How far behind is McLaren ? | Page 30 | FerrariChat

How far behind is McLaren ?

Discussion in 'F1' started by william, Mar 21, 2015.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #726 Fast_ian, Jul 7, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2015
    Check out post #720 above..... ;) "It's easy!"

    Seriously, yes there is, and again I'm a dinosaur from the days of two guys per car & no radios - So what do I know?....

    But, at the end of the day, it's still a pretty "basic" piece of engineering. Getting the thing started needs many computers & their jockeys, but, once started, it should still go round the track even if all the sensors & telemetry fail. "It's just a car" after all. ;)

    Now, finding that elusive last second is hard - but it's always been that way.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  2. singletrack

    singletrack F1 Veteran

    Mar 16, 2011
    5,767
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Supposedly it still is and that is actually a reason they went with a V6 vs I4 in 2014. Source:

    Team bosses agree on 1.6l V6 for 2014 - F1technical.net

    The others mentioned all are, but I've only driven modified formula fords.

    A proper instructor or designer could explain this much better I'm sure, but I'll take a stab. I'll look forward to you correcting me if I'm wrong too! : )

    In addition to the engine being stressed, the suspension is also bolted to the engine and transmission, which is all now part of the chassis. So if you accelerate, it directly changes the load on the rear suspension and increases grip on the rear tires as load is transferred. Obviously, even in a GT car, acceleration transfers weight to the rear of the car. However, in a GT car, the suspension is fully independent of the engine - even when it is mid or rear engined. The result is that you can better stabilize a formula car with throttle inputs, and really brake inputs also, as these directly translate not only to weight shift in the car, but the way that weight loads the tires. Furthermore, engine braking (off throttle) in a formula car can dramatically unload the rear suspension due to the direct connection between the engine and the suspension.

    I believe you were in F1 around the same time, but do you know Divina Galica? She drove for Surtees in the late 70s. I was just rapping with her about GT vs formula cars a couple months ago. She described it in much simpler terms, and with a great accent ; ), by saying - "when you give a formula car some throttle in the turn it will stabilize the car; when you do it in a GT car, it wants to spin. This was a tough transition for me because I have spent most of my time in formula cars."

    So translating all that to some examples applicable to McLaren (absent any real understanding of aero - just talking mechanical grip). Turn in at 150 and give it some maintenance throttle to stabilize the car and balance the weight and you get no gas because the mapping sucks or the engine is not responsive - now the rear end is light because too much weight is forward - front tires have too much grip, rear is light - oversteer and big corrections with steering to save it...hopefully. Give it some throttle and get too much power and now you are transferring weight back there, compressing the suspension, but losing traction because you have too much gas and are spinning the tires - same effect of oversteer as you lose the rear end. Trail brake a turn and the engine is braking too hard because the off-throttle mapping sucks and now, again, weight is too far forward and the rear is unloaded or might even brake loose instantly. Now throw in aero and it gets even scarier - don't carry enough speed and the car will understeer. So I can see how a poor engine mapping, or inconsistent engine could lead to total inconsistency lap to lap and some really terrifying moments as Button described. Basically, this is much more dramatic than in a GT car where the rigidity of the chassis, and response to brake and throttle inputs is not as direct as in a formula car where those components are actually connected to the engine - at least in the rear. There is no way to test the rigidity of a formula car sans the engine, because literally half the car would be missing. In a GT car you can be off the throttle and brake and still be in shape mid-turn, in a formula car you are taught to always be on gas or brake - always; never coast.

    Now someone can clean all this up, but those are the broad strokes as I understand them based on my very limited experience : )
     
  3. singletrack

    singletrack F1 Veteran

    Mar 16, 2011
    5,767
    Pittsburgh, PA
    No doubt!

    ...and I'm just trying to contribute in general terms which I think are applicable. I hope that is clear. No armchair expert here ; )
     
  4. Igor Ound

    Igor Ound F1 Veteran

    Sep 30, 2012
    8,102
    The Horn
    Full Name:
    Igor Ound
    Recent mclarens have always been very stiff and bouncy, especially at the front
     
  5. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    I have no real love for EJ the man (did like his team), but he's right a surprising amount of time for a man so hellbend on sacking everyone in sight (rarely a good solution). Ron makes a (rare) funny but EJ has a point...

    No idea, I honestly can't remember. Mclaren's races are so short it's easier calling it a session/stint IMO! :eek:
     
  6. furmano

    furmano Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jul 22, 2004
    31,913
    Colorado
    Full Name:
    Furman
    How far behind is McLaren? They are pretty much all the way behind.

    They are even getting out qualified, passed, and out scored by back marker teams. Can't get much worse.

    -F
     
  7. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    "Correcting" may be a little strong! ;) I just think it's an interesting debate. Someone with much more up to date knowledge may jump in, but in the meantime, let's just roll with it.....

    It's certainly "easier" to make a V6 stressed than an I4; just the shape of the things suggests (empirically) a "better" layout to me.

    I can't remember now, was the BMW I4 turbo stressed?

