Mclaren build the fastest cars.

[dannyjo22]

Sadly it's 5 or 6 months after the season has started.

Why is this becoming a trend? Is the design team missing the mark year in and year out so they end up throwing money at the car to copy and close the gap?

They get to the end of each year with a fast car and seem unable to build on it the following year. They do show very well that the days of almost unlimited testing are not needed to turn a car around but does the limited preseason running mean they start slowly each year?

For a team that has such resources why the hell can't they build back to back decent cars out of the box? It can't be Whitmarsh fault, Dennis didn't do it since the late 90's either. They won the title in 98 and 99 but I doubt they would have won the 99 title had MS not broken his leg. Still the car was fast out of the box. It then took him until 2008 to win another title.

The fizzy drinks company by comparison was a decent contender in 2009,10 and 11.

They used to leave Raikonnen with too much to do and now are doing the same with Lewis. Surely next year has to be Lewis last chance to give Mclaren the ability to give him a race car that's a threat from day 1?

If they cannot get it right in times of reasonable stability I wouldn't fancy them over Newey in a period of large regulation changes?

 

[Kerming]

bernie, have a small word and putting a cheaky tenner in his pocket.

 

[Skeeter]

I think you are focusing a bit to much on being anti McLaren.

Fighting for a title will affect your following years car. This has happened to numerous teams. Taking risks also may affect your car if those risks don't work.

In 2008 there was a massive fight between Ferrari and McLaren for the title which naturally affected their ability to focus on 2009. 2009 was a massive rule change too, and it cause a bit of a 'change of the guard' with lower teams being able to focus on 2009 designs. This is why you saw Brawn (Honda) and Red Bull come to the front while both Ferrari and McLaren dropped back. The Red Bull wasn't uber competitive in 2009 at the start, but got there throughout the year as Brawn dropped back.

The 2010 season opening McLaren car was not bad. It was competitive and they took some risks with the F Duct and other things. The Red Bull on the other hand took more risks and they paid off more.

And for 2011 McLaren again took risks with their exhaust layout, but it didn't work so put them on the back foot at the start of the season.

But at the end of the day, would you rather be in a car that lucks its way into being fast at the start of the season, but then gets caught as the others catch up (Brawn in 2009, arguably RBR in 2011), or do you want to be in a car from a team who push so hard that a car that is 2 seconds off the pace at race 1 wins races by the second half of the season?

I think the positives from the come backs from McLaren thoughout the recent seasons outweigh the negatives of them not having the quickest car out of the box.

After all, you have to take risks. If you just follow everyone else then you will always be lagging behind them.

 

[utajoker]

Could it be now that rbr think they pretty much have the title wrapped up and ha e stopped developing the current car to start on next years? And this is why Ferrari and mclaren have caught up/passed?

 

[dannyjo22]

The positves cannot outweight the negatives because they are losing championships because of it and winning one in 12 years if you go from 2000 to 2011.

Brawn isn't a reasonable comparison because they just stopped developing the car. Red Bull should have taken wins off them in the first 7 races but they made mistakes, the pace was there though.

Which cars luck their way into being fastest at the start of the season?

Fighting for titles hasn't affected Red Bulls charge, mclaren surely have enough bodies to cope with this. Don't they have split teams anyway?

 

[dannyjo22]

Could it be now that rbr think they pretty much have the title wrapped up and ha e stopped developing the current car to start on next years? And this is why Ferrari and mclaren have caught up/passed?

I think maybe the rules changing for blown diffusers made them concentrate on what would happen to the car. CS nuts said they were working hard on it. The rules then stayed as they were.

Then again Mclaren keep showing they have an ability to turn a slower car into the fastest car around mid season. Which is always too late.

 

[FrankJH]

Its all about Aero and RBR have the undisputed Aero king in Newey

The only reason RBR didnt win in 2009 was because of the massive rule change and they (like a lot of teams) were blindsided by the double diffuser.....but even by the end of 2009 they were the fastest car (not helped by Brawn's lack of funding / development for 4 months or so)

the '10 and '11 cars have "just" been adaptons from then on, being steadily developed /progressed

The supporters (in general) are lucky in one sense that Newey isnt with a team with the engine power range of Ferrari or Mercedes otherwise it would probably be a whitewash year after year (no disrespect but Im under the impression the Renault is slightly down in this department compared to the other two)

I AM very surprised that two years in a row the Mercedes has been such a let down - I really thought Brawn of all people would have come up with a car directly comparable with the other three, but in general its not even close.

