planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:54 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1927
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/12/r ... -1-season/

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
many people said it at the time, to be fair. It likely contributed to the eventual power struggle and Ron's return. Having a poor car is one thing, but knowing that you have a better one in the wings just compounds the frustration


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5551
Location: Michigan, USA
Well, he's right, obviously. But moreover - as highlighted in the article - the part many people found unfathomable was why they ditched the best car on the grid to go chasing a brand new concept right before a huge rule change. That didn't make any sense to me in 2013, and it certainly doesn't now.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 958
I agree it was baffling to me on why they changed concept when there was no rule changes
But could they change after the first race? Are there not rules that you cannot change chasis design after the first race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13736
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:37 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
No legal reason not to, the crash tests hadn't changed and obviously the previous year's car had passed them. Would it really have still been competitive though?

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13736
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.


I think it was the quickest car. Especially at the beginning and end of the season. I think they lost their way with setup in the middle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:54 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.


I think it was the quickest car. Especially at the beginning and end of the season. I think they lost their way with setup in the middle.

Yep very much, however over the course of the season I wouldn't say it was dominant over the Red Bull car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13736
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost


Why would he mention it. It had nothing to do with what he was saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 2000
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.


I think it was the quickest car. Especially at the beginning and end of the season. I think they lost their way with setup in the middle.

Yep very much, however over the course of the season I wouldn't say it was dominant over the Red Bull car.


It's debatable whether it was even quicker than the Red Bull over the season. Any talk of the Mclaren being dominant in 2012 is delusional.

Not taking into account reliability, just pure speed:

AUS - Mclaren
MAL - Mclaren
CHN - Mclaren
BHR - Red Bull
ESP - Mclaren
MON - Red Bull
CND - equal
EUR - Red Bull
GBR - Red Bull
GER - Red Bull
HUN - Mclaren
BEL - Mclaren
ITA - Mclaren
SIN - Mclaren
JPN - Red Bull
KOR - Red Bull
IND - Red Bull
UAE - equal
USA - Red Bull
BRA - Mclaren

9 vs 9. With 2 equals. I guess some people just have a selective memory when it comes to that season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost

I don't quite understand your point. He's saying they should have used the 2012 car in 2013. Where does forgetting why they lost even come into that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3308
I always felt the main reason they did not go back to the 2012 car was because of Jenson Button. The mp4-27 just didn't really suit Button. In fact he's called it his worst Mclaren, if I remember properly. I think had Lewis still been there we would have seen the return of the old car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:33 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost


Why would he mention it. It had nothing to do with what he was saying.

No he wouldn't want to admit that in 2012 they screwed up, rather just say that they had a great car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:36 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
davidheath461 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.


I think it was the quickest car. Especially at the beginning and end of the season. I think they lost their way with setup in the middle.

Yep very much, however over the course of the season I wouldn't say it was dominant over the Red Bull car.


It's debatable whether it was even quicker than the Red Bull over the season. Any talk of the Mclaren being dominant in 2012 is delusional.

Not taking into account reliability, just pure speed:

AUS - Mclaren
MAL - Mclaren
CHN - Mclaren
BHR - Red Bull
ESP - Mclaren
MON - Red Bull
CND - equal
EUR - Red Bull
GBR - Red Bull
GER - Red Bull
HUN - Mclaren
BEL - Mclaren
ITA - Mclaren
SIN - Mclaren
JPN - Red Bull
KOR - Red Bull
IND - Red Bull
UAE - equal
USA - Red Bull
BRA - Mclaren

9 vs 9. With 2 equals. I guess some people just have a selective memory when it comes to that season.

Yeah I had a general impression that it wasn't far off equal between the two cars, unless McLaren are looking to blame the drivers which tends to be their want.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:38 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost

I don't quite understand your point. He's saying they should have used the 2012 car in 2013. Where does forgetting why they lost even come into that?

Well it wasn't a dominant car in the first place and even less so for other reasons, it did however end the season as the fastest car so that part was true.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:41 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
kleefton wrote:
I always felt the main reason they did not go back to the 2012 car was because of Jenson Button. The mp4-27 just didn't really suit Button. In fact he's called it his worst Mclaren, if I remember properly. I think had Lewis still been there we would have seen the return of the old car.

Yeah it was strange that he said that, perhaps influenced in part by how much better Hamilton was than him in 2012, I would say in terms of performance it was better than the 2010 and 2011 cars.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:32 am
Posts: 2303
kleefton wrote:
I always felt the main reason they did not go back to the 2012 car was because of Jenson Button. The mp4-27 just didn't really suit Button. In fact he's called it his worst Mclaren, if I remember properly. I think had Lewis still been there we would have seen the return of the old car.


Would be interesting to know when they seriously pursued the different design for 2013 and when they had a strong idea that Hamilton would be leaving. Maybe if Hamilton had stayed they would have developed the 2012 car.