    All good points, and very true. However, I don't think this behavior is due to the lump being a stressed member - The car would behave the same if it were solidly mounted in a "traditional" cradle with the suspension mounted to that. [As we used to do in the days of Toyota powered F3 cars for example.]

    For the historians; was the DFV the first stressed F1 lump? I do know that if pushed we could change those in about 30 minutes; Undo the front (of the rear!) suspension mounts, the linkage & pull the 'box & suspension off - With wheels on roll that whole mess out of the way. Disconnect the plumbing and wiring (don't forget the throttle cable! :eek:), 4 bolts from the back of the tub and off she comes. Much easier than pulling it from a cradle.

    Cool! Not a bad jockey at all IIRC. Usual BS about her only being there because she's a girl, blah, blah, but she certainly had balls! [Ex olympic skier IIRC?]

    Ahh.... Can't comment on the accent, ;), but she makes sense. However, again, I don't think that's due to it being stressed per-se, but rather that it's "solidly" mounted - No torque based "twisting" when revving a "formula car". [Well, the forces are obviously there, but no flexible mounts to absorb it by allowing the whole thing to twist & float.]

    I guess we can think of (most?) GT cars engines & boxes being mounted in a bowl of porridge - They're indeed "independent" of the suspension. But again, it doesn't have to be that way; If solidly mounted, stressed or not, I think we'd see the same behavior.

    And yes, I "met" her in the paddock/pits a few times, but I was just a grease monkey! ;)

    Again, all makes sense. Certainly weight transfer, or at least reduction thereof, is one of the big keys - Hence the success of active suspension where the 'puters kept all the corners "aligned". In the perfect (engineering?) world there'd be no weight transfer - messes things up it does! ;)

    But again, I don't believe it's anything inherent in stressed versus cradle mounting.

    Would love for someone to come along and set us straight!......

    Again, I don't claim to know, just my "gut instinct". ;)

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  8. singletrack

    singletrack F1 Veteran

    Mar 16, 2011
    5,767
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Concur - I find it fascinating as well!

    I had no idea actually; never even processed the thought before recently! Ha!

    I had no idea, so I searched for you. I think it was based on various wikis. It was used in an Arrows chassis and Brabham car correct? That is the one you are referring to?

    Sidebar - got me thinking - who was first in F1? Supposedly Ferrari had the engine as a stressed member in the Ferrari 158 in 1964.

    I think that is the key point - solidly mounted as you state, not necessarily that it is part of the chassis. Although having the suspension so directly mounted seems to make the energy transfer so much more direct - just logically to me. Versus say having that energy travel through a large unibody car. On an interesting sidenote, some GT cars do have the same setup of course. For example the Ferrari F50 has the engine as a stressed member of the chassis/tub.

    See above, I believe it is the Ferrari 158 based on some searching, but the internet is hardly a definitive source.

    Yah - amazing story. She also raced...wait for it...semi-trucks in Europe! LOL. She told me a little bit about some of the crap she took, but she said *most* of the guys were very cool and supportive. She also said F1 was much more laid back and like a family back then. I think maybe my favorite story is how they use to see if you had talent back then: "There's the car Divi, there's the race track, go see how fast you can go". Literally, no training or anything. Insane. Turns out she was fast...and didn't kill herself.

    She's in her 80s now and I hear from some of the other constructors that she is still fast as hell. She also is responsible for building iracing into what it is today...she basically signed all the tracks and manufacturers. Including my favorite car to drive in there - the Williams FW31! : O Interesting sidenote, the McLaren F1 car of this year is going to be in iracing also...once it is stable-ish I imagine ; )

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divina_Galica

    Totally. After I wrote this last night I was thinking more about it and that makes sense to me at least.

    Literally porridge! For example, my e92 M3 uses liquid filled engine mounts to reduce the vibration, etc. This of course introduces significant play. On the other hand, they will go to hardened rubber, Delrin, or something much stiffer (As rules allow of course!) in the various series when it is a dedicated race car. This is of course a slippery slope as that energy has to go somewhere on a chassis which may not be designed to take it. So they end up reinforcing parts of the subframe (or even unitizing it), chassis, etc.

    ...and she is super cool. Her feedback can hurt a bit haha, but she will make you faster for sure if you are capable.

    Yah man! Eventhough that type of suspension is now banned, I understand that the drivers are sometimes adjusting things like brake bias corner to corner on certain circuits. That is mind-blowing to me and jives with what Alonso and Sainz Jr. have said about all the adjustments you have to make to the car in realtime.

    Although sometimes that weight transfer is deliberate to point the car. But it gets more complicated with slicks and aero and I don't pretend to understand the dynamics of driving those cars. I hope to one day. But on the basic formula cars I've driven, you will sometimes intentionally upset the car to get it pointed or get out of trouble. So that weight transfer is still important, it's just that the computers were doing it for them. If you have traction control + active suspension, it really is almost like you can keep the car floored and just steer. Which I think is why it was banned.

