planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:42 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
kleefton wrote:
mds wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:

Below 2015 power levels?

Could it be that they have to run the engine at such a conservative mode that it is making actually less than the 2015 unit?

Because if that is not the case then they really have no idea what they are doing. Jeez...


It's incredible if true.


I'm a bit surprised this seems to be news... IIRC it was already stated during the first test that the new PU didn't reach the power levels of the 2015 unit, and that they would need at least a couple of months to fix it.


That is the first I've heard of that to be honest and I tend to think it's rubbish. Before testing began the Honda PU was supposedly making 2016 Mercedes power levels. I find it really hard to believe that after testing began the actual result was below 2015 Honda power levels. It screams of incredible incompetence, confusion, but most likely plain lies. Unless, like I said before, they are running it at something like strat mode -5 or something, then of course it will make very little power.


That was the target rather than a report of what it was making before testing.

I do tend to agree that it's likely BS though. Hasegawa recently said they were making 2016 levels though it was contradicted by other unnamed Honda employees.

Hasegawa https://jp.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-%E ... 84-885035/

Quote:
However, even though we cannot disclose numbers, I think we have more power than we did at the point of Abu Dhabi last year. But drag has increased, tyre width got broader as well, so drivers may feel like speed has decreased


Unnamed Honda Employee https://sportiva.shueisha.co.jp/clm/mot ... __split_4/

Quote:
There is certain knack involved in making jet ignition combustion work. Honda havent been able to grasp it fully yet. Therefore power does not come, vibration occurs too. It depends on whether they will be able to mature mapping around it based on the data gathered in 3 days of testing within the 2 weeks before season opener, it's a race against time.

In order to make fundamental increase in power, they need to grasp the knack more precisely and revise the shape of chamber in ICE. Season opener spec is still bit below 2016's spec 3.5 (the final spec)


My hunch is they are around 2016 AD levels now but may well be running detuned like you say.

_________________
"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: Fri May 05, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
Should also point out that most of those quotes are about the ICE.

It's still technically possible that the issues in the ICE with the combustion process and vibrations are ruining their ERS ability so it could when put together be feasible to be on 2015 levels.

2015 had an ERS that didn't work and an underpowered ICE. 2017 has an underpowered ICE rattling everything to death. ERS is a question mark. It was on the hybrid side that the rumoured help from Mercedes was about rather than the ICE as first thought as well. That big job advert in AS was all about the ERS side too. Alonso did praise it though in pre-season but by China said he was going to run out halfway down the straight so god knows. Plus it's Alonso.

It's not exactly an entirely ridiculous notion the ERS could be as bad as 2015, and if it is then the unnamed McLaren source Rencken mentions would be right.

_________________
"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: Sat May 06, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 893
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
mds wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Below 2015 power levels?

Could it be that they have to run the engine at such a conservative mode that it is making actually less than the 2015 unit?

Because if that is not the case then they really have no idea what they are doing. Jeez...




I'm a bit surprised this seems to be news... IIRC it was already stated during the first test that the new PU didn't reach the power levels of the 2015 unit, and that they would need at least a couple of months to fix it.


I just thought they were talking about the version that ended the season last year to be honest when they talked about not hitting the previous version. I must have just assumed that they couldn't have failed by that much lol, more specifically the backwards step with the ERS is what's surprising me.

P.S. Since you're the guy that brought Stoff (And Max) to my attention a few years ago in the feeder series thread I think you should be the one to start his official thread off if you're up for it. :nod:


And that would be fake news/ propaganda created by the chasis camp.
Its clear for everybody to see by the video posted that honda is down by 11 km/hr by the end of the straight, and acceleration curve not far off merc.
If you choose to beleive what some anonamous insider says then you are also saying Merc engine went backwards not only from 2015 but also 2016.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
mds wrote:


I'm a bit surprised this seems to be news... IIRC it was already stated during the first test that the new PU didn't reach the power levels of the 2015 unit, and that they would need at least a couple of months to fix it.


I just thought they were talking about the version that ended the season last year to be honest when they talked about not hitting the previous version. I must have just assumed that they couldn't have failed by that much lol, more specifically the backwards step with the ERS is what's surprising me.

P.S. Since you're the guy that brought Stoff (And Max) to my attention a few years ago in the feeder series thread I think you should be the one to start his official thread off if you're up for it. :nod:


And that would be fake news/ propaganda created by the chasis camp.
Its clear for everybody to see by the video posted that honda is down by 11 km/hr by the end of the straight, and acceleration curve not far off merc.
If you choose to beleive what some anonamous insider says then you are also saying Merc engine went backwards not only from 2015 but also 2016.