_________________
"Jean Alesi is using the Maginot Line policy-You shall not pass!"-Murray Walker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1927
I think Button was ok in the end with the 2012 car once they sorted out his rear brake cooling issue which was mistakenly originally diagnosed as setup issues. Remember he won the last race at Brazil having already qualified within a tenth of Hamilton. Sticking with the 2013 car was Whitmarsh's call even though it was patently obvious that the aerodynamics was fundamentally flawed and caused a pitching action in the suspension i.e. 'bucking bronco' as speed varied up and down. I can see now what annoyed Dennis so much to fire him as well as the 2012 development and operational mistakes which clearly denied McLaren the WDC.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Last edited by mas on Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.

Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost

I don't quite understand your point. He's saying they should have used the 2012 car in 2013. Where does forgetting why they lost even come into that?

Well it wasn't a dominant car in the first place and even less so for other reasons, it did however end the season as the fastest car so that part was true.

"Other reasons" would have nothing to do with the car itself, though, which is what Ron was talking about. If you agree that the car ended the season as the fastest then it simply boils down to how much faster a car has to be to be considered dominant, and that's just a question of interpretation. But conveniently forgetting why they lost, unless you feel that it was the car itself that was the issue, makes no sense in the context of the topic of discussion, nor does perceiving themselves to be better than they are. All he's doing is talking about the car and saying that their persistence in pursuing their new design direction, when a) there were no new technical regulations in 2013 and b) the 2012 car was much more competitive, to the extent that it finished the previous year as the best, was a seriously flawed policy. Since I distinctly recall many threads at the time saying exactly that (although a good deal less politely), I'm not entirely sure why he should be criticised for saying this now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:59 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Why? There are plenty of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you have been one of them) who have said that Lewis lost around 120 points through operational errors (not mechanical ones). That would have given McLaren both titles by a comfortable margin. So the car was clearly very good and Ron may have been of the opinion that they would have been unbeatable - and therefore dominant - with "proper" management that year, which is not exactly a stretch if you take the above into account

He doesn't mention any of that though, he conveniently forgets why they lost

I don't quite understand your point. He's saying they should have used the 2012 car in 2013. Where does forgetting why they lost even come into that?

Well it wasn't a dominant car in the first place and even less so for other reasons, it did however end the season as the fastest car so that part was true.

"Other reasons" would have nothing to do with the car itself, though, which is what Ron was talking about. If you agree that the car ended the season as the fastest then it simply boils down to how much faster a car has to be to be considered dominant, and that's just a question of interpretation. But conveniently forgetting why they lost, unless you feel that it was the car itself that was the issue, makes no sense in the context of the topic of discussion, nor does perceiving themselves to be better than they are. All he's doing is talking about the car and saying that their persistence in pursuing their new design direction, when a) there were no new technical regulations in 2013 and b) the 2012 car was much more competitive, to the extent that it finished the previous year as the best, was a seriously flawed policy. Since I distinctly recall many threads at the time saying exactly that (although a good deal less politely), I'm not entirely sure why he should be criticised for saying this now.

I'm criticising his version of dominant, we may consider that the Ferrari of 2006 was a dominant car seeing how it was the fastest car in the second half of the season, so Schumacher lost to Alonso despite having a dominant car, try running that past the Schumacher fans.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13736
pokerman wrote:
I'm criticising his version of dominant, we may consider that the Ferrari of 2006 was a dominant car seeing how it was the fastest car in the second half of the season, so Schumacher lost to Alonso despite having a dominant car, try running that past the Schumacher fans.


Perhaps he feels his lead driver was poorer than Red Bull's? That would certainly explain the dominant statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:13 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm criticising his version of dominant, we may consider that the Ferrari of 2006 was a dominant car seeing how it was the fastest car in the second half of the season, so Schumacher lost to Alonso despite having a dominant car, try running that past the Schumacher fans.


Perhaps he feels his lead driver was poorer than Red Bull's? That would certainly explain the dominant statement.

Yes that tends to be the McLaren way

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:46 pm
Posts: 225
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3185
The 2012 Mclaren and Red Bull did seem close-matched. I always thought Hamilton should have been the more succesful and WDC but for those team/tech-bungled pitstops.

We always talk of cars, but they are actually not just cars, but car-and-driver combined, ie 'packages'. What about the two drivers in 2012, Hamilton and Vettel? Maybe one was faster than the other? That one could have made up for any car speed difference. If so which driver was it? Just saying ;)

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Posts: 2040
Zoue wrote:
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:18 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
POBRatings wrote:
The 2012 Mclaren and Red Bull did seem close-matched. I always thought Hamilton should have been the more succesful and WDC but for those team/tech-bungled pitstops.

We always talk of cars, but they are actually not just cars, but car-and-driver combined, ie 'packages'. What about the two drivers in 2012, Hamilton and Vettel? Maybe one was faster than the other? That one could have made up for any car speed difference. If so which driver was it? Just saying ;)

Well will we ever see Hamilton and Vettei in the same team?

