Force India VJM02

[kilcoo316]

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?

No, no, no, no, no.

The suspension geometry comes from how the teams want to work the tyre.

The rigidity comes from how much the teams are willing to put up with the added weight for increased stiffness.



Suspension geometries are linked to pick-up point stress concentrations - not necessarily local or even global rigidity.


The McLaren chassis - just like every other car on the grid - is a compromise of rigidity versus weight. The designers make the compromise that they think works best.


In recent years, McLaren has went for a lighter chassis with more flexibility while Ferrari have drove in the other direction. Both have been right to varying degrees with each car better suited to different tracks and track conditions.


In a perfect car - there will be zero local deflection, with the designer having complete control over the degree of chassis twist from front axle to rear axle. In practice, this does not happen.

Even then - they all go different directions with chassis twist as they all seek different compromises of weight:rigidity.

[kilcoo316]

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.

Sorry, yeah - synergy.

[Conceptual]

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.

See, I don't recall you ever stating that you have spoken directly to the team members about this. And where did Scarbs agree with you on this? Because, we may actually be closer to the truth than I believed.

Please link to the place that Scarbs stated that these chassis are in fact NOT the same. It would give much more creedence than "I have no proof, but I know that I'm not lying..." Especially if you were lied to in the first place.

Or is it fact that no-one can lie to you to protect highly controvercial undertakings? It must be GREAT to be you!

[kilcoo316]

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

And with that statement you highlight you really aren't an engineer.


Engineering is one massive set of compromises boyo - you gotta live with it.

[Conceptual]

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.

Sorry, yeah - synergy.

Can you define it in this context please?

[Conceptual]

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

And with that statement you highlight you really aren't an engineer.


Engineering is one massive set of compromises boyo - you gotta live with it.

Until you realize that what has come before is continuously replaced by what will happen yet.

I guess all of those ship builders in the dark ages had to compromise for a flat Earth too.

I wonder if they all sank when they realized that the Earth was round?

[axle]

See, I don't recall you ever stating that you have spoken directly to the team members about this. And where did Scarbs agree with you on this? Because, we may actually be closer to the truth than I believed.

Please link to the place that Scarbs stated that these chassis are in fact NOT the same. It would give much more creedence than "I have no proof, but I know that I'm not lying..." Especially if you were lied to in the first place.

Or is it fact that no-one can lie to you to protect highly controvercial undertakings? It must be GREAT to be you!

Read the whole thread again - slowly...

What is so highly controversial about FI making their OWN car? They only inked a deal with McLaren 9months after starting their 2009 car...

[kilcoo316]

Until you realize that what has come before is continuously replaced by what will happen yet.

I guess all of those ship builders in the dark ages had to compromise for a flat Earth too.

I wonder if they all sank when they realized that the Earth was round?

WHAT?!?!?


Right - tell me this...

Why do F1 cars have wings that can be adjusted in the garage if in your world there is one perfect solution?

[Conceptual]

Read the whole thread again - slowly...

What is so highly controversial about FI making their OWN car? They only inked a deal with McLaren 9months after starting their 2009 car...

After reading Scarbs' autosport writeup:

Behind the new nose cone is what appears to be a completely new monocoque, and not just the old having to be altered to accept the McLaren engine and KERS. This new tub departs from the VJM01, in having a mid-placed steering arm, the link now sits between the upper and lower wishbones to aid aerodynamic performance. While the chassis is much higher at the dashboard bulkhead, creating more space under the nose. Lastly the roll structure gains two vertical supports. Coincidentally many of the design features are also seen on the new McLaren Mercedes.

I don't see anywhere in that article where Scarbs comes to the conclusion that this is NOT a direct McLaren clone.

So, maybe YOU need to read it a bit slower? Your ego seems to add words in between the sentences that really aren't there...

[Conceptual]

Until you realize that what has come before is continuously replaced by what will happen yet.

I guess all of those ship builders in the dark ages had to compromise for a flat Earth too.

I wonder if they all sank when they realized that the Earth was round?

WHAT?!?!?


Right - tell me this...

Why do F1 cars have wings that can be adjusted in the garage if in your world there is one perfect solution?

