[ 2020 ] Mclaren F1 Team - Renault

[M840TR]

I think the board of Daimler is very picky...much like the MB-McL split in 2010 was forcibly initiated because of Spygate and the board's unwillingness to work with Mclaren after that (along with roadcar competition), this could be something Toto is telling Williams/McL to do to avoid political risk in the future. In any case, it is very clear where McL and Williams stand on this issue and the protest is still going ahead with other teams.

Just thought. Do we know about Williams protest? Which side of the fence were they? Against the 'poor' result of Renaults protest, or as RP, coming down on the 'unfair penalty' side?
Williams use the rear and some other parts of Merc and may have been intending to take more next year, which they now probably cannot unless the ruling is reversed.

Anyone sure of this? can not recall hearing either way

Claire Williams explicitly said they were against copying.

I’m not sure which parts you’re referring to as they design pretty much the whole car. That also includes the transmission and rear suspension which constitute the bulk of the rear end.

[diffuser]

I'm incredibly disappointed with McLaren. They should have pursued this further and they chickened down.

I hate what RP did but they bought the plans from Merc and they're aren't any rules stating how different the parts should be from the original design or even that they have to be different. So although I am happy that Ferrari and Renault are appealing, I don't understand the basis of the appeal.

[Ground Effect]

I'm incredibly disappointed with McLaren. They should have pursued this further and they chickened down.

I hate what RP did but they bought the plans from Merc and they're aren't any rules stating how different the parts should be from the original design or even that they have to be different. So although I am happy that Ferrari and Renault are appealing, I don't understand the basis of the appeal.

They’re appealing the leniency of the punishment and also, if they were in breach of usage of the rear brake ducts, why are they still allowed to use it? In my opinion, that’s why they’re appealing. But it would be pointless to tell them to redesign, they’ll come up with the same design.

[_cerber1]

New wind tunnel no earlier than 2022.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mc ... o/4855077/

[genarro]

New wind tunnel no earlier than 2022.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mc ... o/4855077/

This just means that it shouldnt affect our developement path. One year delay on the wind tunnel and a one year delay on the new regs.

[haza]

New wind tunnel no earlier than 2022.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mc ... o/4855077/

Guessing Mcl37/36 be the First car designed from the new Wind tunnel

[M840TR]

New wind tunnel no earlier than 2022.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mc ... o/4855077/

Guessing Mcl37/36 be the First car designed from the new Wind tunnel

More like Mcl38.

[diffuser]

I'm incredibly disappointed with McLaren. They should have pursued this further and they chickened down.

I hate what RP did but they bought the plans from Merc and they're aren't any rules stating how different the parts should be from the original design or even that they have to be different. So although I am happy that Ferrari and Renault are appealing, I don't understand the basis of the appeal.

They’re appealing the leniency of the punishment and also, if they were in breach of usage of the rear brake ducts, why are they still allowed to use it? In my opinion, that’s why they’re appealing. But it would be pointless to tell them to redesign, they’ll come up with the same design.

If you really think about this WHOLE copying thing. The only reason why copying made sense to RP is that the 2019 Merc was so far ahead of most cars and more specifically RP. There was no way that any RP design could have made up the almost 2.5 seconds a lap they were down at the 2019 Spanish GP in the off season. If all the cars were < than 1 second apart(From first to last), it wouldn't be worth copying. I think It all comes down to the HUGE descrempancy in the budgets that will be going away this year. So I think this will all be a moot point after this year. I do beleive the regs still need the clarification.

[haza]

New wind tunnel no earlier than 2022.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mc ... o/4855077/

Guessing Mcl37/36 be the First car designed from the new Wind tunnel

More like Mcl38.

If they are using the same chassis with different PU surely it’d be dubbed MCL35-B for next year

[diffuser]

Guessing Mcl37/36 be the First car designed from the new Wind tunnel

More like Mcl38.

l

If they are using the same chassis with different PU surely it’d be dubbed MCL35-B for next year

Except that they can't fit a Merc PU in this chassis as is.
We've talked this to death but the Merc has the turbo in front of the PU.
So transmission will be shorter. Probably a redesign of the fuel cell. The weight balance of the car will have to be re-examined. They still have a rear mechanical grip issue.

[SmallSoldier]

I'm incredibly disappointed with McLaren. They should have pursued this further and they chickened down.

I hate what RP did but they bought the plans from Merc and they're aren't any rules stating how different the parts should be from the original design or even that they have to be different. So although I am happy that Ferrari and Renault are appealing, I don't understand the basis of the appeal.

They’re appealing the leniency of the punishment and also, if they were in breach of usage of the rear brake ducts, why are they still allowed to use it? In my opinion, that’s why they’re appealing. But it would be pointless to tell them to redesign, they’ll come up with the same design.

That’s the one argument that I don’t buy... That they will come up with the same design... If the design wasn’t theirs to begin with and this season it isn’t allowed... They need to come up with a different design, that simple... Modify it until it isn’t considered a Mercedes design, will this rob them of performance? Probably, but if the rule is clear, they have to comply.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SmallSoldier]

More like Mcl38.

l

If they are using the same chassis with different PU surely it’d be dubbed MCL35-B for next year

Except that they can't fit a Merc PU in this chassis as is.
We've talked this to death but the Merc has the turbo in front of the PU.
So transmission will be shorter. Probably a redesign of the fuel cell. The weight balance of the car will have to be re-examined. They still have a rear mechanical grip issue.

Or they could have a rear mechanical grip improvement? Yes, the change will have an impact on the car, but whether it will be a positive impact or negative, we just don’t know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[McG]

I'm incredibly disappointed with McLaren. They should have pursued this further and they chickened down.

We can thank Toto. I’m sure there’s something it for them, and Williams... and the cherry on top is the case goes ahead anyway, so nothing changes! Especially as chances are, Ferrari International Assistance will of course come to the rescue of struggling Ferrari who is pressing ahead

[martinbeiker]

Article about the cooling problems Carlos' car experienced at Silverstone: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ques ... z/4855452/

[Big Tea]

I'm incredibly disappointed with McLaren. They should have pursued this further and they chickened down.

We can thank Toto. I’m sure there’s something it for them, and Williams... and the cherry on top is the case goes ahead anyway, so nothing changes! Especially as chances are, Ferrari International Assistance will of course come to the rescue of struggling Ferrari who is pressing ahead

You cannot spend kudos, and it costs a lot too.