FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#80511
Heres the link printed out:- :rolleyes:


In the Ferrari v McLaren fight for this year's world championship, the development race - that frenetic fight back at the respective factories to find yet more time from the car - was always going to be key.

Ferrari began the year with what appeared to be a slight performance advantage and Lewis Hamilton did not initially like the MP4-23 as much as the 2007 car. Of late McLaren appears to have leapfrogged ahead. That - and the reasons behind it - suggest that the enormously deep resources of the team's MTC Centre in Woking may finally be making the critical difference.

Ferrari's technical resources are not at the same level. What they've enjoyed these years past is a superb understanding, along with facilities that are adequate. It has allowed them to keep things relatively simple, to focus on what they know is important, to properly translate some of the superb talent in their organisation.

Every change impacts every other part

But as an example of where it's at technically, it's a team that has only just begun development of its own driving simulator. McLaren's has been in operation for over two years and played a critical part in the huge performance advantage Hamilton enjoyed over the Ferraris at Hockenheim.

Ferrari led the way in simulation tools a decade ago, but McLaren was never far behind and in recent years has probably surpassed it. Earlier in the season, those simulation tools were telling the engineers the potential of the MP4-23 was not being fully accessed by the way the team was running it on a race weekend.

McLaren's design philosophy with this generation of cars has long been for a maximum area (in plan view) front wing. It generates plenty of front downforce - extra valuable with this generation of Bridgestone front tyre that needs to be loaded up hard to work properly - but the airflow it creates behind the wing has traditionally made keeping adequate flow to the sidepod radiator intakes quite a challenge.

The more front wing you run, the less useful air is available for the radiators and so the bigger the intakes have to be, at the expense of drag. It's a very fine line and difficult to know exactly where to draw it. Every change made impacts on every other part of the car and the optimum point is forever evolving, CFD and windtunnel programmes constantly refining.

Lewis Hamilton's natural driving style asks a lot of the front of the car. If the front end grip can support him, he's fine with whatever the back wants to do; in fact he even uses a sliding rear to help get a quicker direction change sometimes. It's spectacular in slow and medium-speed bends. The McLaren is a car that works its front tyres very hard, generates a lot of load from them, which suits Hamilton fine, but in long-duration fast corners it tends to overheat them - on Lewis's car in particular. So the tyre performance degrades, they are still too hot by the time he gets to the next braking zone etc.

The data was telling the team that if they surrendered some front end grip, the reduced tyre load would actually help the car overall. Furthermore, if they surrendered it in such a way as to improve the flow to the radiators, they could have a more aerodynamically efficient car into the bargain. That was great, except for one thing: it went totally against Hamilton's preferred driving style.

But the figures were just too good to ignore. For Silverstone they introduced their four-plane front wing. The extra plane made the wing more sympathetic to airflow changes, made the car more consistent, and peak front downforce will actually have reduced because the extra slot sits where once there was wing surface area.

Judging by the fact that with this change came a reduction in the radiator apertures, the wing change probably also fed the rads with better flow, thus reducing the drag for a given level of downforce - and probably fed the rear end of the car with better downforce-producing airflow too. Hamilton was quick with it in Silverstone testing but struggled in qualifying. That struggle was negated on race day by the rain that played beautifully into his hands.

The role of the simulator

But he couldn't rely on rain for every race and before Hockenheim work was needed in dovetailing his style with the demands of the updated car - and that's where the simulator came in. By the time of Germany he'd adapted fully to the new balance, allowing him to fully access the potential that the data had said was there all along. Heikki Kovalainen by contrast was not yet at ease with it, had a gurney fitted to the front wing to give him more front end - and couldn't use the lower-drag radiator covers as a result.

It was only as the race unfolded in Germany that Ferrari got to appreciate just what gains McLaren had made. But they haven't been only in aero. Engine specs might have been frozen since the end of 2006, but that hasn't stopped development of the fuels, lubricants, internal coatings, airbox and exhaust acoustics. As a result the Mercedes motor now works significantly better than when specs were frozen. One team, having completed an acoustics check, believes the Merc is now the most potent engine in the field, slightly ahead of Ferrari, and almost 40bhp up on Renault.

Then there's the matter of the McLaren's trick four-paddle steering wheel. This has been on the car since the beginning of the season. Every car on the grid has a cockpit-adjustable engine torque setting; this is fully legitimate. The McLaren has the same feature but instead of incorporating the control in the middle of the wheel, it's done by flaps beneath the gearshift paddles.

