planetf1.com

It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 1:55 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2640
Some highlighted comments from Hasegawa at China. https://jp.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-%E ... 91274/?s=1
Quote:
Car performance is about both car and PU combined. So, chassis must be quite good, covering the deficit of PU. For example Sauber is using last year's Ferrari, but it has got more power than ours. even then we are still faster than Sauber in terms of lap time, so.

The chassis is pretty good. How good it is, where it's positioned actually, we have no idea unless we put such competitive engine. But it's got better for sure. It's obvious that if the engine were more competitive, we would be able to go much forward.


Quote:
No matter how small the upgrade is, drivers are telling us that they want to do it. Criticisms like lack of power, bad driveability etc, they say these to mean that they can go faster if we fix these issues. So they are not giving up at all. Of course it's true that they are frustrated with current situation though.

(for the race) If it's wet condition, power range should drop, so the PU disadvantage factor will be smaller. At the moment driveability is an issue, so that's a concern, though. But our drivers are good in wet, so that'll be advantage obviously.


Sochi. http://f1sokuho.mopita.com/pc/free/inde ... t=-1&at=15
Quote:
(Nando's lap) it was super lap. Regarding Stoffel, seems he struggled to warm up tyre by getting stuck behind Riccardo on the outlap
I don't deny we are beaten on power. As drivers say, there is nothing driver can do on the straight, so.


All translations done by muramasa on Autosport. Full translation on China,Bahrain,Bahrain Test and Sochi here. http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20601 ... try7937228

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 374
Well posted Lotus49. Not a word from Honda on anything except how it is the Honda engine that is the source of McLaren's woes.

Here's an article from ESPN, detailing what is wrong with McLaren. Again, it's ALL the Honda engine.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/19336511/alonso-mclaren-honda-prioritising-reliability-performance


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 869
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Maybe but not for the reasons you probably think. If it's lies or exaggeration it will be to shame Honda into pulling their finger out. My slight problem with just crying BS is that it's a Dieter Renken piece. He doesn't tend to write BS or get played like that but I'm not subscribing to read it so there's not much else I can go on to get a feel for the piece.

I'm not sure what people think 100bhp down looks like on a speed trace or end of straight deficit. What are you expecting to see?. And remember they don't have equal d/f and drag, it's not the same car you are looking at. The McLaren is designed to limit that damage.

Not sure what you mean with the last bit, why would it mean Mercedes have gone backwards?.


What i mean by the last bit.
Honda was 20-30 km/hr down on merc in 2015.
If Honda still have the same power as 2015 and now 11 km/hr down on merc that surely means merc went backwards. Which is a ridiculous statement. Same would apply it you test the theory on 2016.
I would be interested to know how much the current deficit means on the straights. Even from the video they just say its significant without giving numbers.
I tried doing my own crude analysis from sochi qualy. I measured from exit of turn 10 at the end of painted curbs to second sector timing turn 12. AlonsoQ1 loses 0.3-0.4 sec on Kimi Q2. And 0.1 -0.2 sec on Vestapen. As i say its crude and does not take into account corner exit speed. Just wish that sky would do some analysis for us with all their recouses. Or maybe some of you have better ways of doing it. Ideally i would like to measure from exit of start finish straight but there is no footage af the mclaren from that point.


I've got you now yeah.

Well the only thing I can say is that it's not always 11kph in Q, and it can go up to around 30kph in races, it's not really a set gap. Here's the Sochi race stats...

Image


Dunno if this is what you're looking for but I found a qualy comparison for Sochi with Seb(Q3) vs Alo(Q1).



S1- 1.115
S2- 1.346
S3- 0.658


Thank you for the video.
Since there was no timing on the screen, i recorded it on my desktop and used time stamps on a video editor to do some analysis.
I basically picked track reference points from both cars and calculated the difference on how both cars performed on straights, corner entry and corner exit.

From the start of the video exit of turn 18 to 150 meter before turn 2, mclaren is 0.47 seconds down on ferrari. (which is better than i thought given the long staight)
From 150m to turn 2 apex the mclaren loses 0.24 sec which is shocking that it loses half the time under braking to the apex that the power unit loses on the whole straight
From turn 2 to entry of turn 4 mclaren loses 0.35 seconds, i guess this is combination of chasis and power as i doubt its flat out.
Breaking into turn 4 apex mclaren loses 0.15 seconds and 0.03 seconds on exit.
I could not get good data from turn 4 exit to turn 5 because the video was frozen to record the sector time (i could have got it right but did not have the time)
Turn 5 apex to exit mclaren loses 0.2 sec.
Loses 0.11 sec from exit of turn 5 to entry point of turn 7
Loses 0.1 sec from entry to apex of turn 7 and another 0.18 sec to exit point of turn seven.

The rest of the sector 2 is pretty much the same loses 0.1 to 0.15 seconds on straights and 0.1 seconds on entry to apex and another 0.1 sec on exit

In sector 3 turn 13 the time from 100m to apex is identical with vettel and alonso, take it for 150 meters and then Alonso loses out 0.1sec.
In sector 3 the power unit plays a very small role losing about 0.07 to 0.04 seconds on the straight bits.
Mclaren continues to lose about 0.15 sec from entry to apex and 0.1 on exit. Only Turn 17 exit is same as Ferrari.

The cornering performance is definately contribituting about half of the lap defict to ferrari.
Mclaren has some serious issues on entry to the apex
Exit of apex is as poor but in some cases better than their entry performance
Alonso seems to be slowing down the car sooner than Vettel but not getting getting any benefit on exit as he is still more caustious in fact its mostly worse than vettel
Even thought it looks like Alonso is butchering the corners he is actually more cautious but the chasis is making it look bad.

I think Alonso is a very good driver, if he had to be more smoother he would probably end up with a van Doorne type lap, but bad on him for not asking his engineers to do a very simple analysis.
Then he would realise as i have the chasis is half the problem.

It a very interesting excersise that any of you can do for your selves rather than beleiving the BS mclaren and Alonso are throwing around.
I do hope we get more of these videos
I must say going frame by frame really shows how hooked up that Ferrari chasis is by comparsion.


Assuming I take your figures as accurate and ignoring that we know the drivers are having to change gear creatively and avoid getting on the throttle as early as they'd like because of the driveability and resonance issues, and that this doesn't seem to be taken into account but just lumped in hilariously under Chassis and Driver performance does it really surprise you that the McLaren loses time to Ferrari chassis-wise?. The Ferrari was the best car at Sochi.

No one as far as I know think it is the best and as a car trimmed to minimise it's losses on the straights isn't going to gain anything over a car as good as Ferrari in the corners anyway because it lacks both d/f and the power to make use of that d/f, it seems a pointless exercise to avoid talking about the cars behavioural characteristics.

Which in every video looks well balanced and stable with no handling issues whatsoever. And that's despite being trimmed of d/f and having a PU rattling it to death.

Makes you optimistic what McLaren can do when Honda get them within 100 horses.


If you dont believe me you can check it
No doubt honda has issues but mclaren has just as many.
If you want to go on hearsay and ignore the data then nowhere have mclaren said they are comprimising the d/f for PU issues. Its just an assumption you and others are making which somhow is turning to fact.
It does not make sense that they comprimise the d/f to such an extent that they lose more on the corners than the straights bar the main straight. That will just mess up their tires and the entire race.
You do have a point on the gear changes maybe they are changing down earlier that can affect them on entry. I have not checked this and not sure i can. On exit i dont think it should such i impact as we are talking about them losing a tenth on the first 50 -100m while the lose about the same on the whole staight bits of upshifts except the main straight.
People here are just saying mclaren chasis is good because mclaren say so and because honda is admitting fault. Well honda has nowhere to hide with the speed trap and reliability thats exposed. There is no such exposed data on how a car takes a corner. The problem is mclaren are hiding behind honda issues. They obviously have a board to please and finding an easy way out. Remember the source data complaints they had with merc when they were the worst performing merc pu car
I did not have any intention to compare against a ferrari chasis. Its just whats available and wanted to compare what the pu is losing on the straights as that is mclarens only complaint. I just checked the cornering bits because mclaren say they have a good chasis which surprised me. BTW IT was Boulier that said they can win with a merc pu.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18828
AravJ wrote:
No doubt honda has issues but mclaren has just as many...