I know McLaren used to have two seperate teams which developed the car for every alternate season (not sure if this is still the case, or if Ferrari do the same thing) did they scrap this in one of the expense rationalising phases?

Give credit where its due, McLaren keep on trying to develop the next "new" thing hoping its different from their competitors (F Duct in'10 which worked, octopus exhaust in '11 which didnt) at least they are trying new things rather than just building a base car and hoping to develop/copy every one else more quickly through the season

 

[Duke]

Apart from the exhaust rules changes, are they any other big changes for 2012? It could mean a tighter earlier grid if there isn't a big change like this year with the tyres/DRS.

 

[NathanE]

They lose more points from team mistakes on race days. Just think of how many points they've thrown away from mistakes this year!

I think they are in with a shout now. Their car seems to be almost matching the Red Bull on qually now, with Hamilton making up the shortfall. And race days they have been quicker than Red Bull pretty much all year. The Red Bull doesn't seem to pick up the pace as quickly as the McLaren does when the fuel starts to really burn off.

I think now that they're matching Red Bull almost on qually it will put Hamilton in a better position and frame of mind for the race. If he can always start at least 2nd or 3rd for the rest of the season, then he has every possibility of winning lots more races.

The problem is that McLaren need RBR to start faltering on race days, to start dropping points. Vettel needs a couple DNFs whilst a single McLaren driver scores a couple wins. That would get them back in the title race with half a shout.

 

[Skeeter]

Apart from the exhaust rules changes, are they any other big changes for 2012? It could mean a tighter earlier grid if there isn't a big change like this year with the tyres/DRS.

Nothing of note, but I would say the removal of EBD's is a potentially massive change, depending on your use of it now.

 

[FrankJH]

They lose more points from team mistakes on race days. Just think of how many points they've thrown away from mistakes this year!.

Certainly from JB's point of view they have lost a good 2nd/3rd/4th from Silverstone from shoddy pitstop management

Unfortunately in the next race the same car had a mechanical /hydraulics failure (can a team ever have a chance at predicting / preventing this kind of thing?)

I agree with you - but I would still (and do) happily support a team who make these mistakes but allow their drivers to really race against each other than any team who cut out these mistakes but only really support one driver for the title (swings and roundabouts I guess - less chance of mistakes happening if 90% of your concerntration is on one car)

I think now that they're matching Red Bull almost on qually it will put Hamilton in a better position and frame of mind for the race. If he can always start at least 2nd or 3rd for the rest of the season, then he has every possibility of winning lots more races.

The problem is that McLaren need RBR to start faltering on race days, to start dropping points. Vettel needs a couple DNFs whilst a single McLaren driver scores a couple wins. That would get them back in the title race with half a shout.

Very blinkered view you have there....especially when it could be argued that on race day alone, its not as one sided as you seem to suggest and more often than not JB is matching if not surpassing LH for pace taking the race as a whole from lights to flag. To prove this Im more than happy to admit JB has to work harder on Saturdays so as to start closer to LH on the grid.

 

[sunama]

But at the end of the day, would you rather be in a car that lucks its way into being fast at the start of the season, but then gets caught as the others catch up (Brawn in 2009, arguably RBR in 2011), ...

Erm...I like to win, so I would much rather be in the shoes of Brawn (2009 title winners) & RBR (2010 title winners).

Starting slow and then closing the gap as the season progresses is not a good strategy, as has been shown in 2009 and 2010 (and also in 2011). You have to build a fast car right from the get-go, otherwise, you are playing catch up.

Even with Alonso (arguably the best driver in F1), at their disposal, Ferrari are still struggling to beat RBR over the course of a full season. Admittedly in the first half of the season, Vettel has been the most in-form driver, but Alonso wasn't far behind, yet he is still took a hammering in the points standings.

