McLaren Life banner

41 - 60 of 211 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
Yea I suppose I'm jump the gun a bit. There is no way I see the teams circling back to China at the end of the season. I also don't see them interrupting the scheduled breaks so I'm going with Cancelled.
It could certainly go that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
Hmmm formula E moves into Brixworth, ‘boosting’ F1 :)

———————

INSIDERACING.COM


Ben Issatt Formula 1 17 February 2020
Mercedes expecting big engine gains in 2020, thanks in part to Formula E
Mercedes is expecting strong performance gains from their engine in 2020 after a busy winter of development.
In recent years, the German manufacturer has lost the advantage they held since the hybrid formula began in 2014 and in fact, last season, found themselves lagging behind Ferrari.

That has spurred a push for more power to try and close the gap, and murmurs inside Mercedes suggest they could in fact once again lead the way in 2020.
“We have had to develop an even wider area of the PU, we have looked at every single system,” engine boss Andy Cowell told Crash.net.
“We have worked on a huge array of projects and when summed together they will hopefully help propel the car around the track quicker and give the aerodynamics team more opportunities to improve as well.
“There is no such thing as perfection, there is always the opportunity to improve and all of us have that mindset.
“We’re always improving every detail - the materials, the hardware and ingredients, but also things like our design tools. You know there are areas where you can get better and being self-critical and keeping an open mind is at the core of that mindset.”
Over the past year or more, Mercedes has also expanded its HPP operation at Brixworth to incorporate the company's new Formula E entry from Season 6.
And while it is often suggested that one day the all-electric project will be the death knell of their F1 program, right now it's actually boosting it.
“Formula E is a fascinating championship with the electric machine as the only device propelling the car,” Cowell told Motorsport.
“The efficiencies of that electric machine, the inverter and all the control systems, are paramount, and the torque accuracy delivery is crucial.

“Some of the development learning there has now fed back into F1, so from Melbourne this year, our F1 hybrid system will benefit from our Formula E development work. We’ve also made some manufacturing improvements that originate in the FE program.
“Having two highly competitive series to do engineering work on is initially a strain because it takes a period of time to find the right people for the new series, some of those people have transferred from the F1 team, some have been recruited from outside," he explained.
“However, I think overall it is a benefit because it provides opportunities for careers to flourish on new technology, on a new series and now we are seeing the ideas flow between both. Both powertrains will benefit as a consequence.”

Focusing back on F1 specifically, there has been one area where Mercedes has been vulnerable in recent years and that's in hot or high altitude races.

Indeed, three of their worst races of 2019, Austria, Singapore and Brazil, can be linked to those very factors and addressing that has been a goal.
“We are putting significant effort into making sure that all the cooling fluids on the Power Unit operate at a higher temperature,” Cowell revealed.
“This increases the temperature difference between that coolant fluid and the ambient temperature that we are racing in, which increases the effectiveness of the cooling system.
“That’s a tough challenge though because large parts of the engine are made from aluminium and the temperatures that we are operating at mean the material properties are decaying quite rapidly.
“Managing that over an eight-race distance Power Unit cycle [average race span required under F1’s technical regulations] is a tough engineering challenge but that's what we are striving for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
I was reading a piece that mentioned Max V’s exit clauses in his contract if Red Bull’s power unit is not competitive. “ The maximum gap between our engine and the top must not exceed two tenths of a second.” That was the only clause mentioned, however initially the word clauses was quoted in the piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,910 Posts
Don't need to read articles, saw it with my own eyes. That system is genius and very sexy. As big of an innovation as F duct or double diffuser
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,740 Posts
It's a brilliant idea, but that's what happens when you have the most money and can employ the largest number of engineers to work on new stuff that your competitors cannot afford to explore (;)).
I hope they ban it, as the world's worst fashion designer does not need yet another advantage over the other drivers.
As to whether they will ban it for this year, the problem is that it is against the spirit of the rules in several ways, but it may not be against the letter of any of them.