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

_________________
"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: Sat May 06, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
I said I would post vids of Alonso's Q laps so far so you can see the car behaviour but I can't find Bahrain. We've got China and Sochi above and here's Australia.



_________________
"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: Sun May 07, 2017 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4312
Location: Michigan, USA
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.

_________________
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 07, 2017 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.


:o

AMuS are saying the Honda update will be at Canada and will bring them to their original target for the start of this season, which was Mercedes end of 2016 level. I blew all my optimism pre-season but fingers crossed this time we get what they aim for.

_________________
"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: Sun May 07, 2017 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4312
Location: Michigan, USA
Lotus49 wrote:
AMuS are saying the Honda update will be at Canada and will bring them to their original target for the start of this season, which was Mercedes end of 2016 level. I blew all my optimism pre-season but fingers crossed this time we get what they aim for.

My Honda optimism is so far in the toilet, I'm expecting them to both DNF in Canada. I remember in 2015 they supposedly had a reliability update for Canada, and I had pit-lane seats to see them both slowly get lapped and eventually grind to a halt. x(

_________________
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 07, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2771
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.


I didn't see an error. Most of the gap is due to the power difference. You can clearly see how much they are losing through the long straights of S1 and S2. Unbelievable. These videos are great, but would be even better with onboard graphics so we see the difference in speeds even more clearly.

Thanks for posting those Lotus. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
:thumbup: No problem

Yeah videos that have the graphics would be great, I never seem to be able to find those but the guys that do the speed traces get them from somewhere.

I'm either looking in the wrong places or looking too late maybe and they've been taken down. I was sure I'd seen an Alonso Bahrain qualy video but when I looked I couldn't find one.

I'm hoping with Liberty eventually more content like this will be available.

_________________
"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: Sun May 07, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.


Lol, are you an Alonso fan? Coming back to rescue his driver. This video is perfect and would be even better if we had speed traces. Looking only at top speed could be missleading as it can and is affected by other factor non power related.

No he did not butchered that corner they way he did T11 and T12 in the other video, but lets try to get a bit more info by just looking. The first thing we will liok is driver hands at corner exit, what do you see? At corner exit Fernando is already behind even before start finish line, could be for a number of reasons but let say it is power related. To the start/finish line Alonso lost maybe 1/2 car, to the green bridge maybe 1 car, to first yellow bridge maybe 2, until this point he might be still paying for the exit of the last corner, now from there to the next yellow bridge you can start to see a much bigger difference, as car approach top speed, this is where power difference is being more of a factor, why is the speed not increasing? Ran out of battery? Gear? Lets say it is 100% power fault just to tickle your fancy. Now Alonso is clearly behind, so from now on lets see driving lines on this lap! What do you see? By the way the car acelerates to 7th 8th gear I fail to see a big power deficit, it is up there that the car falls flat. I will point the finger towards Honda there, all other loss of time is on McLaren

Look at how agressive Vettel is on that Ferrari at every apex, how he attacks the curbing, why is Alonso not attacking the same? Could this be chassis related, lets say is power related also. Lets blame Honda.

My argunent stands, yes there is time lost due to engine, but there is also a lot of time lost due to chassis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.



Just look and look at that last corner. Just on driving only Vettel just outdrove Alonso. Really look at the lines. That last corner you must late apex, complete you direction change as fast and as soon as possible to be on power early.

Look at the lines, Vettel does just that, now look at Alonso, he took that corner like a regular 90 degree corner, thus he has to fight the car as he still has some direction change when he is on power, his track out is farther out han Vettel, he has just compromised the whole straight!!!!!

You see is in the details, in a way he also butchered that corner.

Quick question? Have you raced before?? There is a great book called "Going Faster, Mastering the art of race driving" its a book that in my view all of us race fans should read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
In fact looking at the times...........and just to see some of you go crazy here.

If and only if McLaren was a better chassis ans Alonso starts driving better (dont know if that is possible as he is the GOAT), regarless of engine issues, they would have a legitimate chance at Q3 in Sochi.

Boom there it is now dont pop a vein ladies and gents!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Also there ia another video on You Tube posted by Speed Trap titled - F1 2017 Hamilton vs Alonso Chinese GPMercedes vs McLaren - on that video we have also the comentary of De La Rosa in spanish.

