Force India VJM02

[i70q7m7ghw]

I'm not including the airbox in this, and the splitter has a different profile - I never said the cars were identical, but I feel McLaren strongly influenced the design. Maybe even to the point where they handed over some basic designs and said "This is where we think you should start".

Ps- and I said dimensions, not every single detail. By dimensions I meant the height of the nose, length of the nose, suspension mount points etc. etc.

[xpensive]

I do have a vague idea about composite properties, but the question is how you could give such a dead-certain verdict that the monocoques in question had "completely different lay-ups which define completely different torsional properties" just from a couple of pictures?

Please give a plausible explanation to that and I promise to read your PhD paper end to end.

[Conceptual]

I see no difference between the McLaren Chassis and the FIF1 chassis at all. What I do see is that the aero surfaces are different, but that does NOT mean that the chassis are not identical.

As was stated earlier, no one can say for sure (except maybe Scarbs) one way or the other about what is under the skin, but logically, if the McMerc engine/gearbox demanded rear suspension changes, and thus led to front suspension changes, I have to wonder if the load paths through the chassis had to be re-aligned to make these new suspension pieces work correctly as well...

And when you get to that question, the logical answer is that FIF1 would run the McLaren chassis if they had to change to the McLaren suspension. From what I have read about suspension design, is that everything is intertwined for performance. There is NO WAY that anyone could bolt on someone elses suspension members and expect a high level of performance due to the conflicts that may happen between the non-synergized parts. IE: If FIF1 runs McLaren suspension and their own chassis, I highly doubt that the car will do any better than last year, because all other competitors are operating at a high level of synergy, so to compete, you must also have the same level or more.

VJM was very clear about using his billions to buy a better package. I cannot see him buying the drivetrain/suspension, and hoping that his chassis would synergize with them. He would buy the McLaren chassis as well, simply to guarantee a competitive package.

We will see if there is any co-development between the Mclaren and FIF1 teams this year... It would be the best way to reduce costs to be honest, and I think that is exactly what this deal was all about. More bang for VJ's buck!

Obviously, if Scarbs or someone else that is inside can provide proof that they are NOT identical chassis, I would be more than happy to change my mind. But edvidence that is based off of pictures and illogical for performance reasons is not enough to get me to believe that they are not the same. There are simply too many similarities and reasons why it would be identical to simply throw them away due to a message board proclaimation by an amrchair enthusiast.

But, as always, the proof, either way, will settle this, and I pray that a solid answer is forthcoming!

[donskar]

Excellent post, conceptual. Nice to see some thoughtfulness rather than, "I'm right because I am!"

Short of seeing two naked chassis side-by-side I don't see how we settle this.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I see no difference between the McLaren Chassis and the FIF1 chassis at all. What I do see is that the aero surfaces are different, but that does NOT mean that the chassis are not identical.

As was stated earlier, no one can say for sure (except maybe Scarbs) one way or the other about what is under the skin, but logically, if the McMerc engine/gearbox demanded rear suspension changes, and thus led to front suspension changes, I have to wonder if the load paths through the chassis had to be re-aligned to make these new suspension pieces work correctly as well...

And when you get to that question, the logical answer is that FIF1 would run the McLaren chassis if they had to change to the McLaren suspension. From what I have read about suspension design, is that everything is intertwined for performance. There is NO WAY that anyone could bolt on someone elses suspension members and expect a high level of performance due to the conflicts that may happen between the non-synergized parts. IE: If FIF1 runs McLaren suspension and their own chassis, I highly doubt that the car will do any better than last year, because all other competitors are operating at a high level of synergy, so to compete, you must also have the same level or more.

VJM was very clear about using his billions to buy a better package. I cannot see him buying the drivetrain/suspension, and hoping that his chassis would synergize with them. He would buy the McLaren chassis as well, simply to guarantee a competitive package.

We will see if there is any co-development between the Mclaren and FIF1 teams this year... It would be the best way to reduce costs to be honest, and I think that is exactly what this deal was all about. More bang for VJ's buck!

Obviously, if Scarbs or someone else that is inside can provide proof that they are NOT identical chassis, I would be more than happy to change my mind. But edvidence that is based off of pictures and illogical for performance reasons is not enough to get me to believe that they are not the same. There are simply too many similarities and reasons why it would be identical to simply throw them away due to a message board proclaimation by an amrchair enthusiast.

