It means quite a lot tbh. Next year McLaren could be mighty, hopefully the PU will be strong, aided with the tight aerodynamics washing over the size zero rear end.
It means little because it's nonsense. You literally can't claim a car has great packaging until it's working well. Small doesn't mean great. If small means they built radiators that are too small and cause the car to fail that is awful packaging, not good packaging. He's doing a Ted, which is "it's curvy, thus it must be great" or the "it's tight at the back therefore it's perfect... I need not know if it actually works, it LOOKS like it SHOULD work based on some very simple thinking".
A tight package that compromises everything else in the car, kills it's ability to run flat out due to heat or other failures isn't good packaging. Scarbs is being a complete donkey suggesting they are a year ahead in packaging because he literally can't know. Lotus tried to do good packaging last year and it failed badly. Too many people operate from the idea that good engineers can't make mistakes and it's laughable because more teams made mistakes than got it perfect last year, Mercedes made mistakes, just less mistakes than successes. Assuming that Honda will be good because they had more time or knew of others designs ignores the fact they can get bits wrong, same with packaging, just because Mclaren made it tight doesn't mean it will run well tight.
It COULD be awesome or it COULD be an entire failure, anyone calling it a year ahead of a known working and awesome car is basically an idiot. Scarbs comes out with a lot of nonsense but has access a lot of others don't.
Ok I'm a bit confused.
McLaren is meant to have the best body (zero size rear end) but everyone seems to think they're gonna be rubbish this year and have no pace, so can someone fill me in?
Is their aero rubbish (despite the back)?
Is it the engine?
Or is reliability so bad we just don't think they'll finish any race?
Mclaren have a tight package, as above, that is all that is known. Everything inside could fail every race because there isn't enough cooling or the rush to shrink the car simply means, like the engine, that you half arse every part you make by rushing it.
If you look at aero incredibly simply you can say tight packaging = faster car, but that doesn't mean that a tighter packaged car will be faster than some other car if every part of the other car works better.
Time will tell how good it is but nothing from testing(which for Mclaren started in November with this engine) has shown reliability, performance or a fast car. It's shown no speed or reliability and you can't win without both, could it have those hidden away somewhere.
Another issue is in season development. Mclaren have effectively the biggest change in car design meaning it's likely pretty much every part of the aero needs tweaking before it actually works brilliantly(assuming it can). But preseason testing is one of the few times you can really just go out, do a few laps, come in and try a different wing, get data, dedicate time to set up without rushing towards the race 2 days later. Good preseason testing to a large degree dictates the direction the entire development direction the team will likely take for at least the first 3 months of the season, potentially the areas of development over the majority of the season. SO while Merc and most teams have great data and will go back, examine the data and try and make a better front or rear wing, a tighter sidepod, a better part in the suspension, whatever. Mclaren is lacking really any of that data. Ultimately what works at 80% engine power and going around slower might react entirely differently on the limit.
So poor preseason testing generally has a big impact on in season development and Mclaren will be the car that needs it the most.