The best strategy seems to be to build a good car over the Winter, so that from Race1, you are able to compete. Using this technique, you don't even need to have the best driver, to win the title.

Question:
Ferrari are obviously a team who expect to win everything. They have more pressure on them (placed by the Italians) than any other racing team. They have made their intention clear by hiring Alonso and making him the highest paid driver in F1, that they want to be the best at any cost. So, why don't they break the bank and offer Newey a lucrative contract that even he cannot refuse? I mean, for any car designer/aerodynamicist, working for Ferrari will be the pinnacle of their career...so what is stopping Ferrari from getting him?

 

[sunama]

Could it be now that rbr think they pretty much have the title wrapped up and ha e stopped developing the current car ...

No way.

In any championship season, even when winning by an enormous margin, no team will stop developing their current car.

They will almost certainly have a team working on next year's car already, but this year's car will be where most of the resources will be allocated.

Normally, the reason for a team (almost) completely stopping work on their current car, is that their current car is so hopelessly bad, that throwing good money after bad, just isn't worth it. It is almost unheard of, that a potentially championship winning car is abandoned, in favour on working on the following year's car.

 

[JRS]

No way.

In any championship season, even when winning by an enormous margin, no team will stop developing their current car.

Ferrari stopped developing the F2004 chassis before the German GP that year (so seven races to go, including that race at Hockenheim). They made one more engine upgrade, Bridgestone produced a couple of tyre evolutions, and that was it. Hence the field coming back at Ferrari towards the end of '04, unfortunately for them it was after Ferrari had long since assured themselves of both titles.

In other seasons, of course, they kept up with development. 2002 saw them get ever more distant from the pack as time went on - if I remember correctly Ferrari won every race from round 8 onwards, having only failed to win two races all year!

Other teams abandoned development on cars. The Brawn GP car didn't see much development, mainly because it was a lash-up that proved too good to mess with early on and too little to work with once the chasing pack started to catch up. The Williams FW14B wasn't developed once the FW15 was designed, but was so dominant anyway that the FW15 didn't even see service in '92 and was updated itself anyway before the '93 season started. It does happen, sunama. It may not be the rule, but it's hardly unheard of.

 

[The_Abyss]

The Brawn GP car didn't see much development, mainly because it was a lash-up that proved too good to mess with early on and too little to work with once the chasing pack started to catch up.

Yep - Ross thought he'd done enough and didn't want to chuck any more of his own money at it. He's canny with his own money - just look at the massive problems there were over Jenson getting his contractually agreed Brawn car at the end of the season.

 

[sunama]

Ferrari stopped developing the F2004 chassis before the German GP that year (so seven races to go, including that race at Hockenheim). They made one more engine upgrade, Bridgestone produced a couple of tyre evolutions, and that was it. Hence the field coming back at Ferrari towards the end of '04, unfortunately for them it was after Ferrari had long since assured themselves of both titles.

Do you honestly believe that they completely stopped development? I find that extremely hard to believe. Certainly, they may begin to shift resources over to the 2005 car, but to completely cease development of a car...I seriously doubt it.

In instances when a team do stop development of their current car, many new technologies which are developed for the next year's car, are grafted onto the current vehicle (where possible). Which means that the current vehicle may still receive upgrades.

The Brawn GP car didn't see much development, mainly because it was a lash-up that proved too good to mess with early on and too little to work with once the chasing pack started to catch up.

I believe that this was solely due to cost and not on purpose. Remember, when BrawnGP took over Honda, they had to make many staff members redundant. Also consider that the BrawnGP's budget was extremely low, especially for a championship winning team, which is usually well-funded. Imagine if RBR, at the start of this year handed their dominant car over to Hispania and said, "it's all yours". Certainly, they would win the first few races, but after that they would begin to struggle...not on purpose, but only because they cannot afford to continue development.

The Williams FW14B wasn't developed once the FW15 was designed, but was so dominant anyway that the FW15 didn't even see service in '92 and was updated itself anyway before the '93 season started. It does happen, sunama. It may not be the rule, but it's hardly unheard of.