On that video they cross the start finish line as close as the poster of the video could get them, basically at the same time. At the end of the straight pay close attention to driver hands, look at the time difference between Hamilton turn in and Alonso's turn in, keep that time in mind. Now this corner is a right hand DEcreasing radi, look at Ham's line vs FA line, now look at when each switch steering from right to left, note the time difference, how was the Honda engine a factor there? Notice that he lost less time from finish line to turn in than what he lost cornering. Then on next to last corner Alonso just blew it, so much so that De La Rosa, also a spaniard on Spanish tv said. "Frenada al 100 entra un pelin pasado" translated word by word "Braking at 100% enters a bit passed" so he acknowledges a mistake of his compatriot. How do we blame Honda for the loss of time there??

Some say, "lack of downforce on the car to compensate" mehh dont quite buy it, turn 3 at Sochi was flat. Other blame driveability, could be if it affects weight transfer while braking, or a power surge, but I cant see it in videos.

Alonso overdriving, well he is a frustrated human when in the car so it could be. Guys this chassis I really can say is a winner. Not even with the Merc engine


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
PRFAN wrote:
In fact looking at the times...........and just to see some of you go crazy here.

If and only if McLaren was a better chassis ans Alonso starts driving better (dont know if that is possible as he is the GOAT), regarless of engine issues, they would have a legitimate chance at Q3 in Sochi.

Boom there it is now dont pop a vein ladies and gents!!

Regardless of engine issues? I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the influence an engine has on performance. If their engine is down on power to the extent the Honda is they could have the best chassis in the world and still couldn't make it into Q3.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
In fact looking at the times...........and just to see some of you go crazy here.

If and only if McLaren was a better chassis ans Alonso starts driving better (dont know if that is possible as he is the GOAT), regarless of engine issues, they would have a legitimate chance at Q3 in Sochi.

Boom there it is now dont pop a vein ladies and gents!!

Regardless of engine issues? I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the influence an engine has on performance. If their engine is down on power to the extent the Honda is they could have the best chassis in the world and still couldn't make it into Q3.


Say what???

Ok lets see, Alonso himself said he is worth .300s, we have shown he is not driving at his best so hes got still .300s woth of time that talent only can give him. Now lets say there is another .300s on chassis development alone, and I am being conservative. That is .600s a lap lost. His best in Q1 was 1:36:3, Ocon needed 1:35:7 to advance to Q3 do the math. Now if Alonso used the .300s he brings in Q1 then Q3 on chassis gain alone is more difficult.

Chassis is very important to one would think!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
In fact looking at the times...........and just to see some of you go crazy here.

If and only if McLaren was a better chassis ans Alonso starts driving better (dont know if that is possible as he is the GOAT), regarless of engine issues, they would have a legitimate chance at Q3 in Sochi.

Boom there it is now dont pop a vein ladies and gents!!

Regardless of engine issues? I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the influence an engine has on performance. If their engine is down on power to the extent the Honda is they could have the best chassis in the world and still couldn't make it into Q3.


Say what???

Ok lets see, Alonso himself said he is worth .300s, we have shown he is not driving at his best so hes got still .300s woth of time that talent only can give him. Now lets say there is another .300s on chassis development alone, and I am being conservative. That is .600s a lap lost. His best in Q1 was 1:36:3, Ocon needed 1:35:7 to advance to Q3 do the math. Now if Alonso used the .300s he brings in Q1 then Q3 on chassis gain alone is more difficult.

Chassis is very important to one would think!

You're just plucking those figures out of thin air. There's no science behind this magical 0.600s figure that's supposedly on the table. And what about Vandoorne? You must think he's the worst driver on the grid to be leaving so much on top of that.

I'm getting the feeling you're making these claims purely to generate a reaction. But there's no evidence to support any of it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 893
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:



I just thought they were talking about the version that ended the season last year to be honest when they talked about not hitting the previous version. I must have just assumed that they couldn't have failed by that much lol, more specifically the backwards step with the ERS is what's surprising me.

P.S. Since you're the guy that brought Stoff (And Max) to my attention a few years ago in the feeder series thread I think you should be the one to start his official thread off if you're up for it. :nod:


And that would be fake news/ propaganda created by the chasis camp.
Its clear for everybody to see by the video posted that honda is down by 11 km/hr by the end of the straight, and acceleration curve not far off merc.
If you choose to beleive what some anonamous insider says then you are also saying Merc engine went backwards not only from 2015 but also 2016.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Thanks

People just dont like the truth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20646
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!

Probably because the chassis isn't their big problem?