    I love that one quote from Andretti on the topic:

    It is amazing how many drivers, even at the formula one level, think that the brakes are for slowing the car down.” -Mario Andretti

    ; )

    Yah I don't think so either now that we talk it through. I think it is as you say - more related to it being solidly mounted. I think I am also confusing two issues right - which goes back to Vizsla's point. I don't see how you can necessarily judge the chassis separate from the engine today, or since the late 60s really. Things like engine size, accessory layout, weight distribution in the engine are all really part of the chassis design. The Merc engine is extremely compact and they are able to make the rear of the car quite narrow for example, while the Ferrari is much wider in the back. You can't just pop one engine out and drop another in.

    Haha! No I think you are right...but as they say, you don't know what you don't know ; )
     
  9. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Remember the main difference between the Ferrari F2014 and F2015 is how the power is delivered, ie. smoothness of torque curve.

    Now super-overly-sensitive-worlds laziest driver Kimi likes the current Ferrari. Ferrari spent all of 2014 trying to make the F2014 work and it remained "Clifford" for the whole year and took a considerably harder-trying-working driver of Alonso to get results from it.

    I suspect that the Honda PU comes on like a switch with nothing before, meaning there is little you can do with chassis setup to make it work or be consistent. Image 800 hp/x Nm all of a sudden from 50 hp/20 Nm milli-seconds earlier.

    I club raced an Alfa Sud for too many seasons that had a flat spot in it's power curve, that looking back took us too long to sort out. It was extremely difficult to drive. It would accelerate like a quick Toyota Corolla until 5000 rpm and then it felt like you hit a brick wall until about 6500 rpm and then all of a sudden you had everything hard and you were off extremely quickly until 8000-8500 rpm. It was hilarious on the road because you would be half way passed somebody and out of the side of your eye you would draw level with them and then it would sort itself out and they just disappeared. In wet races it was a nightmare and used to wheel spin at over 100mph in 4th gear ... I would finish races drenched in sweat. That car weighed 800kg's and was a tame pathetic little club thing compared to an all up 600kg 800 hp monster!!!!!!!!

    So I'm still blaming Honda. It appears to me they have built a modern equivalent of the BRM v16, awesome potential but they have forgotten about driveability!, as we had ... we did sort out our issue by reducing the exhaust primary size, but by then I hated the car.
    Pete
     
  10. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    BTW: The first (semi) stressed engine was the Lancia D50, but technically speaking the first ever racing car had a stressed engine as they were all solidly mounted, but the chassis' was a piece of spaghetti as that was the thinking then, ie. super stiff springs and flexible chassis.

    But the Lancia D50 was designed so the engine increased the rigidity of the chassis so really is the first where the engine was used as part of the chassis in the modern concept.
    Pete
     
  11. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    OK, I'll go with that, thanks.....

    However, for clarity, and as I'm sure you know, "solidly mounted" & "stressed" are very different things.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  12. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    Yep - Later rebadged as a "Megatron" for reasons beyond me.....

    Probably most successful in the Brabham BT52. Wiki notes that car had a "carbon fibre monocoque with a subframe".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT52

    As you noted, the interweb (;)) isn't necessarily the most reliable source, but that suggests it wasn't stressed.

    Quite the girl! :)

    Spot on it being more of a "family" back then too; Many stories of teams "loaning" DFV's and Hewlands to competitors.

    I had no idea she was involved with iracing - Very cool.

    Why anyone would want to drive this years McLaren is left as an exercise for the reader! :eek: ;)

    Indeed.

    A "buddy" had a machine shop and made a good living for a while making suspension bushes out of Delrin for the touring car guys; They weren't allowed to alter pick up points and hence geometry, but they figured out replacing the (huge!) rubber bushes with Delrin gave not just more rigidity but also allowed them to tweak the geometry without changing the mounts.

    And then they'd whine about the chassis cracking where the loads were fed in to it. ;)

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  13. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    True. With the D50 the chassis bolted to the heads and this formed the top of the chassis. So semi-stressed :)
    Pete
     
  14. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    It seems to me that the first stressed engine was the Ford Cosworth DFV.
    That was a requirement of Chapman when Walter Hayes asked him what type of engine he needed.
    In the Lotus (and later other cars), bolted to the rear bulkhead behind the cockpit, the DFV was hodling the gearbox and the rear suspension. If you removed the engine, the car couldn't stay on 4 wheels.

    In the Lancia D50, the engine was used to replace the top chassis tube,but the car would stay in one piece with the engine removed.

    To have a stressed engine, you need a very short block, preferably in V configuration, although BRM tried it with their H16 engine too.
     
  15. singletrack

    singletrack F1 Veteran

    Mar 16, 2011
    5,767
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Hahaha! Yah, reminds me of people on the BMW boards doing big modifications to the suspensions on the E46 and E92 chassis, then literally ripping their chassis apart. Then of course coming on the internet to complain about BMW's subframe design. LOL! Gotta love the internet.
     
  16. singletrack

    singletrack F1 Veteran

    Mar 16, 2011
    5,767
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Great convo...thanks for the knowledge gents.
     
  17. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Fair point, but the term stressed engine means the engine takes the twisting forces of cornering. With the Lancia the engine took some of that twisting force, while the DFV took all, so both were stressed.

    BTW I believe the DFV blocks required truing after some races but I have no reference link.
    Pete
     

Share This Page