speed performance was mid pack at best so I don't think McLaren were ever top class at low speed cornering for years.

[McHonda]

With talk of the rear suspension being the culprit for some of the low speed performance of the car, I wonder if this suggests a flaw in the hierarchy of the car design team. Clearly, the aero team is ruling the roost at McLaren and over ruling the chassis guys. I'm not sure this is a recipe for success, as there is an inherent imbalance in the car design.

Also as a fan of the team I have to question why it has taken them 3 years to realise this. Even from the scraps of data us fans get to see, we've been saying that the car simply is not good in the low speed stuff. Why were no measures taken to address this till now? Poor show McLaren.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a good synergy between the different departments responsible for the car concept.

It's a new rear suspension so we can't say it took them 3 years to realise this to be fair. Last year the suspension was getting regular praise in AMuS and allegedly they were one of the teams that had the ride height trick. They had to redesign it because that trick got further clamped down on and obviously they had the engine change.

Fair point re: suspension rule changes, however even last year their low speed performance was mid pack at best so I don't think McLaren were ever top class at low speed cornering for years.

I do remember similar comments yeah.

[diffuser]

And yet we have many cars that show far better startline traction than others.
Accelerating in a straight line is only easy if you don't have to compromise your suspension for cornering, aero platform control, and tyre wear and heat. Many of the cars deliberately run slightly on the shoulders of the tyres down the straight for example to spread tyre wear and heat...

Do they show better startline traction or just better starts?

[RonDennis]

I don't think mech grip plays as big a part in Canada as it does in Monaco. It's not like have anything like Monaco's s3 in Canada. S3 in Monaco has 3 subsequent, closely knit corners that are below 100KPH and the car never really gets into DF territory until the final corner (which has the straight). So it's brake for corner accelerate to less than 130KPH then brake for next corner, rince and repeat.

In Canada it's slow corner, long straight. So they're not stuck in that low DF speed. They'd get more bang from a improvement in Aero efficiancy than anything else. That's probably true for all the races till Hungry.

I feel the McLaren is one very difficult aero upgrade away from the verge of being contenders.

They are a couple of years away of being contenders.

[Manoah2u]

I don't think mech grip plays as big a part in Canada as it does in Monaco. It's not like have anything like Monaco's s3 in Canada. S3 in Monaco has 3 subsequent, closely knit corners that are below 100KPH and the car never really gets into DF territory until the final corner (which has the straight). So it's brake for corner accelerate to less than 130KPH then brake for next corner, rince and repeat.

In Canada it's slow corner, long straight. So they're not stuck in that low DF speed. They'd get more bang from a improvement in Aero efficiancy than anything else. That's probably true for all the races till Hungry.

I feel the McLaren is one very difficult aero upgrade away from the verge of being contenders.

They are a couple of years away of being contenders.

agreed. which is exactly why i'm sure Alonso is not going to stay with Mclaren in F1.