It's important to note that both McLaren and Honda cite the PU as their biggest issue. It strikes me that Honda can't be having a lot of fun being the whipping boy and if the chassis was poor I'd be quite surprised if they didn't try and spread the blame around a bit. The fact that they are publicly accepting the blame and humiliation that goes with it speaks volumes. I think it's probably quite hard to see exactly where the chassis is as it's doubtless having to make all kinds of compromises in an attempt to make up for the PU deficiency, so I don't see how anyone may claim that it's poor. it seems to me you have to want it to be that way in order to form that conclusion.

I don't think anyone would accuse Alonso of holding back if he was unhappy about anything, so it's unlikely he would say that the McLaren is one of the best chassis on the grid if they had produced a donkey. Given his clearly unhappy state of mind you'd expect him to be lashing out everywhere and at everything that's going wrong, but he remains more than positive on the chassis itself. Why is that, do you think? It just doesn't add up

Now I'm not saying I agree with him that the McLaren is one of the best chassis - I find it too hard to say where it is one way or another with any confidence - but I strongly doubt he'd be praising it if it was a lemon, given all we know about the man. I don't quite understand why you are so insistent it's poor when there's no real evidence to support that. The PU is so far behind everyone else that the only thing we can probably guarantee is that the chassis is having to make compromises as a result, so how can we be sure of anything?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1433
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!


So in your world, a chassis is designed the same, regardless if the engine is class leading in horsepower or down 200 horsepower. There's no difference to the chassis, not one bit.

There's a reason why this discussion is so lopsided and it is your intransigence towards basic car design logic.

A chassis designed to try to overcome being down 150+ hp is going to suffer in a way that one designed to operate with a fully powered engine will not. How is it possible you cannot recognize this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2771
PRFAN wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.



Just look and look at that last corner. Just on driving only Vettel just outdrove Alonso. Really look at the lines. That last corner you must late apex, complete you direction change as fast and as soon as possible to be on power early.

Look at the lines, Vettel does just that, now look at Alonso, he took that corner like a regular 90 degree corner, thus he has to fight the car as he still has some direction change when he is on power, his track out is farther out han Vettel, he has just compromised the whole straight!!!!!

You see is in the details, in a way he also butchered that corner.

Quick question? Have you raced before?? There is a great book called "Going Faster, Mastering the art of race driving" its a book that in my view all of us race fans should read.


You cant expect vettel and alonso to take exactly the same lines.

For once they have different driving styles, and then they are driving different cars. Alonsos style is known for the way he attacks the apexes. He is unique in the way he uses understeer as a weapon. Vettel is more about manipulating the rear end and using the straightest exit lines as possible. Its also a heck of a lot easier to late apex a corner when u have more downforce.

Lets not forget the likelyhood that mclaren cant afford to run as much downforce as ferrari. Not enough engine power. So again you combine the different driving styles and the likely vast difference in downforce levels you are going to see completely different racing lines between the two.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
Can't really compare onboards without knowing how many aero both cars have. Maybe the McLaren is again going lower on aero to limit the loss on the straights so they go also slower in corners, who knows.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Herb Tarlik wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!


So in your world, a chassis is designed the same, regardless if the engine is class leading in horsepower or down 200 horsepower. There's no difference to the chassis, not one bit.

There's a reason why this discussion is so lopsided and it is your intransigence towards basic car design logic.

A chassis designed to try to overcome being down 150+ hp is going to suffer in a way that one designed to operate with a fully powered engine will not. How is it possible you cannot recognize this?


You know what you are completely correct!

A clearly superior and under stressed chassis must suffer from a lot of problems, this Honda engine should be just banned and Honda shown the door.

Cant accelerate to save its life, so no heat to the tires, no top speed whatsoever so it is always running Monza levels of Downforce, and being so slow in the top they just can not create heat on the brakes for them to work effectively. Poor Alonso, something needs to be done quick, this can not continue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
kleefton wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.



Just look and look at that last corner. Just on driving only Vettel just outdrove Alonso. Really look at the lines. That last corner you must late apex, complete you direction change as fast and as soon as possible to be on power early.

Look at the lines, Vettel does just that, now look at Alonso, he took that corner like a regular 90 degree corner, thus he has to fight the car as he still has some direction change when he is on power, his track out is farther out han Vettel, he has just compromised the whole straight!!!!!

You see is in the details, in a way he also butchered that corner.

Quick question? Have you raced before?? There is a great book called "Going Faster, Mastering the art of race driving" its a book that in my view all of us race fans should read.


You cant expect vettel and alonso to take exactly the same lines.