Probably not :(

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:20 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
VDV23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:39 am
Posts: 754
Too little, too late. I heard the guys put the suspension parts on the wrong way!

Still something else to blame on Martin T.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Posts: 2040
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?


Well, based on the 2013's pace, I'd say reverting to the 2012 car was the right decision. From the 2013 McLaren rarely matched the 2012 on qualy pace (I mean comparing qualy times between seasons). So the 2012 might have been extremely close to hitting its development ceiling but the 2013 McLaren never reached the 2012 McLaren. Even if it had greater potential.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
davidheath461 wrote:
USA - Red Bull


How/why? They were neck and neck in qualifying and neck and neck in the race. This should really read "equal".

However I would agree the McLaren was not dominant. That's a silly thing to say.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?

Still with the fact that the 2012 car was better than the 2013 one?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 992
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting that he regards their 2012 car as "dominant".

This is why McLaren continually fall down, they perceive themselves better than what they really are.


I think it was the quickest car. Especially at the beginning and end of the season. I think they lost their way with setup in the middle.


It's questionable.

It wasn't no where near as clear as Merc's dominance this year by far. It was a car capable of winning if done right on the weekend but if you start adding up the issues for McLaren, you have to do the same for RBR. They wouldn't of walked both championships but one thing was sure - they ended the season on a high with a car capable of fighting at the top.

Problem was though they built that car around the Merc engine, utilising straight line speed. To go to an engine which is apparently smaller and less straight line speed. Although I don't see them struggling at the back, what I don't see is a car capable of fighting Merc or even Ferrari.

They gave this season away completely, now the real challenge is next Year. If come the first race they are still off the pace they may have to resort to bringing in the old car but that wouldn't fix their problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:46 pm
Posts: 225
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?

Still with the fact that the 2012 car was better than the 2013 one?


The question was not whether it is better or not, the real question was the discrepencies between wind tunnel performance to that on track. They were having negative correlation and they couldn't understand why their car was faster on track than it is suppozed to be. They had no clue, they were lost and didn't undrrstand the car, hence a newly desigened car that was supposed to be underatood was a better choice at the time, even though they knew from the get go that their newly deaigened car would be slower initially but with much greater room for improvement.

Boy were they wrong!

Since then, they are lost misarably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
VDV23 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1Krof wrote:
Was it the reason why they went with another philosophy in 13' is because they did not understand the 12' car? I remember Martin saying that the numbers they were getting from the wind tunnel were different from what they were getting on the track. Basically their 12' car was slower theoretically, however it was much better realistically and they didn't understand why.

I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?


Well, based on the 2013's pace, I'd say reverting to the 2012 car was the right decision. From the 2013 McLaren rarely matched the 2012 on qualy pace (I mean comparing qualy times between seasons). So the 2012 might have been extremely close to hitting its development ceiling but the 2013 McLaren never reached the 2012 McLaren. Even if it had greater potential.

It may have been quicker but would it have won races, bearing in mind that F1 never stops still in development but the 2012 had reached it's plateau of development.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I believe they felt that they had reached the development limit of the car.


Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?


Well, based on the 2013's pace, I'd say reverting to the 2012 car was the right decision. From the 2013 McLaren rarely matched the 2012 on qualy pace (I mean comparing qualy times between seasons). So the 2012 might have been extremely close to hitting its development ceiling but the 2013 McLaren never reached the 2012 McLaren. Even if it had greater potential.

It may have been quicker but would it have won races, bearing in mind that F1 never stops still in development but the 2012 had reached it's plateau of development.

Clearly Dennis thinks so. Who knows how much potential was still there? But to me it sounds as though Dennis is saying that from the first test it was apparent that they had miscalculated with the 2013 direction and he feels that they would have done significantly better if they had reverted to the previous year's front runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:35 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26846
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
Yep, it was something about the design of the nose. Gary Anderson predicted at the start of the year that their chosen style would limit the potential of the car in the long term. While they did manage to continue developing the car until the very end, McLaren reached the same conclusion and decided it was time for a new design.

So were does that leave us with what Dennis said?


Well, based on the 2013's pace, I'd say reverting to the 2012 car was the right decision. From the 2013 McLaren rarely matched the 2012 on qualy pace (I mean comparing qualy times between seasons). So the 2012 might have been extremely close to hitting its development ceiling but the 2013 McLaren never reached the 2012 McLaren. Even if it had greater potential.

It may have been quicker but would it have won races, bearing in mind that F1 never stops still in development but the 2012 had reached it's plateau of development.

Clearly Dennis thinks so. Who knows how much potential was still there? But to me it sounds as though Dennis is saying that from the first test it was apparent that they had miscalculated with the 2013 direction and he feels that they would have done significantly better if they had reverted to the previous year's front runner.

Fair enough but I also think it's much easier to say these things in hindsight, was Whitmarsh so incompetent?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pokerman and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group