The one thing that I hope will be addressed is that, if McLaren's f-duct was banned on 'safety grounds' because they thought it would be unsafe for a driver to raise his arm slightly, this should be banned on safety grounds as well. How can it not increase risk if several times a lap the driver is occupied with pushing in or pulling out the steering wheel at the same time that he is meant to be steering with it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,910 Posts
It's a brilliant idea, but that's what happens when you have the most money and can employ the largest number of engineers to work on new stuff that your competitors cannot afford to explore (;)).
I hope they ban it, as the world's worst fashion designer does not need yet another advantage over the other drivers.
As to whether they will ban it for this year, the problem is that it is against the spirit of the rules in several ways, but it may not be against the letter of any of them.

The one thing that I hope will be addressed is that, if McLaren's f-duct was banned on 'safety grounds' because they thought it would be unsafe for a driver to raise his arm slightly, this should be banned on safety grounds as well. How can it not increase risk if several times a lap the driver is occupied with pushing in or pulling out the steering wheel at the same time that he is meant to be steering with it?
1. This is not a spec series. Not only is Mercedes right to innovate, it is in the sport's best interest that it maintain the most innovative, fastest, most impressive racecars on the face of the Earth. The WCC is more important than the WDC.

2. Doesn't break any of the spirit of any rules as there simply are no rules governing this. Completely out of the box thinking.

3. Pilots use yokes all the time and are even inverted in some manuevers. Should be very easy to adapt to in the sim. It is not the same as F duct where drivers were taking hands off the wheel at Eau Rouge at 180 mph or moving their knee over to block a hole. FIA has already stated that it meets every safety grounds
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,740 Posts
1. This is not a spec series. Not only is Mercedes right to innovate, it is in the sport's best interest that it maintain the most innovative, fastest, most impressive racecars on the face of the Earth. The WCC is more important than the WDC.

2. Doesn't break any of the spirit of any rules as there simply are no rules governing this. Completely out of the box thinking.

3. Pilots use yokes all the time and are even inverted in some manuevers. Should be very easy to adapt to in the sim. It is not the same as F duct where drivers were taking hands off the wheel at Eau Rouge at 180 mph or moving their knee over to block a hole. FIA has already stated that it meets every safety grounds
a) It's a moving device within the sprung mass affecting the aerodynamics of the car by reducing its frontal area.
b) It adjusts the suspension when the car is moving.
Both are not allowed. Merc's argument is not that it does not have these effects, as it obviously does, but rather that they are not its primary functions. Merc might be right in that, although - possibly - it is a question of how one assesses those functions. For example, the overall effects of the system may be 40% to extend tyre life, 30% to reducing straight-line drag, 30% to improve contact patch control. In that sense, legally improving tyre life would be the single biggest function, but would be less than half of the overall function.
This is similar to Murray's fan car. Yes, it was a great idea. After somebody thought of it (or, rather, figured out how to get it through the wording of the rule book), however, would the racing have been better if all the teams adopted the same system?

Re yokes on planes, please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that yoke rotation is sufficiently sensitive that when flying 'next to' another aircraft a quarter-inch of unintentional rotation for a quarter of a second is going to make much of a difference, whereas in modern F1 cars it can easily cause a crash.

Re the f-duct, I don't recall Hamilton's or Button's complaining that the system was unsafe. The problem was that, although McLaren's original version was always integrated into their approved chassis and functioned well as part of its system, other teams could only cobble together half-assed versions that were not well designed, were not properly integrated in an FIA-approved chassis, and required more awkward movement from their drivers. The erstaz versions might have been unsafe, but there was no evidence that McLaren's was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,910 Posts
a) It's a moving device within the sprung mass affecting the aerodynamics of the car by reducing its frontal area.
b) It adjusts the suspension when the car is moving.
Both are not allowed. Merc's argument is not that it does not have these effects, as it obviously does, but rather that they are not its primary functions. Merc might be right in that, although - possibly - it is a question of how one assesses those functions. For example, the overall effects of the system may be 40% to extend tyre life, 30% to reducing straight-line drag, 30% to improve contact patch control. In that sense, legally improving tyre life would be the single biggest function, but would be less than half of the overall function.
This is similar to Murray's fan car. Yes, it was a great idea. After somebody thought of it (or, rather, figured out how to get it through the wording of the rule book), however, would the racing have been better if all the teams adopted the same system?