For once they have different driving styles, and then they are driving different cars. Alonsos style is known for the way he attacks the apexes. He is unique in the way he uses understeer as a weapon. Vettel is more about manipulating the rear end and using the straightest exit lines as possible. Its also a heck of a lot easier to late apex a corner when u have more downforce.

Lets not forget the likelyhood that mclaren cant afford to run as much downforce as ferrari. Not enough engine power. So again you combine the different driving styles and the likely vast difference in downforce levels you are going to see completely different racing lines between the two.



Understeer is not a weapon to go fast, you want it on super fast long corners because it feels better, you get a more stable rear, peace of mind, but understeer scrubs away speed is inefficient cornering. It is a weakness not a strength and is usually not well received.

Late apex is about corner entry set up, not dependent on down force. You can decide if you go for early or late apex as a consequence of what is waiting for you after that corner. Increasing radius after, you can go early, straight after you go late. Corners have rankings, they are ranked or given importance depending on track layout, some corners you sacrifice to gain on the one after. That last corner is a textbook low importance corner, because is followed by a large amount of time in full acceleration. A late apex is the optimal way thru it.

It has been my opinion, personal mine and only mine, you don't have to agree, that the so called Alonso understeer prowess will not produce the ultimate lap time. He will need a very dominant car to be the fastest, where Hamilton or Vettel will get the faster times on a greater variety or cars, but that is just me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 558
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Jeez PRFAN you redefine the term 'armchair expert'.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!

Probably because the chassis isn't their big problem?

It's important to note that both McLaren and Honda cite the PU as their biggest issue. It strikes me that Honda can't be having a lot of fun being the whipping boy and if the chassis was poor I'd be quite surprised if they didn't try and spread the blame around a bit. The fact that they are publicly accepting the blame and humiliation that goes with it speaks volumes. I think it's probably quite hard to see exactly where the chassis is as it's doubtless having to make all kinds of compromises in an attempt to make up for the PU deficiency, so I don't see how anyone may claim that it's poor. it seems to me you have to want it to be that way in order to form that conclusion.

I don't think anyone would accuse Alonso of holding back if he was unhappy about anything, so it's unlikely he would say that the McLaren is one of the best chassis on the grid if they had produced a donkey. Given his clearly unhappy state of mind you'd expect him to be lashing out everywhere and at everything that's going wrong, but he remains more than positive on the chassis itself. Why is that, do you think? It just doesn't add up

Now I'm not saying I agree with him that the McLaren is one of the best chassis - I find it too hard to say where it is one way or another with any confidence - but I strongly doubt he'd be praising it if it was a lemon, given all we know about the man. I don't quite understand why you are so insistent it's poor when there's no real evidence to support that. The PU is so far behind everyone else that the only thing we can probably guarantee is that the chassis is having to make compromises as a result, so how can we be sure of anything?


I think maybe culture is playing a role, Honda in their Japanese way are more honest in defeat, McLaren and Alonso might have other motives. Alonso burnt too many bridges, he speaks in hyperbole and I take stuff he says with tweezers, his got more tricks than Batman's belt. Politics are his first sport, not F1, more so when McLaren is sending him to Indy. If you compare some of Stoffel comments, the majority of them are more general, more consistent of an overall package problem, even when he has also acknowledged the engine deficit, he has been more professional that the experienced professional in that sense.

I don't think he is not trying, maybe trying to hard and so focused on the engine that other stuff are passing him by.

I feel like I am repeating myself, I do not think the chassis is a lemon or super bad, but it is part of the problem. We can debate all we want but we are entitled to our opinions, based on whatever belief we have. I have been very careful to not step on people toes in expressing it, if some of you don't agree, its ok.

We will need so much data to pinpoint exactly where and how Alonso is losing time, but using what we have and the analysis some have made, the only responsible thing to do is to submit the whole package, driver, Team and Chassis to the same level of scrutiny we are giving Honda. When I did that I found a PU that maybe is not as bad as they told me, unreliable yes, brutally underpowered.....no. I did not expected to find Alonso making mistakes, or a chassis playing tricks. You can support of justify it as it suits for now and to put this matter to rest lest just all agree is Hondas issue.

Cheers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
jono794 wrote:
Jeez PRFAN you redefine the term 'armchair expert'.


Yep as you say, I am exactly that. :lol: :lol:

Yours has been the smartest, filled with fact comment I have read on this thread, moderators please close the thread now. Jono has spoken.