Because, Mr. Engineer, the solution would change with venue, weather conditions, and how much balls your driver has. When the equasion or target changes, so would the solution.

[axle]

The VJM02 is definitely not a McLaren chassis, whilst clearly taking some cues from recent McLarens its lines are not identical in any respect.
Take the line from under the raised chassis back towards the splitter, this is different and a structural part. Thus a key sign the tubs are different.
Also, McLaren use steeply inclined front torsion bars accessed through the top of the tub, the FI torsion bars are nearer horizontal and accessed through the front bulkhead.

I said read the THREAD again, NoConcept.

[kilcoo316]

Because, Mr. Engineer, the solution would change with venue, weather conditions, and how much balls your driver has. When the equasion or target changes, so would the solution.

So with changing venues there are there compromises made between top speed and aerodynamic grip?


Bear in mind car wheelbase and aerodynamic grip are related.

Now - that mean the designer's choices at the start of the year will result in different compromises between drag and downforce as the cars go through the season.

[CMSMJ1]

The VJM02 is definitely not a McLaren chassis, whilst clearly taking some cues from recent McLarens its lines are not identical in any respect.
Take the line from under the raised chassis back towards the splitter, this is different and a structural part. Thus a key sign the tubs are different.
Also, McLaren use steeply inclined front torsion bars accessed through the top of the tub, the FI torsion bars are nearer horizontal and accessed through the front bulkhead.

I said read the THREAD again, NoConcept.

Now now.. I was going to stick my neutral head on here and point this post out ot the doubters but you got there first Axle

I cannot figure why everyone seems ot want to convince themselves that it must be a copy. NO other option is right, whichever way we look at it..a copy or nowt.

What did people think about the Sauber "copy" of the F2003? It looked like it, even more thant he FI looks like the new McLaren, but it was deemed not to e a copy.

Put your pitchforks down guys and let's not be to disrespectful of each other on here - we are all here for the same thing and of late there has been too much poking in the eye rather than a friendly nudge on the arm.

[Conceptual]

The VJM02 is definitely not a McLaren chassis, whilst clearly taking some cues from recent McLarens its lines are not identical in any respect.
Take the line from under the raised chassis back towards the splitter, this is different and a structural part. Thus a key sign the tubs are different.
Also, McLaren use steeply inclined front torsion bars accessed through the top of the tub, the FI torsion bars are nearer horizontal and accessed through the front bulkhead.

I said read the THREAD again, NoConcept.

See, now you are being insulting NoAxle...

When I did a search for "Scarbs" in the thread, all I found was your link to his autosport article, not a single post by him.

And even with these discrepencies, it may be modifications done to seperate the IP for legal reasons. I do not know for sure, and I can safely say that neither do you. Unless you work in the FIF1 factory, it is all still speculation... Even by Scarbs.

I guess the kicker is at the end of the day, I do not care either way. I just have a problem with people posting their "gut feelings" or "measured photographs" as the end-all-be-all truth, as you have done several times in this thread.

The VJM02 looks good, regardless of where the parts came from, and I don't know that the exact amount of collaboration between McLaren-Mercedes and FIF1 will ever be fully known to the public, so I'm done arguing about it, especially with fanbois.

Thanks for the info guys! It has been fun!

[Conceptual]

Because, Mr. Engineer, the solution would change with venue, weather conditions, and how much balls your driver has. When the equasion or target changes, so would the solution.

So with changing venues there are there compromises made between top speed and aerodynamic grip?


Bear in mind car wheelbase and aerodynamic grip are related.

Now - that mean the designer's choices at the start of the year will result in different compromises between drag and downforce as the cars go through the season.

Those are compromises to the rulebook, not necessarily to the can and cannot of design and engineering.

It is OK, because I understand what you are saying, I simply do not agree.

In a world of billions and billions of possibille solutions, only one will eventually stand triumphant over all others. That is my definition of perfect as applied to racing, and you don't have to agree with it.

I am comfortable with it, and I am sincerely sorry if you are not.

It must suck, however, to believe that there is no perfect solution in engineering. Maybe that is why BMW changed their slogan from "The relentless pursuit of Perfection"? They found that it is an engineering oxymoron?


Thanks!