Re yokes on planes, please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that yoke rotation is sufficiently sensitive that when flying 'next to' another aircraft a quarter-inch of unintentional rotation for a quarter of a second is going to make much of a difference, whereas in modern F1 cars it can easily cause a crash.

Re the f-duct, I don't recall Hamilton's or Button's complaining that the system was unsafe. The problem was that, although McLaren's original version was always integrated into their approved chassis and functioned well as part of its system, other teams could only cobble together half-assed versions that were not well designed, were not properly integrated in an FIA-approved chassis, and required more awkward movement from their drivers. The erstaz versions might have been unsafe, but there was no evidence that McLaren's was.
a. Wheel is not considered a moveable aero device. This system is legal on these grounds as any argument you make would ban steering altogether. Having no steering would be really interesting for a racecar. Under the way you are describing, brakes themselves would be moveable aero devices since they change ride height

b. Steering is separate from suspension. There is a clear distinction for engineers and for the regulations between the two. Toe changes anytime steering input is conducted. This just changes it a different way and no distinction is made in the regulations. The distinction IS made in the 2021 regulations by stating which axis of rotation are allowed.

What makes you think that a driver wouldn't be able to steer with this system? You ever play with a messed up sim wheel that wasn't fixed properly? You can still steer even if the column is moving in and out uncontrollably. I would expect this DAS to be setup so that there is resistance to pull it in or out. Can't easily be accidentally engaged. And actually when it is, the steering sensitivity of the car is reduced due to the toe out condition being reduced.

Regarding F-duct, I loved that shit. But to try and say DAS is unsafe is a weaker argument than F-duct
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,740 Posts
a. Wheel is not considered a moveable aero device. This system is legal on these grounds as any argument you make would ban steering altogether. Having no steering would be really interesting for a racecar. Under the way you are describing, brakes themselves would be moveable aero devices since they change ride height

b. Steering is separate from suspension. There is a clear distinction for engineers and for the regulations between the two. Toe changes anytime steering input is conducted. This just changes it a different way and no distinction is made in the regulations. The distinction IS made in the 2021 regulations by stating which axis of rotation are allowed.

What makes you think that a driver wouldn't be able to steer with this system? You ever play with a messed up sim wheel that wasn't fixed properly? You can still steer even if the column is moving in and out uncontrollably. I would expect this DAS to be setup so that there is resistance to pull it in or out. Can't easily be accidentally engaged. And actually when it is, the steering sensitivity of the car is reduced due to the toe out condition being reduced.

Regarding F-duct, I loved that shit. But to try and say DAS is unsafe is a weaker argument than F-duct
You're merely reiterating Mercedes's side of the argument. That's fine but, as in a court room, one should not uncrticially presume that, just because it suits one's prejudice, there is only one side to a story. My original post, to which you first replied, specifically stated:
"As to whether they will ban it for this year, the problem is that it is against the spirit of the rules in several ways, but it may not be against the letter of any of them."
In this case, the system may or may not be legal according to the 2020 regulations. It all depends on how one chooses to interpret those regulations. The issues are more subtle than how you present them to be.

Every driver's handbook for a road car with an adjustable steering wheel warns against driving the car while adjusting the steering wheel. One cannot dispute that a driver has less precise control when changing the wheel position simultaneously in two dimensions than he/she does when changing it in only one dimension.
You can say that F1 drivers are exceptionally skilled, which they are, and you can say that the scope for two-axis movement in the new Merc system is much narrower than that in the usual road car system, which it is. At the same time, everything in F1 racing is vastly more extreme than in road driving and so the margin for error in racing is a wee fraction of what it is in road driving. DAS is not as safe as conventional steering. Whether it is safe enough is debatable.
I myself think that in practice it probably is safe enough but, to be consistent with some of their past rulings such as on the f-duct, in this case the FIA should be similarly conservative and say "No".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
EssentiallySports

Adrian Newey Completely Rejects 2021 F1 Regulations
Adrian Newey Completely Rejects 2021 F1 Regulations