At the very least I can say I have some very low level, amateur, Sunday morning, not past 12:00pm cause I get tired, not too fast cause I also get dizzy, on smooth tracks cause my kidneys hurt, 3 years Kart TAG Masters running and Intrepid Kart with Iame Parrilla and later RoK engine racing experience, wanted to try shifters but too expensive cause I am also dead poor and I am writing right now from a borrowed I-pad.

You hit the nail in the head bro. You amazing!! 8O :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 3:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2771
PRFAN wrote:
kleefton wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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

The main thing that stands out to me is how badly Alonso butchered his exit from the final corner, resulting in Seb arriving at T2 so far ahead of him. Shocking, really.



Just look and look at that last corner. Just on driving only Vettel just outdrove Alonso. Really look at the lines. That last corner you must late apex, complete you direction change as fast and as soon as possible to be on power early.

Look at the lines, Vettel does just that, now look at Alonso, he took that corner like a regular 90 degree corner, thus he has to fight the car as he still has some direction change when he is on power, his track out is farther out han Vettel, he has just compromised the whole straight!!!!!

You see is in the details, in a way he also butchered that corner.

Quick question? Have you raced before?? There is a great book called "Going Faster, Mastering the art of race driving" its a book that in my view all of us race fans should read.


You cant expect vettel and alonso to take exactly the same lines.

For once they have different driving styles, and then they are driving different cars. Alonsos style is known for the way he attacks the apexes. He is unique in the way he uses understeer as a weapon. Vettel is more about manipulating the rear end and using the straightest exit lines as possible. Its also a heck of a lot easier to late apex a corner when u have more downforce.

Lets not forget the likelyhood that mclaren cant afford to run as much downforce as ferrari. Not enough engine power. So again you combine the different driving styles and the likely vast difference in downforce levels you are going to see completely different racing lines between the two.



Understeer is not a weapon to go fast, you want it on super fast long corners because it feels better, you get a more stable rear, peace of mind, but understeer scrubs away speed is inefficient cornering. It is a weakness not a strength and is usually not well received.

Late apex is about corner entry set up, not dependent on down force. You can decide if you go for early or late apex as a consequence of what is waiting for you after that corner. Increasing radius after, you can go early, straight after you go late. Corners have rankings, they are ranked or given importance depending on track layout, some corners you sacrifice to gain on the one after. That last corner is a textbook low importance corner, because is followed by a large amount of time in full acceleration. A late apex is the optimal way thru it.

It has been my opinion, personal mine and only mine, you don't have to agree, that the so called Alonso understeer prowess will not produce the ultimate lap time. He will need a very dominant car to be the fastest, where Hamilton or Vettel will get the faster times on a greater variety or cars, but that is just me.


Lol why dont you look up alonsos driving style and get back to me abot how he cant go faster with an understeering car. Thats the main reason he made kimi look like an apprentice in 2014. The ferrari of that year had no front end according to kimi but alonso pretty much eliminated that weakness of the car with his driving style.

It can be your opinion which i certainly disagree with, but the guy has been doing this for years in f1 and hes usually well ahead of his teammate. I mean you can act like you're blind but you must give credit when its due. You are trating him like hes some chump who cant even drive. Come on man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4312
Location: Michigan, USA
PRFAN wrote:
Lol, are you an Alonso fan?

Seriously - my avatar is a picture celebrating Alonso's 250th GP. Of course I'm an Alonso fan, I didn't think I was being subtle about it! :lol:

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 Alonso is an inferior driver and b) it is well known that a bad power unit has a knock-on effect, making everything else worse. With less power you can't run as much aero, making the car less stable and harder to balance. If the Honda really is down by ~200hp as claimed, it's almost impossible to judge where their chassis would be with a competitive engine.

That said, I think you're right - sort of. The chassis is probably not the best on the grid, even fundamentally. But most of the fault is Honda's, and I think there's no reason at all to believe the fault is Alonso's. Alonso has proven throughout his career that no one can extract more from a bad car than he can. Saying any part of the gap is down to him is about as ridiculous as saying the only reason Ferrari struggled in the mid 1990s was because Schumacher was too slow.

_________________
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: Mon May 08, 2017 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1269
If you'd show that comparison video to someone who wasn't in to F1 or motorsport they would probably think they were watching two different series lol.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Exediron wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Lol, are you an Alonso fan?

Seriously - my avatar is a picture celebrating Alonso's 250th GP. Of course I'm an Alonso fan, I didn't think I was being subtle about it! :lol:

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 Alonso is an inferior driver and b) it is well known that a bad power unit has a knock-on effect, making everything else worse. With less power you can't run as much aero, making the car less stable and harder to balance. If the Honda really is down by ~200hp as claimed, it's almost impossible to judge where their chassis would be with a competitive engine.