I think this statement requires one to suspend belief and calls into question the rest of your post.

The Honda PU is abysmal. No-one, not even Honda, disputes that. Claiming the McLaren chassis has just as many issues brings hyperbole to new levels and raises questions as to the motives of your post. I think you are driven by emotion, not logic. Even if you think the McLaren could improve it seems absurd to claim it's on the same low level as the PU. Everybody's entitled to an opinion but this doesn't stack up at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 9:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2419
mcdo wrote:
Has Kanye West been making a fool of Fernando Alonso? Or are you calling Lewis Hamilton "Kanye" because he is black?


I would like to hear his explanation myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2640
AravJ wrote:
If you dont believe me you can check it


You have video editing software, you can make a video and show me the time stamps if you're that bothered about it. I fully expect McLaren to ship time to Ferrari though and even Alonso said the 3.4s didn't come just from the PU and I still haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise.

Quote:
No doubt honda has issues but mclaren has just as many.


Ridiculous.


Quote:
If you want to go on hearsay and ignore the data then nowhere have mclaren said they are comprimising the d/f for PU issues. Its just an assumption you and others are making which somhow is turning to fact.
It does not make sense that they comprimise the d/f to such an extent that they lose more on the corners than the straights bar the main straight. That will just mess up their tires and the entire race.



It's a good assumption because Prod isn't beyond stupid. If you don't have the power and can't go fast enough to get the benefit of the extra downforce that you add to the car then you are effectively attaching an anchor to it. For no bloody reason and benefit. They find the best balance with what power they have available. We know they have considerably less power.

It's not a bombshell that the team needs to drop on the world for most people.


Quote:
You do have a point on the gear changes maybe they are changing down earlier that can affect them on entry. I have not checked this and not sure i can. On exit i dont think it should such i impact as we are talking about them losing a tenth on the first 50 -100m while the lose about the same on the whole staight bits of upshifts except the main straight.
People here are just saying mclaren chasis is good because mclaren say so and because honda is admitting fault. Well honda has nowhere to hide with the speed trap and reliability thats exposed. There is no such exposed data on how a car takes a corner. The problem is mclaren are hiding behind honda issues. They obviously have a board to please and finding an easy way out. Remember the source data complaints they had with merc when they were the worst performing merc pu car



It's not shocking that teams cover their own backside and big up the things they do well. I'm not listening to McLaren, I listen to the drivers,journos,trackside reports, other teams drivers who race them,AMuS when they talk bout the GPS traces that are available to all teams and my own eyes when watching it race or onboard.


Quote:
I did not have any intention to compare against a ferrari chasis. Its just whats available and wanted to compare what the pu is losing on the straights as that is mclarens only complaint. I just checked the cornering bits because mclaren say they have a good chasis which surprised me. BTW IT was Boulier that said they can win with a merc pu.



Good for Eric but not sure that was this year or why you think that's whats convincing people rather than what they witness. Things like Alonso's prolonged and broadcasted fight with Palmer and Kvyat where the Macca was killing both Renault and STR in the corners but getting hilariously killed by even Renault power on the straights to the point Alonso was weaving down the bloody straight is what convinces people. Their S3 time in Sochi and being just a tenth of RB despite the power deficit, compromised gear shift and driveability issues is what convinces people.

Not Eric's salesman patter.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 6:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18828
Google search. First thing that came up:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/03/07/honda-problems-compromising-chassis-work-mclaren/


Boullier said the team can tell “the car reacts well to any changes” and the drivers are “quite happy” with that.

But he also described how problems with the engine can make the chassis appear to be less well-balanced.


“If you are running not fast enough you don’t put the right energy in the tyres, you don’t put the right energy in the brakes or in the car. Your ride height targets are different so there is a lot of consequences to run 15 or 18 kilometres [per hour] slower in a straight line.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 869
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
If you dont believe me you can check it


You have video editing software, you can make a video and show me the time stamps if you're that bothered about it. I fully expect McLaren to ship time to Ferrari though and even Alonso said the 3.4s didn't come just from the PU and I still haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise.

Quote:
No doubt honda has issues but mclaren has just as many.


Ridiculous.


Quote:
If you want to go on hearsay and ignore the data then nowhere have mclaren said they are comprimising the d/f for PU issues. Its just an assumption you and others are making which somhow is turning to fact.
It does not make sense that they comprimise the d/f to such an extent that they lose more on the corners than the straights bar the main straight. That will just mess up their tires and the entire race.



It's a good assumption because Prod isn't beyond stupid. If you don't have the power and can't go fast enough to get the benefit of the extra downforce that you add to the car then you are effectively attaching an anchor to it. For no bloody reason and benefit. They find the best balance with what power they have available. We know they have considerably less power.

It's not a bombshell that the team needs to drop on the world for most people.


Quote:
You do have a point on the gear changes maybe they are changing down earlier that can affect them on entry. I have not checked this and not sure i can. On exit i dont think it should such i impact as we are talking about them losing a tenth on the first 50 -100m while the lose about the same on the whole staight bits of upshifts except the main straight.
People here are just saying mclaren chasis is good because mclaren say so and because honda is admitting fault. Well honda has nowhere to hide with the speed trap and reliability thats exposed. There is no such exposed data on how a car takes a corner. The problem is mclaren are hiding behind honda issues. They obviously have a board to please and finding an easy way out. Remember the source data complaints they had with merc when they were the worst performing merc pu car



It's not shocking that teams cover their own backside and big up the things they do well. I'm not listening to McLaren, I listen to the drivers,journos,trackside reports, other teams drivers who race them,AMuS when they talk bout the GPS traces that are available to all teams and my own eyes when watching it race or onboard.


Quote:
I did not have any intention to compare against a ferrari chasis. Its just whats available and wanted to compare what the pu is losing on the straights as that is mclarens only complaint. I just checked the cornering bits because mclaren say they have a good chasis which surprised me. BTW IT was Boulier that said they can win with a merc pu.



Good for Eric but not sure that was this year or why you think that's whats convincing people rather than what they witness. Things like Alonso's prolonged and broadcasted fight with Palmer and Kvyat where the Macca was killing both Renault and STR in the corners but getting hilariously killed by even Renault power on the straights to the point Alonso was weaving down the bloody straight is what convinces people. Their S3 time in Sochi and being just a tenth of RB despite the power deficit, compromised gear shift and driveability issues is what convinces people.

Not Eric's salesman patter.


My video editing skills suck and it would probably be end on the season before i can create a video :)
I see we are just holding mclaren to different standards if you are comparing them to STR, Renault and RBR. There is no doubt in my mind that the chasis is better than STR and Renualt. RBR have made it clear that their chasis is not good and working on a b spec, so that is hardly a high standard. They are just very far off merc and ferrari.
So Honda at most is costing mclaren between 5th and 7th place. Can we agree on that?
Its "Eric's saleseman patter" that is exactly what is wrong here, how does a team acknowledge they behind Ferrari/Merc chasis if management is sending out those kind of messages. I hope in a secret dark room somewhere they are holding themselves to account and working to fix them behind the scenes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 374
Zoue wrote:
Google search. First thing that came up:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/03/07/honda-problems-compromising-chassis-work-mclaren/


Boullier said the team can tell “the car reacts well to any changes” and the drivers are “quite happy” with that.