Ergonomically it's massively better, allowing the driver, if he so chooses, to change gear and torque setting at the same time by using two fingers simultaneously. It's interesting, incidentally, that this feature created quite a stir when details were published in a newspaper post-Hockenheim when actually we revealed it in Autosport's post-Silverstone Tech Focus two weeks earlier.

Ferrari has quite a job on its hands now. But never underestimate its ingenuity.
#80514

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

You don't have to register its a Motorsport news site and if you have never heard of it your obviously not a F1 Fan.

ALmost every time Mclaren Fan, Race Chick, Bud, Hannah or Myself has made a post there's some evidence to back it up or a link is provided to show what were saynig is true.

Race chick has just done that so You are wrong admit it and stop making an even bigger fool out of yourself.


When I click the link it tells me to log in for the full story. Logging in requires registering.

How am I making a fool out of myself by asking proof to back up what people say? I'd be a fool not to do so.


Your a fool because when she provided the "evidence" you wanted you still said she was lieing
#80516

You're telling me everyone should accept everything you or Mclaren Fan post here as fact without any links to support them? God, you're almost as arrogant as Hamilton.

I'll look into that link when I can be arsed to register there.


Are you suggesting that everyone needs to back up their every quote with links?


What quotes? I just asked racechick to back up what she said.

And yes, if someone posts a quote from an online article I'd expect a link to be provided.
#80517

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

You don't have to register its a Motorsport news site and if you have never heard of it your obviously not a F1 Fan.

ALmost every time Mclaren Fan, Race Chick, Bud, Hannah or Myself has made a post there's some evidence to back it up or a link is provided to show what were saynig is true.

Race chick has just done that so You are wrong admit it and stop making an even bigger fool out of yourself.


When I click the link it tells me to log in for the full story. Logging in requires registering.

How am I making a fool out of myself by asking proof to back up what people say? I'd be a fool not to do so.


Your a fool because when she provided the "evidence" you wanted you still said she was lieing


Ok, now I'm lost. What in the hell are you talking about? I haven't accused anyone of lying. Not before links were posted and not after. I think you may be delusional and need to seek medical help.
#80520
This is the first time I've come across that link. You think I read every single thread on this forum and read every single post you make in them? Arrogance again.


No I dont expect you to read everything, I certainly dont read everything, but I dont expect to be accused of not providing evidence when I clearly have. You now have the link and the printerd version and still you call names.How is providing requested evidence being arrogant? Dont bother answering im not interested. Just read the article
#80524
This is the first time I've come across that link. You think I read every single thread on this forum and read every single post you make in them? Arrogance again.


No I dont expect you to read everything, I certainly dont read everything, but I dont expect to be accused of not providing evidence when I clearly have. You now have the link and the printerd version and still you call names.How is providing requested evidence being arrogant? Dont bother answering im not interested. Just read the article


You posted the link in this thread after I asked for it. Before you did that you expected me just to take your word for it which is arrogant. You also expected that I've read your post in some other random thread where you've provided the link before. That is also arrogant.

As for the article, it says Hamiltons driving style actually needed a car with high front downforce to support him. However, the car was eating up the front tyres so the team reduced front downforce and the load on the tyres and got a more aerodynamically efficient car in the bargain.

Your initial post suggests that Hamiltons driving style was already eating up the tyres but the team felt that the car had to be developed so that the tyres are heavily loaded making it worse for Hamilton, who had to adjust his driving style in a simulator.
#80531
I just found this on another F1 forum and found it quite funny. I think Han will like it... or maybe not... :P

http://www.pitboard.co.uk/index.php?s=b ... y876209776

You put your left foot down
You take your right foot out
You take your revs right down
And you lose time all about.
You do the Heikki Kikey and you slow yourself down
That's what it's all about...
#80555
This is the first time I've come across that link. You think I read every single thread on this forum and read every single post you make in them? Arrogance again.


No I dont expect you to read everything, I certainly dont read everything, but I dont expect to be accused of not providing evidence when I clearly have. You now have the link and the printerd version and still you call names.How is providing requested evidence being arrogant? Dont bother answering im not interested. Just read the article


You posted the link in this thread after I asked for it. Before you did that you expected me just to take your word for it which is arrogant. You also expected that I've read your post in some other random thread where you've provided the link before. That is also arrogant.

As for the article, it says Hamiltons driving style actually needed a car with high front downforce to support him. However, the car was eating up the front tyres so the team reduced front downforce and the load on the tyres and got a more aerodynamically efficient car in the bargain.