That said, I think you're right - sort of. The chassis is probably not the best on the grid, even fundamentally. But most of the fault is Honda's, and I think there's no reason at all to believe the fault is Alonso's. Alonso has proven throughout his career that no one can extract more from a bad car than he can. Saying any part of the gap is down to him is about as ridiculous as saying the only reason Ferrari struggled in the mid 1990s was because Schumacher was too slow.


My limited Karting does not qualifies me, you are right, so what makes you think, using the same logic, that we can talk in this forum about any driver.

Then some forumners here are even less qualified and they make points and even make choices on what a driver should with his career. People here talk about tire compounds but they have never turn a slick tire in their life. Real armchair experts that all they have done is dream of racing but have never cross the barrier and get behind a wheel, any wheel.

Have I hurt feelings saying the chassis is part of the problem? Not my intention, create sensible discussion where one can explain their point on view, maybe, but some cant hack it and start insinuating, or get their feelings hurt when they hear something negative about their driver. So be it man. I already said that all the fault lies on Honda so why keep dragging this on?? Have you ever thought that Alonso could go even faster with small changes to his driving? Ohh crap now your going to say I should teach Alonso, because that statement instead of creating healthy discussion will be brushed off as stupid. That is how we humans are.

My limited Karting qualifies me for nothing, so what qualifies all of us to have some of the most opinionated statements we have on this forum

After all this is a racing forum, it will be interesting to know what percentage have actually raced something with an engine in their life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1433
PRFAN wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!


So in your world, a chassis is designed the same, regardless if the engine is class leading in horsepower or down 200 horsepower. There's no difference to the chassis, not one bit.

There's a reason why this discussion is so lopsided and it is your intransigence towards basic car design logic.

A chassis designed to try to overcome being down 150+ hp is going to suffer in a way that one designed to operate with a fully powered engine will not. How is it possible you cannot recognize this?


You know what you are completely correct!

A clearly superior and under stressed chassis must suffer from a lot of problems, this Honda engine should be just banned and Honda shown the door.

Cant accelerate to save its life, so no heat to the tires, no top speed whatsoever so it is always running Monza levels of Downforce, and being so slow in the top they just can not create heat on the brakes for them to work effectively. Poor Alonso, something needs to be done quick, this can not continue.


This facetious response of yours shows exactly why you are a laughing stock in this thread. You cannot make a response without resorting to ridiculous levels of hyperbole.

You want to defend Honda? Fine. Have at it. Your "defense" is as effective as Honda's engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
Herb Tarlik wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!


So in your world, a chassis is designed the same, regardless if the engine is class leading in horsepower or down 200 horsepower. There's no difference to the chassis, not one bit.

There's a reason why this discussion is so lopsided and it is your intransigence towards basic car design logic.

A chassis designed to try to overcome being down 150+ hp is going to suffer in a way that one designed to operate with a fully powered engine will not. How is it possible you cannot recognize this?


You know what you are completely correct!

A clearly superior and under stressed chassis must suffer from a lot of problems, this Honda engine should be just banned and Honda shown the door.

Cant accelerate to save its life, so no heat to the tires, no top speed whatsoever so it is always running Monza levels of Downforce, and being so slow in the top they just can not create heat on the brakes for them to work effectively. Poor Alonso, something needs to be done quick, this can not continue.


This facetious response of yours shows exactly why you are a laughing stock in this thread. You cannot make a response without resorting to ridiculous levels of hyperbole.

You want to defend Honda? Fine. Have at it. Your "defense" is as effective as Honda's engine.


Dude are you mad?

What you wrote about chassis makes no sense at all. Please read it again, really think about it and think again. Again you confused desing with set up. You did not like my response. Nothing I can do bro.

You know what really got people going here. It was not that I said, you know what this chassis might not be that good. It was that I dared said something negative about Alonso.