But he also described how problems with the engine can make the chassis appear to be less well-balanced.


“If you are running not fast enough you don’t put the right energy in the tyres, you don’t put the right energy in the brakes or in the car. Your ride height targets are different so there is a lot of consequences to run 15 or 18 kilometres [per hour] slower in a straight line.”


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

I bet a few people will STILL say that the McLaren team still can't design a good chassis.

Wonderful link.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:06 am
Posts: 120
If you are being murdered down the straight you will have to compramise the car to get less drag.

If honda was competative mclaren could run full downforce and be competative in the twisty bits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 374
colinp wrote:
If you are being murdered down the straight you will have to compramise the car to get less drag.

If honda was competative mclaren could run full downforce and be competative in the twisty bits


Yes, this has been noted many, many times in this thread. But if you read far back enough, you'll see that the McLaren detractor simply ignores this and continues to proclaim that the McLaren chassis is as much a problem as Honda's woefully underpowered and unreliable engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1329
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Google search. First thing that came up:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/03/07/honda-problems-compromising-chassis-work-mclaren/


Boullier said the team can tell “the car reacts well to any changes” and the drivers are “quite happy” with that.

But he also described how problems with the engine can make the chassis appear to be less well-balanced.


“If you are running not fast enough you don’t put the right energy in the tyres, you don’t put the right energy in the brakes or in the car. Your ride height targets are different so there is a lot of consequences to run 15 or 18 kilometres [per hour] slower in a straight line.”


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

I bet a few people will STILL say that the McLaren team still can't design a good chassis.

Wonderful link.


Whilst I fully expect the truth to lie somewhere in the middle (McLaren chassis not necessarily BAD, doesn't mean its the best) - their team principle saying something is evidence of nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 374
Ennis wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Google search. First thing that came up:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/03/07/honda-problems-compromising-chassis-work-mclaren/


Boullier said the team can tell “the car reacts well to any changes” and the drivers are “quite happy” with that.

But he also described how problems with the engine can make the chassis appear to be less well-balanced.


“If you are running not fast enough you don’t put the right energy in the tyres, you don’t put the right energy in the brakes or in the car. Your ride height targets are different so there is a lot of consequences to run 15 or 18 kilometres [per hour] slower in a straight line.”


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

I bet a few people will STILL say that the McLaren team still can't design a good chassis.

Wonderful link.


Whilst I fully expect the truth to lie somewhere in the middle (McLaren chassis not necessarily BAD, doesn't mean its the best) - their team principle saying something is evidence of nothing.


How about if it's the team principle, the drivers, and FFS Honda who are all saying the same thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5414
Location: Nebraska, USA
WhT we dont know and what some are trying to say, i think, is that we cant be sure if the McLaren chassis will be great with an influx of significantly more power.

Until it happens you can never be sure.... you can only think that you know.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 92
Exediron wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Lol, are you an Alonso fan?


I'm not going to go through your points and answer them one by one, but a) your 3 years of karting does not qualify you to say .........


I am a HUGE FA fan, and I agree that it is hard to know exactly why he is taking the lines he is, BUT I do think it has everything to do with being down on power, and thus they have to run less downforce.

That being said, the quote about racing karts is rather funny. I Have been racing TAG and KPV masters over the past few years as well (OTK is my chassis of choice). It is amazing what one would "THINK" is the correct line on any given track (I call this the "theoretical racing line") vs was is reality (based on a top view you can not see what elevation changes there are, on or off camber corners, etc...). I came into Karting thinking I knew how to drive and race (I have previously raced MX, BMX and mountain bike-down hill). What an eye opener, it was fairly easy for me to be decent, BUT the get really fast, it is a whole different ball game. Driving coach and lots of practice and dissecting each corner and chicane, etc... Lets just say that even though he may not be correct in this case I wouldn't be so quick to discredit the Karting background especially when talking a racing line over someone who lives on the internet and has no experience in actual racecraft


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3637
Location: Michigan, USA
rodH wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I'm not going to go through your points and answer them one by one, but a) your 3 years of karting does not qualify you to say .........

I am a HUGE FA fan, and I agree that it is hard to know exactly why he is taking the lines he is, BUT I do think it has everything to do with being down on power, and thus they have to run less downforce.

That being said, the quote about racing karts is rather funny. I Have been racing TAG and KPV masters over the past few years as well (OTK is my chassis of choice). It is amazing what one would "THINK" is the correct line on any given track (I call this the "theoretical racing line") vs was is reality (based on a top view you can not see what elevation changes there are, on or off camber corners, etc...). I came into Karting thinking I knew how to drive and race (I have previously raced MX, BMX and mountain bike-down hill). What an eye opener, it was fairly easy for me to be decent, BUT the get really fast, it is a whole different ball game. Driving coach and lots of practice and dissecting each corner and chicane, etc... Lets just say that even though he may not be correct in this case I wouldn't be so quick to discredit the Karting background especially when talking a racing line over someone who lives on the internet and has no experience in actual racecraft

It was more the 3 years part than the karting, but I will in fact stand by my statement. Karting is a great fundamental type of racing, but even if we were talking about someone who was an absolute master of karting that wouldn't qualify them to say Fernando Alonso is driving a Formula One car wrong. Karts are fundamentally different from cars; they are much lighter, they don't have suspension, and they certainly don't have the complex energy recovery power units of a modern F1 car.

I personally don't think there's anyone in the world qualified to say Alonso is using a sub-optimal driving technique, but if there was it would at least be someone who's actually raced a high powered single-seater and shown themselves to be the cream of the crop. That's probably not any of us, which is why I think it's best for us to refrain from trying to dissect the driving technique of a driver far beyond any of us in ability. If Alonso is taking a line some forumer finds hard to understand, he has a reason for it or he made a mistake. It's not going to be because he doesn't know how to take the corner the fastest way. On top of that, the fastest way is dictated by the car he's driving, and I trust that knows a lot more about what his car needs than we do.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2419
Exediron wrote:
rodH wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I'm not going to go through your points and answer them one by one, but a) your 3 years of karting does not qualify you to say .........

I am a HUGE FA fan, and I agree that it is hard to know exactly why he is taking the lines he is, BUT I do think it has everything to do with being down on power, and thus they have to run less downforce.

That being said, the quote about racing karts is rather funny. I Have been racing TAG and KPV masters over the past few years as well (OTK is my chassis of choice). It is amazing what one would "THINK" is the correct line on any given track (I call this the "theoretical racing line") vs was is reality (based on a top view you can not see what elevation changes there are, on or off camber corners, etc...). I came into Karting thinking I knew how to drive and race (I have previously raced MX, BMX and mountain bike-down hill). What an eye opener, it was fairly easy for me to be decent, BUT the get really fast, it is a whole different ball game. Driving coach and lots of practice and dissecting each corner and chicane, etc... Lets just say that even though he may not be correct in this case I wouldn't be so quick to discredit the Karting background especially when talking a racing line over someone who lives on the internet and has no experience in actual racecraft

It was more the 3 years part than the karting, but I will in fact stand by my statement. Karting is a great fundamental type of racing, but even if we were talking about someone who was an absolute master of karting that wouldn't qualify them to say Fernando Alonso is driving a Formula One car wrong. Karts are fundamentally different from cars; they are much lighter, they don't have suspension, and they certainly don't have the complex energy recovery power units of a modern F1 car.