Your initial post suggests that Hamiltons driving style was already eating up the tyres but the team felt that the car had to be developed so that the tyres are heavily loaded making it worse for Hamilton, who had to adjust his driving style in a simulator.


I did not expect you to have read about the link before, thats why I told you about it when you so arrogantly assumed there would not be a link. The link had already been posted before you asked and i would not have presented the findings of that report as fact had they not been so. I do not tell lies and resent your implication that i do. Perhaps this is what you do on forums , I do not. I give opinions and am sure I sometimes may make mistakes but i do not tell lies. You now have the article and i suggest you read it again because it sounds as though you have misunderstood it.

Stop trying to sidetrack the issue about Kovalainen and Hamilton by name calling me. The evidence you wanted has been produced. Read it and learn.
#80557

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

You don't have to register its a Motorsport news site and if you have never heard of it your obviously not a F1 Fan.

ALmost every time Mclaren Fan, Race Chick, Bud, Hannah or Myself has made a post there's some evidence to back it up or a link is provided to show what were saynig is true.

Race chick has just done that so You are wrong admit it and stop making an even bigger fool out of yourself.


When I click the link it tells me to log in for the full story. Logging in requires registering.

How am I making a fool out of myself by asking proof to back up what people say? I'd be a fool not to do so.


Your a fool because when she provided the "evidence" you wanted you still said she was lieing


Ok, now I'm lost. What in the hell are you talking about? I haven't accused anyone of lying. Not before links were posted and not after. I think you may be delusional and need to seek medical help.


You said that the stuff some of the Mclaren fans presented as facts were not so in otherwords your calling us lairs.

When Racechick provided a link from autosport.com which is a very reptuble source to backup what she had said you still said it could be "made up" in other words a lie.

Your making a fool out of yourself by going on about this every time i post somthing i make sure its backed up by a fact otherwise can appear misleading and i'm sure most of the other fan's including the mclaren fan's do the same.

In summery:
Just because you don't agree with somthing don't start saying it is lies
#80562
This is the first time I've come across that link. You think I read every single thread on this forum and read every single post you make in them? Arrogance again.


No I dont expect you to read everything, I certainly dont read everything, but I dont expect to be accused of not providing evidence when I clearly have. You now have the link and the printerd version and still you call names.How is providing requested evidence being arrogant? Dont bother answering im not interested. Just read the article


You posted the link in this thread after I asked for it. Before you did that you expected me just to take your word for it which is arrogant. You also expected that I've read your post in some other random thread where you've provided the link before. That is also arrogant.

As for the article, it says Hamiltons driving style actually needed a car with high front downforce to support him. However, the car was eating up the front tyres so the team reduced front downforce and the load on the tyres and got a more aerodynamically efficient car in the bargain.

Your initial post suggests that Hamiltons driving style was already eating up the tyres but the team felt that the car had to be developed so that the tyres are heavily loaded making it worse for Hamilton, who had to adjust his driving style in a simulator.


I did not expect you to have read about the link before, thats why I told you about it when you so arrogantly assumed there would not be a link. The link had already been posted before you asked and i would not have presented the findings of that report as fact had they not been so. I do not tell lies and resent your implication that i do. Perhaps this is what you do on forums , I do not. I give opinions and am sure I sometimes may make mistakes but i do not tell lies. You now have the article and i suggest you read it again because it sounds as though you have misunderstood it.

Stop trying to sidetrack the issue about Kovalainen and Hamilton by name calling me. The evidence you wanted has been produced. Read it and learn.


Read the thread again, there's no link before I asked for one. You mentioned a link with these words which everyone would find arrogant:
"I wont bother posting the relevant articles...they're a little long...and technical... and might be a little tricky for you :hehe:"

And my understanding about the article is spot on, guess you need to read it again, here you go:

"Lewis Hamilton's natural driving style asks a lot of the front of the car. If the front end grip can support him, he's fine with whatever the back wants to do; in fact he even uses a sliding rear to help get a quicker direction change sometimes. The McLaren is a car that works its front tyres very hard, generates a lot of load from them, which suits Hamilton fine, but in long-duration fast corners it tends to overheat them - on Lewis's car in particular. So the tyre performance degrades, they are still too hot by the time he gets to the next braking zone etc.

The data was telling the team that if they surrendered some front end grip, the reduced tyre load would actually help the car overall. Furthermore, if they surrendered it in such a way as to improve the flow to the radiators, they could have a more aerodynamically efficient car into the bargain. That was great, except for one thing: it went totally against Hamilton's preferred driving style.