Deal with, Alonson makes mistakes and got schooled by Kanye. Forget about chassis or engine or what not, he got schooled by Hamilton and Vettel on basic driving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12049
I feel like I am missing something... Are we putting Mclaren's time loss on the straights down to Alonso poor corner exiting ability and are we making sweeping statements about Alonso's lack of ability to get results in a bad car due to his perceived under performance in one corner?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2466
We were originally discussing Alonso's decision (with team blessing, I'll add) to race this year's Indy 500. That has moved onto the relative merits (or lack of) of the McLaren-Honda, with some lively debate as to the quality of the chassis.
I think it's a give that the power unit is both down on power and suffering from reliability issues. We are just a lot less clear on whether the chassis is very good, but unable to shine due to the power unit, or not very good and hiding behind the power unit issues. We have our opinions on these and, whilst some may seem a bit far-fetched to others, we're all entitled to express them.
I'll just add that I may not be in agreement with PRFAN argues but he should be allowed to state his case without being shot down. Thanks.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9568
Location: Ireland
PRFAN wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue. - not trying to get reactions, just trying to get one point across, we can all agree the PU has problems, but the chassis in my view has a lot of problems also. But all the time lost is being carried on the shoulders of Honda and that is unfair. We must look at what this chassis is doing, how is afecting the driver and change our narrative. Honda needs to get it sorted, McLaren also, and I dont hear people asking EB what about the chassis!


So in your world, a chassis is designed the same, regardless if the engine is class leading in horsepower or down 200 horsepower. There's no difference to the chassis, not one bit.

There's a reason why this discussion is so lopsided and it is your intransigence towards basic car design logic.

A chassis designed to try to overcome being down 150+ hp is going to suffer in a way that one designed to operate with a fully powered engine will not. How is it possible you cannot recognize this?


You know what you are completely correct!

A clearly superior and under stressed chassis must suffer from a lot of problems, this Honda engine should be just banned and Honda shown the door.

Cant accelerate to save its life, so no heat to the tires, no top speed whatsoever so it is always running Monza levels of Downforce, and being so slow in the top they just can not create heat on the brakes for them to work effectively. Poor Alonso, something needs to be done quick, this can not continue.


This facetious response of yours shows exactly why you are a laughing stock in this thread. You cannot make a response without resorting to ridiculous levels of hyperbole.

You want to defend Honda? Fine. Have at it. Your "defense" is as effective as Honda's engine.


Dude are you mad?

What you wrote about chassis makes no sense at all. Please read it again, really think about it and think again. Again you confused desing with set up. You did not like my response. Nothing I can do bro.

You know what really got people going here. It was not that I said, you know what this chassis might not be that good. It was that I dared said something negative about Alonso.

Deal with, Alonson makes mistakes and got schooled by Kanye. Forget about chassis or engine or what not, he got schooled by Hamilton and Vettel on basic driving.

Has Kanye West been making a fool of Fernando Alonso? Or are you calling Lewis Hamilton "Kanye" because he is black?

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 509
mikeyg123 wrote:
I feel like I am missing something... Are we putting Mclaren's time loss on the straights down to Alonso poor corner exiting ability and are we making sweeping statements about Alonso's lack of ability to get results in a bad car due to his perceived under performance in one corner?


Quick answer is NO.

What I am saying (and thanks to Tootsie for a sensible comment) is that we can not make the mistake that the lack of performance is only engine related, and think it all derives from that.

The engine is down on power, given
The Chassis could be and is being affected by PU woes on some areas, on other areas some of the time lost is purely chassis related. And I think that point can not be ignored. And yes I was brave to some, dumb to others, to say that the chassis losses could be bigger than expected. In my observations, and in objective observations you can also find mistakes by the driver, he is human after all. But some whant to justify a mistake blaming the PU, loss of time in braking, its the PU, cant put powet down, its the PU, and that overall idea that all that is wrong with this car/team is the PU I find unfair and to a point dishonest. Hell we dont give other drivers the leeway we give Mr Alonso.

There is another video look it up, Alonso vs Kimi in Australia, see if you can see a difference in the ammount of time it took from last to first corner in boths cars, see how the hands of boths are moving, see how the MC reacted to riding a curb vs the Ferrari 3 corners before the end of the lap. Tell us what you see, some will scream downforce, and they might be right, I will say downforce BUT the chassis should have handle that better. This is too much for some, not to understand because I dont want to understimate someones capacity, but the question as to why the big correction, I am sorry but I can not just point the finger towards Honda.

In my view, which is mine and only mine, Alonso, is underperforming as a profeassional leader of the team, and as any driver, making mistakes maybe out of being frustrated, Honda us clearly underperforming, AND McLaren are also, when was the last time they produced a good chassis? But if blaming all on Honda make some happy..........no problem


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3429
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
AravJ wrote:

And that would be fake news/ propaganda created by the chasis camp.
Its clear for everybody to see by the video posted that honda is down by 11 km/hr by the end of the straight, and acceleration curve not far off merc.
If you choose to beleive what some anonamous insider says then you are also saying Merc engine went backwards not only from 2015 but also 2016.


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.

_________________
"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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], mas, owenmahamilton, 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