I personally don't think there's anyone in the world qualified to say Alonso is using a sub-optimal driving technique, but if there was it would at least be someone who's actually raced a high powered single-seater and shown themselves to be the cream of the crop. That's probably not any of us, which is why I think it's best for us to refrain from trying to dissect the driving technique of a driver far beyond any of us in ability. If Alonso is taking a line some forumer finds hard to understand, he has a reason for it or he made a mistake. It's not going to be because he doesn't know how to take the corner the fastest way. On top of that, the fastest way is dictated by the car he's driving, and I trust that knows a lot more about what his car needs than we do.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:07 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Google search. First thing that came up:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/03/07/honda-problems-compromising-chassis-work-mclaren/


Boullier said the team can tell “the car reacts well to any changes” and the drivers are “quite happy” with that.

But he also described how problems with the engine can make the chassis appear to be less well-balanced.


“If you are running not fast enough you don’t put the right energy in the tyres, you don’t put the right energy in the brakes or in the car. Your ride height targets are different so there is a lot of consequences to run 15 or 18 kilometres [per hour] slower in a straight line.”


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

I bet a few people will STILL say that the McLaren team still can't design a good chassis.

Wonderful link.


Whilst I fully expect the truth to lie somewhere in the middle (McLaren chassis not necessarily BAD, doesn't mean its the best) - their team principle saying something is evidence of nothing.


How about if it's the team principle, the drivers, and FFS Honda who are all saying the same thing?


Sorry I was away, reading some other forums discussing the same, and have to say that that group can handle oposite views much better than some here.

Some of the observations on that other site, and they got way more technical is that (and please understand the use of the word) it appears that McLaren has made no compromises in DF levels, they are just accepting the speed handicap, that the Honda engine or PU can acelerate as well as others it is at the top of the range when they start losing ground, power levels for 2017 is close to or on par with Renault, but Renault has a definite advantege in deployment and energy management. They are using a lot more revs than others to minimize vibrations. On comments made by Honda, engine did not saw this vibrations on the stand, it is when mounted to chassis and coupled to gearbox that they have problems, and that being a stressed member there is possiblity of chassis/engine block flex having something to do. They did suffer MGU-K shaft faikures but they were old parts not new. That some of the failures, and please read this carefully, are NOT HONDA RELATED, but they are McLaren Honda, and they understand why they are being held accountable, they make no excuses!!

Your problem Herb is that you beleive, you eat all the crap you get fed, ask questions dude, dare to be made fun off, it will show the lack of character in the person making fun of you, dont be ashamed, only that comes out of healthy discussions is beyter understanding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:26 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
kleefton wrote:
Exediron wrote:
rodH wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I'm not going to go through your points and answer them one by one, but a) your 3 years of karting does not qualify you to say .........

I am a HUGE FA fan, and I agree that it is hard to know exactly why he is taking the lines he is, BUT I do think it has everything to do with being down on power, and thus they have to run less downforce.

That being said, the quote about racing karts is rather funny. I Have been racing TAG and KPV masters over the past few years as well (OTK is my chassis of choice). It is amazing what one would "THINK" is the correct line on any given track (I call this the "theoretical racing line") vs was is reality (based on a top view you can not see what elevation changes there are, on or off camber corners, etc...). I came into Karting thinking I knew how to drive and race (I have previously raced MX, BMX and mountain bike-down hill). What an eye opener, it was fairly easy for me to be decent, BUT the get really fast, it is a whole different ball game. Driving coach and lots of practice and dissecting each corner and chicane, etc... Lets just say that even though he may not be correct in this case I wouldn't be so quick to discredit the Karting background especially when talking a racing line over someone who lives on the internet and has no experience in actual racecraft

It was more the 3 years part than the karting, but I will in fact stand by my statement. Karting is a great fundamental type of racing, but even if we were talking about someone who was an absolute master of karting that wouldn't qualify them to say Fernando Alonso is driving a Formula One car wrong. Karts are fundamentally different from cars; they are much lighter, they don't have suspension, and they certainly don't have the complex energy recovery power units of a modern F1 car.

I personally don't think there's anyone in the world qualified to say Alonso is using a sub-optimal driving technique, but if there was it would at least be someone who's actually raced a high powered single-seater and shown themselves to be the cream of the crop. That's probably not any of us, which is why I think it's best for us to refrain from trying to dissect the driving technique of a driver far beyond any of us in ability. If Alonso is taking a line some forumer finds hard to understand, he has a reason for it or he made a mistake. It's not going to be because he doesn't know how to take the corner the fastest way. On top of that, the fastest way is dictated by the car he's driving, and I trust that knows a lot more about what his car needs than we do.


:thumbup:


I understand the opinions on my Karting experience, and they are true, there is no way I could consider myself a pro, but I did not started Karting just because, I too was coached, by some of the top guys in my area that I am lucky to call friends. I started super slow as I came from Solo Racing and I though I knew, how wrong I was. In racing and arriving last, to getting to midpack, being coached and a lot of fakking reading, from lines, to chassis set up etc etc no matter how dumb you are, somethings stays. A Kart is not and F1 car, but is governed by the same laws of motion, behaves the same at the limit which take balls to find. You can experiment and play with lines thru corners, but there are corners that just one line is best.

Did I hurt some feelings because I said something about Alonso.......I am sorry wont happen again so you dont have to spend money on shrinks, but Vettel made more of a mess of some corners, Ferrari power bailed him out, and not only me but some analyst with racing experience in F1 also agreed, on both Alonso and Vettel mistakes. But some of you will call Vettel or Kimi out but not Alonso. When was the last time Kimi or Vettel admitted a mistake, when was the last time Alonso did so? .........There you go.

These cars are always on the edge, be it Kart or F1, time comes from driving them at the absolute edge, mistakes are normal and happen, dont get you undies on a knot if your driver is called on one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 374
PRFAN wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

I bet a few people will STILL say that the McLaren team still can't design a good chassis.

Wonderful link.


Whilst I fully expect the truth to lie somewhere in the middle (McLaren chassis not necessarily BAD, doesn't mean its the best) - their team principle saying something is evidence of nothing.


How about if it's the team principle, the drivers, and FFS Honda who are all saying the same thing?


Sorry I was away, reading some other forums discussing the same, and have to say that that group can handle oposite views much better than some here.

Some of the observations on that other site, and they got way more technical is that (and please understand the use of the word) it appears that McLaren has made no compromises in DF levels, they are just accepting the speed handicap, that the Honda engine or PU can acelerate as well as others it is at the top of the range when they start losing ground, power levels for 2017 is close to or on par with Renault, but Renault has a definite advantege in deployment and energy management. They are using a lot more revs than others to minimize vibrations. On comments made by Honda, engine did not saw this vibrations on the stand, it is when mounted to chassis and coupled to gearbox that they have problems, and that being a stressed member there is possiblity of chassis/engine block flex having something to do. They did suffer MGU-K shaft faikures but they were old parts not new. That some of the failures, and please read this carefully, are NOT HONDA RELATED, but they are McLaren Honda, and they understand why they are being held accountable, they make no excuses!!

Your problem Herb is that you beleive, you eat all the crap you get fed, ask questions dude, dare to be made fun off, it will show the lack of character in the person making fun of you, dont be ashamed, only that comes out of healthy discussions is beyter understanding.


Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You make statements but provide absolutely NO proof whatsoever to back them up. None. Zero.

"...it appears that McLaren has made no compromises in DF levels"

Back that statement up. Provide proof. Show conclusively evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that McLaren personnel are not telling the truth. You are completely mistaken if you think that just saying statements like this makes it true.

There are copious statements out there from people who have forgotten more about the McLaren chassis than you will ever know saying that that vast majority of McLaren Honda's problems are related to HONDA. I'm afraid that unaccredited statements from other mythical forums doesnt cut it for me as proof.


Last edited by Herb Tarlik on Wed May 10, 2017 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2640
PRFAN wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Google search. First thing that came up:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/03/07/honda-problems-compromising-chassis-work-mclaren/


Boullier said the team can tell “the car reacts well to any changes” and the drivers are “quite happy” with that.