But the figures were just too good to ignore. For Silverstone they introduced their four-plane front wing. The extra plane made the wing more sympathetic to airflow changes, made the car more consistent, and peak front downforce will actually have reduced because the extra slot sits where once there was wing surface area."
#80563

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

You don't have to register its a Motorsport news site and if you have never heard of it your obviously not a F1 Fan.

ALmost every time Mclaren Fan, Race Chick, Bud, Hannah or Myself has made a post there's some evidence to back it up or a link is provided to show what were saynig is true.

Race chick has just done that so You are wrong admit it and stop making an even bigger fool out of yourself.


When I click the link it tells me to log in for the full story. Logging in requires registering.

How am I making a fool out of myself by asking proof to back up what people say? I'd be a fool not to do so.


Your a fool because when she provided the "evidence" you wanted you still said she was lieing


Ok, now I'm lost. What in the hell are you talking about? I haven't accused anyone of lying. Not before links were posted and not after. I think you may be delusional and need to seek medical help.


You said that the stuff some of the Mclaren fans presented as facts were not so in otherwords your calling us lairs.

When Racechick provided a link from autosport.com which is a very reptuble source to backup what she had said you still said it could be "made up" in other words a lie.

Your making a fool out of yourself by going on about this every time i post somthing i make sure its backed up by a fact otherwise can appear misleading and i'm sure most of the other fan's including the mclaren fan's do the same.

In summery:
Just because you don't agree with somthing don't start saying it is lies


There you go again twisting what I've said and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say autosport had made up the stuff in the article? I found the article to be a very interesting read and the conclusions in it make sense. Jeesus Christ, seek help man, you need it.
#80565

There you go again twisting what I've said and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say autosport had made up the stuff in the article? I found the article to be a very interesting read and the conclusions in it make sense. Jeesus Christ, seek help man, you need it.


race chick posted the link which backed up what she had posted and then you posted this

You're telling me everyone should accept everything you or Mclaren Fan post here as fact without any links to support them? God, you're almost as arrogant as Hamilton.

I'll look into that link when I can be arsed to register there.


your a Pratt mate.
#80569

There you go again twisting what I've said and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say autosport had made up the stuff in the article? I found the article to be a very interesting read and the conclusions in it make sense. Jeesus Christ, seek help man, you need it.


race chick posted the link which backed up what she had posted and then you posted this

You're telling me everyone should accept everything you or Mclaren Fan post here as fact without any links to support them? God, you're almost as arrogant as Hamilton.

I'll look into that link when I can be arsed to register there.


your a Pratt mate.


I was replying to what racechick said about posting the facts twice before some place else and Mclaren Fan referring to them god knows where. I had not seen the link or the article before it was posted in this thread but still was expected to take their words as fact. They did not quote the article at any point, they just typed up a bunch of stuff that without a link to back them up was just their opinion, not fact.

For future reference, if you post something technical that you've read in an article and decide to rephrase it into your own words and present it as you're opinion instead of quoting the article, which probably was very well written in the first place and your rephrasing only makes it even harder to understand, provide a link to back up what you say.

Furthermore, if someone questions your opinion don't get all defencive and arrogant about it, just post the damn link to back up what you've said.
#80570

There you go again twisting what I've said and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say autosport had made up the stuff in the article? I found the article to be a very interesting read and the conclusions in it make sense. Jeesus Christ, seek help man, you need it.


race chick posted the link which backed up what she had posted and then you posted this

You're telling me everyone should accept everything you or Mclaren Fan post here as fact without any links to support them? God, you're almost as arrogant as Hamilton.

I'll look into that link when I can be arsed to register there.


your a Pratt mate.


I was replying to what racechick said about posting the facts twice before some place else and Mclaren Fan referring to them god knows where. I had not seen the link or the article before it was posted in this thread but still was expected to take their words as fact. They did not quote the article at any point, they just typed up a bunch of stuff that without a link to back them up was just their opinion.

For future reference, if you post something technical that you've read in an article and decide to rephrase it into your own words and present it as you're opinion instead of quoting the article, which probably was very well written in the first place, and your rephrasing only makes it even harder to understand, provide a link to back up what you say.

Furthermore, if someone questions your opinion don't get all defencive and arrogant about it, just post the damn link to back up what you've said.


Oh yeh i see your point, its good that you keep an eye on us oak and don't chat :censored: on the fourms because you have nothing of value to say because you know :censored: all about F1 and a your really just here to stirr up :censored: because your a :censored::censored::censored: arnt' you?

:rolleyes:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 13

See our F1 related articles too!