But, as always, the proof, either way, will settle this, and I pray that a solid answer is forthcoming!

Amen to that brother

[axle]

Obviously, if Scarbs or someone else that is inside can provide proof that they are NOT identical chassis, I would be more than happy to change my mind. But edvidence that is based off of pictures and illogical for performance reasons is not enough to get me to believe that they are not the same. There are simply too many similarities and reasons why it would be identical to simply throw them away due to a message board proclaimation by an amrchair enthusiast.

But, as always, the proof, either way, will settle this, and I pray that a solid answer is forthcoming!

Obviously we can't bring absolute proof to the table, can't begine to explain the legal implications. But I certainly know I'm not lying. Where as you're all guessing, bases on photo's.

Talk to anyone ACTUALLY involved in bringing the car to fruition you'll find out what they had to modify on their finished car to fit the new powertrain at the last minute.

I think you'll find the people that put the effort into building the car would be more than a little upset to find you all dismissing their efforts...well that's if they care about a bunch on keyboard engineers think.

[kilcoo316]

I have to wonder if the load paths through the chassis had to be re-aligned to make these new suspension pieces work correctly as well...

Globally: In cornering it is a torsional load from front to rear throught the chassis. Under braking it is a mix of tension on the front suspension (arms) pick-ups and compression on the rear suspension (arms) pick-ups (note - arms not axles).


There is no load-path "alignment" as such - its a compromise of part weight to stiffness matrices between the separate pick-up points. They don't have to be 'aligned' - the suspension is a hinged unit - there can be no torsional loads applied through the pickups.

Thus the load paths don't have to be identical between FI and McL.

The stiffness matrices don't even have to be equal - it is just whatever risks the teams are prepared to take in rigidity/weight.


Locally: Now - what I think your getting at, is with different suspension geometries, the principal loading direction on the suspension pickups will be different. Now that is a local stress concentration that must be transmitted to the chassis as a whole - and indeed it will mean similar reinforcements exist in similar areas (i.e. the pickup points) on both the FI and McL.

But as I've alluded to - similar =/= identical, or anything like it.



Synery = fancy word - means nothing - everything can be broken down into its constituent parts & relationships and (relatively) simply explained. PR people dunno jack --- about engineering, so use it to hide their lack of knowledge - don't be fooled by them.

[Jon]

Sorry to interrupt this amusing conversation, but I just thought I'd share something.

The onus to prove a point is not in the defendant. In this case, those who have to provide proof are the ones saying that the two cars share the same chassis.

In other words, these statements are plain wrong:

Obviously, if Scarbs or someone else that is inside can provide proof that they are NOT identical chassis, I would be more than happy to change my mind. But edvidence that is based off of pictures and illogical for performance reasons is not enough to get me to believe that they are not the same. There are simply too many similarities and reasons why it would be identical to simply throw them away due to a message board proclaimation by an amrchair enthusiast.

Short of seeing two naked chassis side-by-side I don't see how we settle this.

To recap, if someone thinks that these cars share the same chassis, they are the ones who should be providing proof.

[Conceptual]

Synergy = fancy word - means nothing - everything can be broken down into its constituent parts & relationships and (relatively) simply explained. PR people dunno jack --- about engineering, so use it to hide their lack of knowledge - don't be fooled by them.

Well, I guess that shows which part of the jack that you stand on. Synergy is EVERYTHING when it comes to complete packaging. Constituent parts and relationships are completely dependent upon every part of the car.

Any time that you have an item made up of more than one part, you get either Synergy or Conflict. The level of engineering in F1 is far more advanced than "poke and hope". Oh, and one other thing...

If the McLaren suspension was designed with a specific torsional stiffness of the chassis in mind, it will not work (well) with a chassis that has less, or more. It is tuned to the chassis, so unless FIF1 tuned their chassis to have the exact numbers that the McLaren does, who could hope that it would be competitive?

Only someone that, for whatever reason, can not stand the idea that McLaren sold an entire rolling chassis to FIF1 would continue to argue that they did NOT without any solid proof.