But he also described how problems with the engine can make the chassis appear to be less well-balanced.


“If you are running not fast enough you don’t put the right energy in the tyres, you don’t put the right energy in the brakes or in the car. Your ride height targets are different so there is a lot of consequences to run 15 or 18 kilometres [per hour] slower in a straight line.”


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

I bet a few people will STILL say that the McLaren team still can't design a good chassis.

Wonderful link.


Whilst I fully expect the truth to lie somewhere in the middle (McLaren chassis not necessarily BAD, doesn't mean its the best) - their team principle saying something is evidence of nothing.


How about if it's the team principle, the drivers, and FFS Honda who are all saying the same thing?


Sorry I was away, reading some other forums discussing the same, and have to say that that group can handle oposite views much better than some here.

Some of the observations on that other site, and they got way more technical is that (and please understand the use of the word) it appears that McLaren has made no compromises in DF levels, they are just accepting the speed handicap, that the Honda engine or PU can acelerate as well as others it is at the top of the range when they start losing ground, power levels for 2017 is close to or on par with Renault, but Renault has a definite advantege in deployment and energy management. They are using a lot more revs than others to minimize vibrations. On comments made by Honda, engine did not saw this vibrations on the stand, it is when mounted to chassis and coupled to gearbox that they have problems, and that being a stressed member there is possiblity of chassis/engine block flex having something to do. They did suffer MGU-K shaft faikures but they were old parts not new. That some of the failures, and please read this carefully, are NOT HONDA RELATED, but they are McLaren Honda, and they understand why they are being held accountable, they make no excuses!!

Your problem Herb is that you beleive, you eat all the crap you get fed, ask questions dude, dare to be made fun off, it will show the lack of character in the person making fun of you, dont be ashamed, only that comes out of healthy discussions is beyter understanding.


What other site?. I wouldn't mind reading some of this technical chat and findings that Honda themselves seem to have missed.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2640
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
If you dont believe me you can check it


You have video editing software, you can make a video and show me the time stamps if you're that bothered about it. I fully expect McLaren to ship time to Ferrari though and even Alonso said the 3.4s didn't come just from the PU and I still haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise.

Quote:
No doubt honda has issues but mclaren has just as many.


Ridiculous.


Quote:
If you want to go on hearsay and ignore the data then nowhere have mclaren said they are comprimising the d/f for PU issues. Its just an assumption you and others are making which somhow is turning to fact.
It does not make sense that they comprimise the d/f to such an extent that they lose more on the corners than the straights bar the main straight. That will just mess up their tires and the entire race.



It's a good assumption because Prod isn't beyond stupid. If you don't have the power and can't go fast enough to get the benefit of the extra downforce that you add to the car then you are effectively attaching an anchor to it. For no bloody reason and benefit. They find the best balance with what power they have available. We know they have considerably less power.

It's not a bombshell that the team needs to drop on the world for most people.


Quote:
You do have a point on the gear changes maybe they are changing down earlier that can affect them on entry. I have not checked this and not sure i can. On exit i dont think it should such i impact as we are talking about them losing a tenth on the first 50 -100m while the lose about the same on the whole staight bits of upshifts except the main straight.
People here are just saying mclaren chasis is good because mclaren say so and because honda is admitting fault. Well honda has nowhere to hide with the speed trap and reliability thats exposed. There is no such exposed data on how a car takes a corner. The problem is mclaren are hiding behind honda issues. They obviously have a board to please and finding an easy way out. Remember the source data complaints they had with merc when they were the worst performing merc pu car



It's not shocking that teams cover their own backside and big up the things they do well. I'm not listening to McLaren, I listen to the drivers,journos,trackside reports, other teams drivers who race them,AMuS when they talk bout the GPS traces that are available to all teams and my own eyes when watching it race or onboard.


Quote:
I did not have any intention to compare against a ferrari chasis. Its just whats available and wanted to compare what the pu is losing on the straights as that is mclarens only complaint. I just checked the cornering bits because mclaren say they have a good chasis which surprised me. BTW IT was Boulier that said they can win with a merc pu.



Good for Eric but not sure that was this year or why you think that's whats convincing people rather than what they witness. Things like Alonso's prolonged and broadcasted fight with Palmer and Kvyat where the Macca was killing both Renault and STR in the corners but getting hilariously killed by even Renault power on the straights to the point Alonso was weaving down the bloody straight is what convinces people. Their S3 time in Sochi and being just a tenth of RB despite the power deficit, compromised gear shift and driveability issues is what convinces people.

Not Eric's salesman patter.


My video editing skills suck and it would probably be end on the season before i can create a video :)
I see we are just holding mclaren to different standards if you are comparing them to STR, Renault and RBR. There is no doubt in my mind that the chasis is better than STR and Renualt. RBR have made it clear that their chasis is not good and working on a b spec, so that is hardly a high standard. They are just very far off merc and ferrari.
So Honda at most is costing mclaren between 5th and 7th place. Can we agree on that?
Its "Eric's saleseman patter" that is exactly what is wrong here, how does a team acknowledge they behind Ferrari/Merc chasis if management is sending out those kind of messages. I hope in a secret dark room somewhere they are holding themselves to account and working to fix them behind the scenes.


Sorry, missed this.

Yeah I think we can agree on that. Their point with the patter is more that with the power they have they produced a good enough car but with more power they could do more as well.

Quick example is that without changing anything about the concept of the car and just using it as is, even a 30-40bhp increase from Honda would give them time everywhere. So even this car would get them closer to Ferrari and Mercedes never mind one designed or optimized for more d/f.

And I think when Eric talked of being able to win races with last years chassis with the best engine people thought he meant races on "chassis tracks" like Monaco or Hungary but I don't think he did now, I personally think he meant races on low d/f tracks like Williams shined on in 2014.

Look at Spa last year, skinny enough to keep Williams behind on Kemmel but had enough inherent grip and d/f to go quicker than them by 1.5s in S2. That car would have been a beast with comparable power to the best PU's that day on that track, it was hooked up perfectly for the demands of that track and it suited their concept down to the ground.

But that was last year and this years car is about to get some big upgrades at Spain according to Stoff so they could well go backwards or forwards through either other teams packages taking significant steps like RB or Williams or through messing up their own updates or the car not working as well when they run more d/f etc...

Spain usually shuffles up the running order in normal years through the first big update packages but the first year of a big regulation change could be even more interesting.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 92
Exediron wrote:
rodH wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I'm not going to go through your points and answer them one by one, but a) your 3 years of karting does not qualify you to say .........

I am a HUGE FA fan, and I agree that it is hard to know exactly why he is taking the lines he is, BUT I do think it has everything to do with being down on power, and thus they have to run less downforce.

That being said, the quote about racing karts is rather funny. I Have been racing TAG and KPV masters over the past few years as well (OTK is my chassis of choice). It is amazing what one would "THINK" is the correct line on any given track (I call this the "theoretical racing line") vs was is reality (based on a top view you can not see what elevation changes there are, on or off camber corners, etc...). I came into Karting thinking I knew how to drive and race (I have previously raced MX, BMX and mountain bike-down hill). What an eye opener, it was fairly easy for me to be decent, BUT the get really fast, it is a whole different ball game. Driving coach and lots of practice and dissecting each corner and chicane, etc... Lets just say that even though he may not be correct in this case I wouldn't be so quick to discredit the Karting background especially when talking a racing line over someone who lives on the internet and has no experience in actual racecraft

It was more the 3 years part than the karting, but I will in fact stand by my statement. Karting is a great fundamental type of racing, but even if we were talking about someone who was an absolute master of karting that wouldn't qualify them to say Fernando Alonso is driving a Formula One car wrong. Karts are fundamentally different from cars; they are much lighter, they don't have suspension, and they certainly don't have the complex energy recovery power units of a modern F1 car.