If memory serves me correct, 2 decades ago, which is what we are talking about here, car development was slow. It was not unheard of for the same car to dominate across 2 whole seasons, with very few alterations. I believe that this happened in the 70's - Tyrell perhaps...not sure though...I would've been about 2 years old during this time. As times progressed, so did the amount of updates and regularity with which cars were updated. We have now reached a point where 1 team can dominate Race1 and be finishing in the midfield by the final race of the season (2009). We are seeing all cars brining upgrades to virtually every race. What we are seeing now cannot be compared with 1992. Times have changed and those days are gone. To base something that may happen in 2011, on something which happened 2 decades ago, is folly.

I stand by comment that to stop development, completely, in 2011, IMO is totally unthinkable...unless the season is a complete write-off. I think Honda did this in 2007. Certainly, to begin to shift resources, say 40-60 or 30-70 wouldn't be unthinkable. However, to shift your resources 0-100...no way!

Perhaps CSI NUTS can give us a definitive answer as to whether this 0-100 shift (ie. complete dead stop) which is what you are claiming, has been seen in recent times, first hand, by him. He said that he has been in the F1 industry for many years, so he should definitely know. I genuinely would like to know this, from an insider.

 

[JRS]

Do you honestly believe that they completely stopped development? I find that extremely hard to believe. Certainly, they may begin to shift resources over to the 2005 car, but to completely cease development of a car...I seriously doubt it.

Well, the rest of the field did seem to come back at them in the final part of the year which does lend some credence to the idea that they weren't developing the car much by then. And yes, the F2004 was upgraded again - after the season was over, to run the opening rounds in '05 while they sorted (or more accurately, failed to sort) the F2005 out.

It's not me saying that Ferrari stopped developing the F2004 chassis, by the way. Ross Brawn would be the one to direct your incredulity at.

I believe that this was solely due to cost and not on purpose. Remember, when BrawnGP took over Honda, they had to make many staff members redundant. Also consider that the BrawnGP's budget was extremely low, especially for a championship winning team, which is usually well-funded. Imagine if RBR, at the start of this year handed their dominant car over to Hispania and said, "it's all yours". Certainly, they would win the first few races, but after that they would begin to struggle...not on purpose, but only because they cannot afford to continue development.

Not disputing that. But you said "no team will stop developing their current car", with the only mitigating factor being an unusably bad car. You didn't say anything about teams that couldn't afford it.

Specificity is everything, my dear fellow!

If memory serves me correct, 2 decades ago, which is what we are talking about here, car development was slow. It was not unheard of for the same car to dominate across 2 whole seasons, with very few alterations. I believe that this happened in the 70's - Tyrell perhaps...not sure though...I would've been about 2 years old during this time. As times progressed, so did the amount of updates and regularity with which cars were updated. We have now reached a point where 1 team can dominate Race1 and be finishing in the midfield by the final race of the season (2009). We are seeing all cars brining upgrades to virtually every race. What we are seeing now cannot be compared with 1992. Times have changed and those days are gone. To base something that may happen in 2011, on something which happened 2 decades ago, is folly.

Certainly 'back in the day' there were teams who used the same chassis with very minor modifications for more than one season. But there were also teams constantly developing their cars - McLaren's M23 survived competitively for as many seasons as it did precisely because they kept updating it in-season and post-season. Same goes for the Lotus 72, though Lotus were rather forced down that path with the failure of the 76.

I stand by comment that to stop development, completely, in 2011, IMO is totally unthinkable...unless the season is a complete write-off. I think Honda did this in 2007. Certainly, to begin to shift resources, say 40-60 or 30-70 wouldn't be unthinkable. However, to shift your resources 0-100...no way!

Again - not disputing that point. But you said it was unheard of, seemingly saying that it was unheard of ever. I was just pointing out that this is not necessarily the case. Now you've clarified your point (i.e. shifted the goalposts ), we can agree.

 

[sunama]

I was just pointing out that this is not necessarily the case. Now you've clarified your point (i.e. shifted the goalposts ), we can agree.

Yep. Point taken.

I would still like to hear an insider's view, such as Nuts, whether or not a complete dead stop of development, really does happen in F1. It sounds far-fetched, though it would nice to hear it from an insider.