But, as always, spew on. Proclaimations without proof ususally indicate bigotry, and I prefer to state opinion, and wait for confirmation. In the long run, it really helps in reducing the amount of times that I look like a dumb ass.

I suggest that you may want to get a bit more information before making proclaimations.

[Conceptual]

Sorry to interrupt this amusing conversation, but I just thought I'd share something.

The onus to prove a point is not in the defendant. In this case, those who have to provide proof are the ones saying that the two cars share the same chassis.

In other words, these statements are plain wrong:

Obviously, if Scarbs or someone else that is inside can provide proof that they are NOT identical chassis, I would be more than happy to change my mind. But edvidence that is based off of pictures and illogical for performance reasons is not enough to get me to believe that they are not the same. There are simply too many similarities and reasons why it would be identical to simply throw them away due to a message board proclaimation by an amrchair enthusiast.

Short of seeing two naked chassis side-by-side I don't see how we settle this.

To recap, if someone thinks that these cars share the same chassis, they are the ones who should be providing proof.

Why should we provide proof? We are not the ones declaring our opinions as fact.

It is up to the purveyor of FACTS to provide proof. Not the skeptic that refuses to take a message board post as the actual TRUTH.

Please, if you have proof, either way, provide it. Until then, anything that is said on here is pure speculation, regardless of which way you may believe.

[kilcoo316]

Any time that you have an item made up of more than one part, you get either Synergy or Conflict.

No.

You've compromise.

[jddh1]

Synery = fancy word

You say it's a fancy word and I've never heard this word spoken, or seen it on paper/internet pages.
Now, if it's just a spelling error and you mean synergy, then I totally agree with you. Just wondering if Synery is a word though. You are making me question my knowledge of words here.

[Conceptual]

Obviously, if Scarbs or someone else that is inside can provide proof that they are NOT identical chassis, I would be more than happy to change my mind. But edvidence that is based off of pictures and illogical for performance reasons is not enough to get me to believe that they are not the same. There are simply too many similarities and reasons why it would be identical to simply throw them away due to a message board proclaimation by an amrchair enthusiast.

But, as always, the proof, either way, will settle this, and I pray that a solid answer is forthcoming!

Obviously we can't bring absolute proof to the table, can't begine to explain the legal implications. But I certainly know I'm not lying. Where as you're all guessing, bases on photo's.

Talk to anyone ACTUALLY involved in bringing the car to fruition you'll find out what they had to modify on their finished car to fit the new powertrain at the last minute.

I think you'll find the people that put the effort into building the car would be more than a little upset to find you all dismissing their efforts...well that's if they care about a bunch on keyboard engineers think.

Please explain how you know that you are not lying, when you say that you obviously have no proof either way.

I would really like to see how your brain wrapped around that. It must be nice to know that anything that you believe is cold, hard fact. I'm sure that it makes looking in the mirror a much more enjoyable experience.

And, if I may ask, what do you do when these cold, hard facts that you brain instantly spits out are proven to be absolutely wrong? Or does that never, ever happen?

[Conceptual]

Any time that you have an item made up of more than one part, you get either Synergy or Conflict.

No.

You've compromise.

I think compromise comes from in-the-box thinking. Full synergy needs and has no compromise.

Remember, logically, there can only be ONE Perfect. And that perfect has ZERO compromise, because it is perfect.

Compromise means "good enough", I like to look a bit deeper into things however, because I believe in the Perfect.

It is OK if you don't however. I don't mind.

[axle]

Please explain how you know that you are not lying, when you say that you obviously have no proof either way.

I would really like to see how your brain wrapped around that. It must be nice to know that anything that you believe is cold, hard fact. I'm sure that it makes looking in the mirror a much more enjoyable experience.

And, if I may ask, what do you do when these cold, hard facts that you brain instantly spits out are proven to be absolutely wrong? Or does that never, ever happen?

LOL - fine, believe what you want to believe, I've spoken to the actually involved parties. It's enough for me. I'm comfortable in giving credit where it's due.

And seeing as you quoted it in bold, if detailed schematics ended up on the web to give you proof what do you think would happen to the poster?! Stepneygate2...

Like I say I've been to the source, the most knowledgeable person on here Scarbs agrees with me. I'm comfortable. You carry on waving your pitchforks.