I personally don't think there's anyone in the world qualified to say Alonso is using a sub-optimal driving technique, but if there was it would at least be someone who's actually raced a high powered single-seater and shown themselves to be the cream of the crop. That's probably not any of us, which is why I think it's best for us to refrain from trying to dissect the driving technique of a driver far beyond any of us in ability. If Alonso is taking a line some forumer finds hard to understand, he has a reason for it or he made a mistake. It's not going to be because he doesn't know how to take the corner the fastest way. On top of that, the fastest way is dictated by the car he's driving, and I trust that knows a lot more about what his car needs than we do.


Like I mentioned, McLaren-Honda is so down on power that they have to be dialing out the aero grip of the car, which would significantly effect the handling of the car and most likely force Fernando to take different lines. That being said, when I first saw his line and compared it to Vettel on youtube (unrelated to this thread) my first thought was that he braked too late. Now, I don't know this for sure, but I think we are getting way to far into this if people think that Fernando NEVER makes a mistake, ever. I'd be really curious to see if this was a constant line that he used and compare the times to his other laps. I think there are probably people that could for sure critique his race line, but they most likely aren't on this board. That being said, i'd bet a LOT of money that this guys who has spent "only" 3 years in karting, could pretty much pick up anything on 4 wheels and on pavement (not Rally) and turn MUCH better times that someone who never has had such experience. It is the typical, the more you learn the more you realize how much you still have to learn. A lot of people think they know how to drive, very very few can actually do it.

The great thing that a TAG or any single speed 2 stroke Kart is that it teaches you is that if you are ever going to be any decent you ABSOLUTELY have to pick the proper line, if not you get passed and not just by one racer, but sometimes several. In a shifter if you blow a corner, you can down shift and get back in line and maybe 1 guy gets by, in a single speed 2 stroke with no low end torque you have to be on point or you get embarrassed. This is why so many of the very best drivers often race TAG.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 92
PRFAN wrote:
I started super slow as I came from Solo Racing and I though I knew, how wrong I was. In racing and arriving last, to getting to midpack, being coached and a lot of fakking reading, from lines, to chassis set up etc etc no matter how dumb you are, somethings stays. A Kart is not and F1 car, but is governed by the same laws of motion, behaves the same at the limit which take balls to find. You can experiment and play with lines thru corners, but there are corners that just one line is best.



There is a reason that you hear guys like Senna, Fernando, Ricciardo, Max, and also Hamilton talk about their past karting experience being so important in their racing development as well as how they still love to get in the Kart. People that sit behind a computer screen or play video games have no idea. My kart teaches me WAY more about racing than even my 911 could come close to. WHen I started racing, I sort of became turned off by road cars, since the limits are not even close.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 12:45 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said. And with a car compromised on downforce some also said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there, the downforce is also there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!! Pulling miracles on a donkey of a car.


Last edited by PRFAN on Sat May 13, 2017 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 12:50 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
rodH wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
I started super slow as I came from Solo Racing and I though I knew, how wrong I was. In racing and arriving last, to getting to midpack, being coached and a lot of fakking reading, from lines, to chassis set up etc etc no matter how dumb you are, somethings stays. A Kart is not and F1 car, but is governed by the same laws of motion, behaves the same at the limit which take balls to find. You can experiment and play with lines thru corners, but there are corners that just one line is best.



There is a reason that you hear guys like Senna, Fernando, Ricciardo, Max, and also Hamilton talk about their past karting experience being so important in their racing development as well as how they still love to get in the Kart. People that sit behind a computer screen or play video games have no idea. My kart teaches me WAY more about racing than even my 911 could come close to. WHen I started racing, I sort of became turned off by road cars, since the limits are not even close.



Karting is so extreme that only thru experience in racing in one, one could comprehend how difficult it is. A high performance street car is so slow all the way around when compared to a Kart. When I stepped out of my Kart and went to do track days ( I had a tuned Silvia, Nissan s14 240sx) everything was or appeared to be in slow motion.

You are so correct in your post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 8628
Location: Ireland
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!!

I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 374
mcdo wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!!

I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso


Well said, the guy clearly needs help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:37 pm
Posts: 569
mcdo wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!!

I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso


That's about the correct evaluation of the whole discussion till now.
Amazing how people who can read and write seem nevertheless unable to engage objective data provided in a conversation and apply basic logic... Astonishing and depressing...

(btw, this person seems to think that 7th is a great result, never mind it's nearly 2 seconds off the pace... And good luck explaining where that gap comes from while doing more or less ok on corner-heavy sector three...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2419
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said. And with a car compromised on downforce some also said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there, the downforce is also there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!! Pulling miracles on a donkey of a car.


You do realize this is one of the tracks where the engine power matters less right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 3:07 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
mcdo wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!!

I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso


That's about the correct evaluation of the whole discussion till now.
Amazing how people who can read and write seem nevertheless unable to engage objective data provided in a conversation and apply basic logic... Astonishing and depressing...

(btw, this person seems to think that 7th is a great result, never mind it's nearly 2 seconds off the pace... And good luck explaining where that gap comes from while doing more or less ok on corner-heavy sector three...)


Have you read the whole discussion? I while back I said this car was capable of Q3, they just needed to sort the reliability issues, some went crazy when they read that. Today the excuse is "this is not a power intensive track", and forgot also about the suggestion some made that McLaren had a compromised chassis due to lack of downforce, guess this is not a downforce track also! Lets look at the numbers, this will be lost time per sector compared to the fastest time for that sector.

Sector one lost .684s to Kimi
Sector two lost .855 to Vettel
Sector three lost .797 to Hamilton

If we compare him to Ricciardo, the next car above him and to Max, values to the right of those

Sector one lost .426s to Max .421
Sector two lost .335s to Max .433
Sector three lost .161 to Max .479

Compared to the possible fastest lap if you add fastest sector times you see that McLaren is average across the board, Spain is considered a well rounded track where power, aero and chassis all come into play, based on that what conclusions will you draw? I am interested!! Will wait on your response. Im am interested also to see your explanation on why are they losing the most time in sector 2. Say what you may, but this car is lacking everywhere. And I will stand behind my point that the problems are not all Honda related.

If you compare him to RIC Redbull we may say RIC made a mistake at S3, but gaps to MAX are supper consistent all the way around the track, can you explain why is that Mr? Will also be waiting for what you have to say.

Q3 is a great result FOR HONDA, yes they are 2 seconds off, but they apparently made some progress and Alonso said he was happy, feeling positive. What more do you want?? Or you have the unreal expectation of pole?? The rest of the teams are also well behind the top two, so really don't know where are you trying to get.

Admit it already guys, say I was right!! I am not a sore winner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18828
PRFAN wrote:
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
mcdo wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!!

I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso


That's about the correct evaluation of the whole discussion till now.
Amazing how people who can read and write seem nevertheless unable to engage objective data provided in a conversation and apply basic logic... Astonishing and depressing...

(btw, this person seems to think that 7th is a great result, never mind it's nearly 2 seconds off the pace... And good luck explaining where that gap comes from while doing more or less ok on corner-heavy sector three...)


Have you read the whole discussion? I while back I said this car was capable of Q3, they just needed to sort the reliability issues, some went crazy when they read that. Today the excuse is "this is not a power intensive track", and forgot also about the suggestion some made that McLaren had a compromised chassis due to lack of downforce, guess this is not a downforce track also! Lets look at the numbers, this will be lost time per sector compared to the fastest time for that sector.

