A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Phillyred wrote:I guess my point is McLaren needs to work on some other fundamental areas of the car to gain some more "points" of aero, because those Red Bulls have a solid platform and if they add a similar f-duct device, watch out.. It would be interesting to even compare the pace of last year's RB to this year's McLaren.. I'm guessing the McLaren should be faster, but....
On the point that last years redbull is just as quick as the 25!? Malaysia 09 RB best qualy lap was 1.34.3 This year best dry running time for mp4-25 was 1.33.5 in sat practice im sure that would have been a bit quicker when going all out if qualy wasnt wet.
You haven't taken into account that Red Bull back then didn't have a double diffuser whereas McLaren at the moment have a much more advanced diffuser implemented into their design.
How could I? We have only had 3 races this year. RB only got a full DDD at silverstone and we still cant compare it then as the layout will be different.
table code isn't working or I messed up, so I made a list instead. not as elegant but should do the trick. Lets try to get a rough relative quantification of the cars' strengths.
raymondu999 wrote:I'd say the Red Bull is also very high on the slow corner list. But definitely not high on the tyre conservation list.
they suffer from pacecar laps and outlaps were they seem to have problems bringing up their pressures .this indicates they are indeed working the tyres harder than others and have to compensate with lower cold pressure to avoid overinflation and grip loss?
Pup wrote:I've noticed that the McLaren is relatively silver when compared to the Ferrari.
Sorry, but this is stupid. I know engineers and engineer wannabe's tend to be AR about things, but jeez, this thread.
It's OK if someone mentions the Red Bull in the McLaren thread. Really, it is.
+1
The intention was to remove some of the squabbling that was going on in the MP4-25 thread. Not sure it's helped but at least the mods can move stuff somewhere else (i.e. here) rather than just delete stuff if they so wish.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
It should be obvious really. I'll have a go at the top five, thus far:
1. Red Bull: Lots of cornering speed in all types of corners, excellent downforce in medium and high speed corners, excellent mechanical grip in slow corners, good traction but lacking straight line speed and worryingly clapped it's tyres out quickly in China despite looking fast initially when they were fresh. Setup issue? We'll see. They also seemed to have a paradox where they couldn't get their tyres up to pressure and temperature after pace car starts. Reliability - we'll see what drops out in the next three races as to whether they're on top of quality control.
Given the straight line speed of the Renault, you can't blame the engine for the lack of straight line speed either. I am also distrustful of their relationship with Renault. Renault have got it in the neck a few times from Red Bull when I don't think it's been justified, and no, I don't believe that if they had Mercedes engines then they'd be over the horizon as they say. 30 or 40 horsepower down on the Mercedes Christian? Not a chance.
Yes really, Red Bull have a few problems to solve even though I think we'll see the best of them at European tracks in normal dry conditions.
2. Ferrari: Good downforce, good cornering speed and seems to preserve its tyres well but their qualifying pace is not yet there, they're not as fast in races as they seemed in winter testing and their fuel consumption and engines are a worry. They're thirsty, having to turn down their engine revs to conserve fuel, possibly having to carry more fuel at the race start and they appear to be running rather hot. Reliability engine-wise is an issue.
3. McLaren: Excellent straight line speed and the system they have has given them a sizeable advantage to the tune of a handful of tenths in the races we've had (and yes, the grapevine says that's what it has given them). Cornering speed, downforce and mechanical grip, particularly in slow corners, isn't there, certainly in dry conditions and it's losing them what they're gaining on the straights.
I'm very distrustful of the bulbous nature of that rear end and have been since the car's launch. The duct system that that compromise is for has given them an advantage in many races so far, but I question what it's costing them in packaging and stability versus the Ferrari and Red Bull.
4. Mercedes: Puzzling, in a word. They don't look as bad as many thought, but the car simply appears to be average in just about every area, even in Rosberg's hands. Nothing you can say.
5. Renault: Brilliant job really. They've had question marks over the team's existence, but the developments they've managed to get on that car have been pretty impressive. They're still not where the top four are though.
update: feel free to comment or copy-paste and change.
slow corners
Red Bull
Ferrari
fast corners
Red Bull
Ferrari, others
McLaren
straight line speed F-duct for McLaren, Renault seems to have high top speeds. Sauber is running f-duct as well.
McLaren
Sauber? Renault? Ferrari?
red bull
overall tyre conservation Red bull is working the tyres harder so they last shorter when driven in anger. Petrov showed how easy the Renault is on its tyres in the closing stages of the Chinese GP.
Renault, Ferrari
McLaren, others?
Red Bull
hot weather ability Ferrari is having some cooling issues? Williams seemed to have a lot of cooling holes as well.
Ferrari, Williams?
cool weather ability
bumpy surface/kerbs jury is still not out on this one.
reliability Ferrari has a lot of engine failures, Red Bull seems to have had some Newey related troubles .
McLaren
Red Bull, Ferrari
qualifying Red bull has been dominating qualifying, unsure how much the suspension clarification has diminished that advantage.
I think the most difficult positions to sort out are 7, 8 and 9.
On speed alone Virgin was better than Lotus
one could argue that you should only count the quicker of the two cars of each team as side effect -like car not suited to driving style ,unlucky weekends etc
mask the true potential possibly.
also we have to consider that the the balance will change as updates and new developments are introduced and certainly the ranking of the cars is depending on track and even climatic conditions.
maybe a rankingh from race to race would be better and plotting a graph over the year helping to see how outright speed developped.
How about the fundamental balance of the cars? The W01 seems understeery, and Lucy (Hamilton) has said the '25 is understeer understeer understeer. RB6 and F10 look balanced? And the RB6 just seems so stable and settled no matter what.
Im following this on my data sheets for 2010, and the results for speed are as follows:
Red Bull-Renault
McLaren-Mercedes
Scuderia Ferrari
Mercedes GP
Renault F1
STR-Ferarri
Williams Cosworth
Force India-Mercedes
BMW Sauber-Ferrari
Lotus Cosworth
Virgin Cosworth
Hispania-Cosworth
However, when relyability comes in, its a little like this:
McLaren-Mercedes
Renault F1
Mercedes GP
Scuderia Ferrari
Red Bull-Renault
Williams F1
Lotus Cosworth
Hispania-Cosworth
Force India-Mercedes
STR-Ferarri
BMW Sauber-Ferrari
Virgin Cosworth
On the subject of riding the bumps, I noticed that Ferrari (and RedBull to a lesser degree) seemed smother on that first corner bump in China. McLaren cars were much harder.
Although it might be partly contributed to livery -- Ferrari's is not that reflective, so maybe it's only optical illusion.
Anybody took notice of that bump?
.