Renowned chief designer Adrian Newey said the progressions in 2009 were better since they gave them significantly greater improvement opportunities. However, with the current situation, there are so many restrictions. He has hit out at the new guidelines for the 2021 F1 season, recommending they smother the development the game should value.
The specialist behind ten title-winning vehicles, Newey’s notoriety for breaking new ground with his designs is well established. Although, he fears the approaching ruleset could make such developments a relic of past times.
The sporting, technical and financial regulations are all receiving a major overhaul. The aim is at making the series more affordable and competitive.
From 2021, F1 will totally change. Except for the engines, practically nothing will be identical. The Aerodynamics will likewise give shapes that never seen before in the classification previously.
In many ways, I look forward to the regulation change because it’s an opportunity to try to understand new things. What I don’t like is the general trend in successive regulations to become ever more restrictive,” Newey said.
What was very nice about the last major change back in 2009 was that it wasn’t more restrictive. But these new ones for 2021 are very restrictive and prescriptive. And I think that is an awful shame.
“It makes it a little bit GP1 which is not what I think Formula 1 should be.”

Introduced as part of F1 owner Liberty Media’s attempts to increase competition in the sport, Newey suggested he speaks for many in the paddock.
It’s been pushed through regardless of what people think, so whether it’s good for the sport or not, only time will tell,” he said.
Racing Point F1 technical director Andy Green also believes the same
The Red Bull F1 design chief underlines that he isn’t the just one in the paddock who feels that way.
Racing Point F1 technical director Andy Green believes that front wing design restrictions for 2021 will lead to cars that will be “nasty pieces of work to drive“.
Based on his research and observations, Green believes that F1’s 2021 cars will be unpredictable and could potentially undermine a driver’s confidence.
Aerodynamically it’s going to be quite unstable. I don’t think that’s a nice thing to have,” he added
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,315 Posts
Am sure he has seen it but just in case New Britain had missed this pearl....

New Max Mosley documentary set for March release

"""The documentary also features interviews with prominent F1 figures such as Bernie Ecclestone, Jean Todt, Flavio Briatore, and the late Robin Herd """

I wonder if it would have an interview with Ron Dennis too or did spanky get involved to make sure he turned into a hagiography about himself.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,211 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
Not sure if/when the Mosley documentary will be shown in USA. Read more about him on MacLife courtesy you and @New Britain than anywhere else :)

Thought NB would make some comments on Mercedes having their formula E engineering move into Brixworth — clever way to share/develop/test some aero engineering knowledge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,740 Posts
Am sure he has seen it but just in case New Britain had missed this pearl....

New Max Mosley documentary set for March release

"""The documentary also features interviews with prominent F1 figures such as Bernie Ecclestone, Jean Todt, Flavio Briatore, and the late Robin Herd """

I wonder if it would have an interview with Ron Dennis too or did spanky get involved to make sure he turned into a hagiography about himself.....
I was not aware of that - thank you!
Unless I am missing something, the article does not say where the documentary will be shown. Any ideas?

I laugh when that disingenuous coprolite tries to claim credit for improving safety in F1 and in road cars.
In road cars, there is a reason why the FIA part is called 'EuroNCAP'. That is because the original NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) was started by the US NHTSA seventeen years before it existed in Europe. Why did you have your head up your ass for so long, Max?

In racing, HANS devices were required in various forms of US racing many years before they became mandatory in F1. SAFER barriers were invented and implemented in the US in the early '00s, yet in Europe they still use steel barriers and stacks of old tyres. Likewise, the concept of full-time dedicated medical staff originated in the US; the position of F1's Dr Sid Watkins was copied from USAC's Dr Steve Olney.

I love it when Max von Mosley talks about how especially concerned he was after that weekend when Ratzenberger and Senna were killed. Yes, he was concerned alright, but not about drivers' safety. In the aftermath of those two deaths, he and Bernie were scared shitless that motor racing might be banned by the EU and their golden goose would be kaput.

I think I have said it here before, but one of my main goals in life is to outlive Mosley so that, after he dies, I can piss on his grave. What a despicable human being.
 
41 - 60 of 211 Posts
Top