Sector one lost .684s to Kimi
Sector two lost .855 to Vettel
Sector three lost .797 to Hamilton

If we compare him to Ricciardo, the next car above him and to Max, values to the right of those

Sector one lost .426s to Max .421
Sector two lost .335s to Max .433
Sector three lost .161 to Max .479

Compared to the possible fastest lap if you add fastest sector times you see that McLaren is average across the board, Spain is considered a well rounded track where power, aero and chassis all come into play, based on that what conclusions will you draw? I am interested!! Will wait on your response. Im am interested also to see your explanation on why are they losing the most time in sector 2. Say what you may, but this car is lacking everywhere. And I will stand behind my point that the problems are not all Honda related.

If you compare him to RIC Redbull we may say RIC made a mistake at S3, but gaps to MAX are supper consistent all the way around the track, can you explain why is that Mr? Will also be waiting for what you have to say.

Q3 is a great result FOR HONDA, yes they are 2 seconds off, but they apparently made some progress and Alonso said he was happy, feeling positive. What more do you want?? Or you have the unreal expectation of pole?? The rest of the teams are also well behind the top two, so really don't know where are you trying to get.

Admit it already guys, say I was right!! I am not a sore winner.

You're not a winner. Period. At least, not about this. You're talking about things in absolutes without having any idea of what the baseline performance is. The fact that this is a track where the chassis can play a larger role just shows that the Honda PU won't handicap them as much as at some other tracks, but it in no way goes to show that the chassis is poor. Alonso qualified ahead of everyone bar the usual triumvirate of Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. If the PU is poor, then this only vindicates those who say the chassis isn't half bad.

It's not a great result for Honda, other than that they've finally managed to get a car into Q3 without bursting into flames. So from a PR perspective, yes it's good. But the fact they were still so far off the front runners, and that with only one car, isn't normally cause for much celebration


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 3:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
mcdo wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Welcome to Q3!!!

No the engine is not capable they said.

All they needed was a good lap and no reliability issues, the power is there.

Go ahead now and go crazy celebrating this best of all time driver!!

I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso


That's about the correct evaluation of the whole discussion till now.
Amazing how people who can read and write seem nevertheless unable to engage objective data provided in a conversation and apply basic logic... Astonishing and depressing...

(btw, this person seems to think that 7th is a great result, never mind it's nearly 2 seconds off the pace... And good luck explaining where that gap comes from while doing more or less ok on corner-heavy sector three...)


Have you read the whole discussion? I while back I said this car was capable of Q3, they just needed to sort the reliability issues, some went crazy when they read that. Today the excuse is "this is not a power intensive track", and forgot also about the suggestion some made that McLaren had a compromised chassis due to lack of downforce, guess this is not a downforce track also! Lets look at the numbers, this will be lost time per sector compared to the fastest time for that sector.

Sector one lost .684s to Kimi
Sector two lost .855 to Vettel
Sector three lost .797 to Hamilton

If we compare him to Ricciardo, the next car above him and to Max, values to the right of those

Sector one lost .426s to Max .421
Sector two lost .335s to Max .433
Sector three lost .161 to Max .479

Compared to the possible fastest lap if you add fastest sector times you see that McLaren is average across the board, Spain is considered a well rounded track where power, aero and chassis all come into play, based on that what conclusions will you draw? I am interested!! Will wait on your response. Im am interested also to see your explanation on why are they losing the most time in sector 2. Say what you may, but this car is lacking everywhere. And I will stand behind my point that the problems are not all Honda related.

If you compare him to RIC Redbull we may say RIC made a mistake at S3, but gaps to MAX are supper consistent all the way around the track, can you explain why is that Mr? Will also be waiting for what you have to say.

Q3 is a great result FOR HONDA, yes they are 2 seconds off, but they apparently made some progress and Alonso said he was happy, feeling positive. What more do you want?? Or you have the unreal expectation of pole?? The rest of the teams are also well behind the top two, so really don't know where are you trying to get.

Admit it already guys, say I was right!! I am not a sore winner.

You're not a winner. Period. At least, not about this. You're talking about things in absolutes without having any idea of what the baseline performance is. The fact that this is a track where the chassis can play a larger role just shows that the Honda PU won't handicap them as much as at some other tracks, but it in no way goes to show that the chassis is poor. Alonso qualified ahead of everyone bar the usual triumvirate of Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. If the PU is poor, then this only vindicates those who say the chassis isn't half bad.

It's not a great result for Honda, other than that they've finally managed to get a car into Q3 without bursting into flames. So from a PR perspective, yes it's good. But the fact they were still so far off the front runners, and that with only one car, isn't normally cause for much celebration


Zoue - If we say that the the chassis is not half as bad, can we also say so about the engine? Will that be fair?? My point in this is that it has always been about the whole package, that time lost on engine hast to be added to time loss added by the chassis and by driver mistakes, but we insist and put it all on Honda shoulders, even when it is clear that when reliability is there the PU is producing respectable power. There is no point if producing power without being reliable, but the potential is there, my call is to stop bashing Honda and let them work thru it. You say I talk in absolutes, when we say the engine is the problem and all stems from it, isn't that an absolute?? In the large picture it is not a great result, but in the ML world, they situation they are trying to get out of, it is a respectable result and a show of progress. Today Honda showed progress and we still find ways to step on them and bring them down.

Now they say I have a thing for Alonso, at the least, I just put him thru the same filters I put any other driver.

The narrative has always been - Honda sucks look they are behind 4 secs. My call has been to take those 4 secs and look deeply into them and see what we find. The response I get is no, you cant look at those 4 secs and make any sort of breakdown because of the handicaps introduced by the engine, Zoue, is that an absolute?? To me that is not true, you can still identify problem areas, and when stated as a topic for discussion feelings get hurt more so if Alonso is mentioned.

I had good fun in this thread believe me.

I hope Alonso does good at Indy, really do as stated before.

Regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18828
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
mcdo wrote:
I suggest you talk to a medical professional about your unhealthy obsession with Fernando Alonso


That's about the correct evaluation of the whole discussion till now.
Amazing how people who can read and write seem nevertheless unable to engage objective data provided in a conversation and apply basic logic... Astonishing and depressing...

(btw, this person seems to think that 7th is a great result, never mind it's nearly 2 seconds off the pace... And good luck explaining where that gap comes from while doing more or less ok on corner-heavy sector three...)


Have you read the whole discussion? I while back I said this car was capable of Q3, they just needed to sort the reliability issues, some went crazy when they read that. Today the excuse is "this is not a power intensive track", and forgot also about the suggestion some made that McLaren had a compromised chassis due to lack of downforce, guess this is not a downforce track also! Lets look at the numbers, this will be lost time per sector compared to the fastest time for that sector.

Sector one lost .684s to Kimi
Sector two lost .855 to Vettel
Sector three lost .797 to Hamilton

If we compare him to Ricciardo, the next car above him and to Max, values to the right of those

Sector one lost .426s to Max .421
Sector two lost .335s to Max .433
Sector three lost .161 to Max .479

Compared to the possible fastest lap if you add fastest sector times you see that McLaren is average across the board, Spain is considered a well rounded track where power, aero and chassis all come into play, based on that what conclusions will you draw? I am interested!! Will wait on your response. Im am interested also to see your explanation on why are they losing the most time in sector 2. Say what you may, but this car is lacking everywhere. And I will stand behind my point that the problems are not all Honda related.

If you compare him to RIC Redbull we may say RIC made a mistake at S3, but gaps to MAX are supper consistent all the way around the track, can you explain why is that Mr? Will also be waiting for what you have to say.

Q3 is a great result FOR HONDA, yes they are 2 seconds off, but they apparently made some progress and Alonso said he was happy, feeling positive. What more do you want?? Or you have the unreal expectation of pole?? The rest of the teams are also well behind the top two, so really don't know where are you trying to get.

