2019 Mclaren F1 Team - Renault

[charliesmithhd]

https://twitter.com/pirellisport/status ... 4150008832

Isn’t this the first time we split our strategy?

[_cerber1]

Isn’t this the first time we split our strategy?

I think this is the first time

[Ground Effect]

Isn’t this the first time we split our strategy?

I think this is the first time

I can’t even remember Fernando and Stoffel splitting tyre choice.

[Ground Effect]

I don’t know what McLaren’s plans are, but surely they must see Renault now as the biggest threat. I’m genuinely concerned the gap will get bigger in France. If McLaren don’t have anything significant planned for Paul Ricard, I hope they will have for Silverstone.

[_cerber1]

I'm sure Renault is too strong for McLaren. It is important not to let the rest go ahead.

[Bill]

Last week some of you were saying it will be piece of cake to maintain that fourth place but in one race Renault have reduced that gap to 2 points,I think some of u need a bit humility and be real

[M840TR]

Last week some of you were saying it will be piece of cake to maintain that fourth place but in one race Renault have reduced that gap to 2 points,I think some of u need a bit humility and be real

The team won WCC at Bahrain...

[diffuser]

Not with the tapered front wing.

The faster the air passes over that wing the More DF that wing will create. The rate it increases may or may not be at the same rate as other wings but it still increases. Don't say no.

Apologies for the brevity. What I meant is the tapered FW does not generate more downforce at higher speeds than the conventional. Of course any object passing through air has higher resistance with increase in speed, but relatively speaking the tapered FW doesn't generate the upwash that the other one does. Which is why the front end isn't as agile. F1 is all about relative performance; so for instance it wouldn't matter if a new car isn't as quick as the old one as long as it's better than the competition that year. Obviously the same applies to low-speed corners but aero usually isn't as significant in such scenarios.
The comparison to SF90 isn't as straight forward either. Sure the car is much better overall than the Mcl34 but that's not to suggest they don't share similar limiting factors because of mutual FW philosophies. Both have front-end DF issues which is a fact. Where the former excels is better aero (NB: Ferrari has an S-duct unlike Mclaren), mechanical and tyre management. If Mclaren keep developing the concept they'll probably reach similar performance levels but theoretically the ceiling is much lower to the front.

Idisagree you can say that and agree with Little soldier.

[SmallSoldier]

Not with the tapered front wing.

The faster the air passes over that wing the More DF that wing will create. The rate it increases may or may not be at the same rate as other wings but it still increases. Don't say no.

Apologies for the brevity. What I meant is the tapered FW does not generate more downforce at higher speeds than the conventional. Of course any object passing through air has higher resistance with increase in speed, but relatively speaking the tapered FW doesn't generate the upwash that the other one does. Which is why the front end isn't as agile. F1 is all about relative performance; so for instance it wouldn't matter if a new car isn't as quick as the old one as long as it's better than the competition that year. Obviously the same applies to low-speed corners but aero usually isn't as significant in such scenarios.
The comparison to SF90 isn't as straight forward either. Sure the car is much better overall than the Mcl34 but that's not to suggest they don't share similar limiting factors because of mutual FW philosophies. Both have front-end DF issues which is a fact. Where the former excels is better aero (NB: Ferrari has an S-duct unlike Mclaren), mechanical and tyre management. If Mclaren keep developing the concept they'll probably reach similar performance levels but theoretically the ceiling is much lower to the front.

The problem is that there was “one article” that said that Ferrari’s concept had less development potential than Mercedes... I would wait until the end of the season to see who effectively have developed more (a little early to tell)... That’s the only “theory” that the ceiling is lower with the current wing philosophy.

I don’t know if the tapered front wing is the right concept, but with the resources that both teamshave (Ferrari and Mclaren), I’m sure they are analyzing every possibility and by now have a clear idea of which is the better concept to invest in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

I don’t know what McLaren’s plans are, but surely they must see Renault now as the biggest threat. I’m genuinely concerned the gap will get bigger in France. If McLaren don’t have anything significant planned for Paul Ricard, I hope they will have for Silverstone.

I’m sure Mclaren always had Renault and Haas as their biggest threats... I don’t think the team has came out at any point saying that they are leading the midfield or comfortably making it to Q3.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ALO_Power]

Meanwhile random thing, but the McLaren F1 Team's store is down for many days.

[NiyolHuayra]

Last week some of you were saying it will be piece of cake to maintain that fourth place but in one race Renault have reduced that gap to 2 points,I think some of u need a bit humility and be real

You and every person here know that this weekend would have been a whole lot better if it weren't for NOR failure, and SAI early lap incident with the visor plastic. And to jump to conclusion after McLaren were better at every race up to this point. So wait for a fair race and judge then.

[Xero]

It's impossible to call the order of the midfield right now. One thing I will say is McLaren seem to be slightly more consistent than the others. The pace at Montreal was really good , just back luck and a small mistake costing the team some points. 1/3 through the season and still 4th in the standings, not too bad given the circumstances.

[Andres125sx]

I'm not sure anyone has looked at mechanical failures / issues and blamed the drivers, it's just you putting that out there I think, but if it suits you're narrative then i dont mind

Well, you said he ruined 3 races himself even when you can´t provide a reason for the third (first two are laughable btw), but keep blaming him so...

Once more misquuoting. I said he compromised, not ruined, seems you have a little agenda.

Both imply a mistake from the driver wich didn´t happen and is the point, so please do not hide behind semantics

[mwillems]

Well, you said he ruined 3 races himself even when you can´t provide a reason for the third (first two are laughable btw), but keep blaming him so...

Once more misquuoting. I said he compromised, not ruined, seems you have a little agenda.

Both imply a mistake from the driver wich didn´t happen and is the point, so please do not hide behind semantics

It's not semantics its blants misrepresentation, and if you were so convinced your opinion was correct you wouldnt need to do it. You betray your own argument with your behaviours, repeatedly deliberately twisting, changing and putting words into my mouth and then following that with childish emojis, It's like talking to Donald Trump on Twitter. I've trolled the troll enough now, you can carry on berating folks for not sharing your opinion now, although we both know this is because I called you out a few days back for being rude to someone after having a bad day