Admit it already guys, say I was right!! I am not a sore winner.

You're not a winner. Period. At least, not about this. You're talking about things in absolutes without having any idea of what the baseline performance is. The fact that this is a track where the chassis can play a larger role just shows that the Honda PU won't handicap them as much as at some other tracks, but it in no way goes to show that the chassis is poor. Alonso qualified ahead of everyone bar the usual triumvirate of Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull. If the PU is poor, then this only vindicates those who say the chassis isn't half bad.

It's not a great result for Honda, other than that they've finally managed to get a car into Q3 without bursting into flames. So from a PR perspective, yes it's good. But the fact they were still so far off the front runners, and that with only one car, isn't normally cause for much celebration


Zoue - If we say that the the chassis is not half as bad, can we also say so about the engine? Will that be fair?? My point in this is that it has always been about the whole package, that time lost on engine hast to be added to time loss added by the chassis and by driver mistakes, but we insist and put it all on Honda shoulders, even when it is clear that when reliability is there the PU is producing respectable power. There is no point if producing power without being reliable, but the potential is there, my call is to stop bashing Honda and let them work thru it. You say I talk in absolutes, when we say the engine is the problem and all stems from it, isn't that an absolute?? In the large picture it is not a great result, but in the ML world, they situation they are trying to get out of, it is a respectable result and a show of progress. Today Honda showed progress and we still find ways to step on them and bring them down.

Now they say I have a thing for Alonso, at the least, I just put him thru the same filters I put any other driver.

But you have nothing to base your conclusions on. On a very simple level, on tracks where the PU has a bigger impact, the gap is also bigger. On a track like this, where the chassis has more influence, the gap is also not as prominent. Yet somehow you conclude that the PU is producing respectable power? There's no logic in what you write.

The fact is it's hard to know exactly how good the chassis is, because the PU is so poor that it could be the best chassis on the grid and they'd still be bringing up the rear on the whole. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, which points the finger at the chassis being a problem. That's not the same as saying it's the best, but you simply don't have anywhere near enough evidence to say it's an issue. Everyone involved, from professional pundits, to the drivers, to both McLaren and Honda themselves, say their issue is the PU, yet for reasons known only to yourself you seem to think there's some great conspiracy to protect McLaren and the chassis is just as much to blame. But as far as I can see it's based on nothing other than blind faith.

As for Alonso, with all due respect it's you that keeps bringing him up. If you don't want a reputation a someone who's hung up on him, may I suggest you don't talk about him so much?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 4:45 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
You are wrong in your assumption.

The information (data) is out there look it up.

We have one driver in the car, it happens to be Alonso, leaving him out of the equation is extremely biased. If you are looking at the engine, chassis performance you must look at the driver. If some think he is above that and should not be looked at. Then the whole point is lost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18828
PRFAN wrote:
You are wrong in your assumption.

The information (data) is out there look it up.

We have one driver in the car, it happens to be Alonso, leaving him out of the equation is extremely biased. If you are looking at the engine, chassis performance you must look at the driver. If some think he is above that and should not be looked at. Then the whole point is lost.

It's not the data that's in question. It's your interpretation of it. I repeat, there is nothing that indicates there is a problem with the chassis. You're making assumptions based upon a predetermined view that the chassis must also be bad, but the actual data doesn't support that. It does, however, support the idea that the chassis isn't the issue, which I'll repeat is what both McLaren and Honda themselves have been saying. It's unclear as to why you feel you know better than they do but I'd suggest that rather than let the data lead you toward a conclusion, you are trying to make it fit the conclusion you made independently of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:37 pm
Posts: 569
PRFAN wrote:
You are wrong in your assumption.

The information (data) is out there look it up.

We have one driver in the car, it happens to be Alonso, leaving him out of the equation is extremely biased. If you are looking at the engine, chassis performance you must look at the driver. If some think he is above that and should not be looked at. Then the whole point is lost.


Bollocks.

Two words:

Stofffel
Vandoorne

There you have another driver with which to judge MacHonda.

You are being proven wrong time and again, but I guess you won't relent, trying to win by exhaustion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18828
From Alonso himself today:

Alonso wrote:
"We are happy with the chassis side but we are still not the best. There is still work to do - aerodynamically and mechanically - to be at the level of Mercedes and Ferrari. They are definitely ahead of everyone but we could be right behind them in terms of the chassis."


http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/10875991/fernando-alonso-believes-mclaren-car-is-right-behind-mercedes-and-ferraris

so it seems he doesn't think the chassis is poor and just as bad as the PU. But what does he know, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3637
Location: Michigan, USA
PRFAN wrote:
We have one driver in the car, it happens to be Alonso, leaving him out of the equation is extremely biased. If you are looking at the engine, chassis performance you must look at the driver. If some think he is above that and should not be looked at. Then the whole point is lost.

Don't McLaren have two drivers? And isn't the second one a pretty highly thought of rookie?

I mean, if Alonso is letting the car down with his fairy cakes driving, just imagine how terrible Vandoorne must be. Yikes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 1:42 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 436
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
You are wrong in your assumption.

The information (data) is out there look it up.

We have one driver in the car, it happens to be Alonso, leaving him out of the equation is extremely biased. If you are looking at the engine, chassis performance you must look at the driver. If some think he is above that and should not be looked at. Then the whole point is lost.


Bollocks.

Two words:

Stofffel
Vandoorne

There you have another driver with which to judge MacHonda.

You are being proven wrong time and again, but I guess you won't relent, trying to win by exhaustion.


Stoffel Vandoorne, 19th, 1:22.532

“I don’t really know what happened today. Yesterday I was feeling quite comfortable and confident in the car, happy with the performance, and everything was moving in the right direction to do a bit better today. It’s a shame we weren’t able to translate that in qualifying, because I think the potential was definitely there to get into Q2. It seems like we lost a bit of performance compared to yesterday, and at the moment there’s no real explanation why. But it’s been a difficult start to the season altogether, so hopefully tomorrow we can do something better.

“Today I struggled a bit in both sessions – everything felt a little bit more difficult – and I don’t really know why as I say. We need to analyze the data tonight and see what happened and what we can do for tomorrow. It’s not been an easy start to the weekend for the team again and the most important thing is that we get on top of those issues and have some smooth running for the rest of the weekend. I don’t have any targets for tomorrow – just to run a smooth race without any issues. I think strategy will be quite important and we’ll see what’s possible.

“Fernando getting through to Q3 shows that the car is going in the right direction. We just need to makes sure we put it all together. Everyone is keeping their head down and trying to push as much as they can to improve this situation, so hopefully we can see some improvements over the next few races.”

His comments from today, will that suffice? He did not had a good day today, he does not have a clear answer himself as to why, so will you say that he was driving at his best, 100% dialed in with his car? Will you say that his performance today is a good benchmark on which to compare Alonso with? Do you consider fair to Alonso to measure his achievement to a driver that, as per his own words, was struggling? Do you make any sense? In contrast look what Alonso said....

“Today is one of those days where everything goes right and everything is meeting and exceeding expectations. I’m definitely happy, surprisingly happy, after how our weekend started yesterday, and our qualifying results so far this season."

Here is a novel idea for you, lets compare them when they are both at their best. Stoffel has a good CV before F1, but he is still a rookie dealing with a very bas situation. He has done very well IMHO, lets hope he gets his issues solved. Maybe he will have a good day and out qualify Alonso, I expect you to be fair in that case if it happens, just like you are being now!


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: Blake, DirtyMike, funkymonkey, Google Adsense [Bot], jiminwatford, Lojik, Mercedes-Benz, PRFAN, ReservoirDog, simonr23, TheGiantHogweed 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