Discussion:
Testing Week Two
(too old to reply)
build
2018-03-06 09:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps happening out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive. STR looking good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up impressive runs at the top of the times and laps.

Anyone else watching?
DumbedDownUSA
2018-03-06 11:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps happening
out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive. STR looking
good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up impressive runs at
the top of the times and laps.
Anyone else watching?
IOT, it can all change very quickly...

...other than at McLaren where they seem to be in a different time zone.
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
build
2018-03-06 14:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DumbedDownUSA
Post by build
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps happening
out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive. STR looking
good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up impressive runs at
the top of the times and laps.
Anyone else watching?
IOT, it can all change very quickly...
...other than at McLaren where they seem to be in a different time zone.
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Bloody heck, another, third stoppage for Macca.
~misfit~
2018-03-07 01:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by DumbedDownUSA
Post by build
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps
happening out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive. STR
looking good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up
impressive runs at the top of the times and laps.
Anyone else watching?
IOT, it can all change very quickly...
...other than at McLaren where they seem to be in a different time zone.
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Bloody heck, another, third stoppage for Macca.
That's what testing is for - iron out the problems so they don't show up
during racing. AIUI the first two were electrical (the same issue not
completely fixed at first) and the third was due to metal fatigue in an
hydraulic fitting that's been on the car from the start of testing.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bigbird
2018-03-07 09:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by DumbedDownUSA
Post by build
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps
happening out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive.
STR looking good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up
impressive runs at the top of the times and laps.
Anyone else watching?
IOT, it can all change very quickly...
...other than at McLaren where they seem to be in a different time zone.
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Bloody heck, another, third stoppage for Macca.
That's what testing is for - iron out the problems so they don't show
up during racing. AIUI the first two were electrical (the same issue
not completely fixed at first) and the third was due to metal fatigue
in an hydraulic fitting that's been on the car from the start of
testing.
They also have packaging/cooling problems.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-cooling-fix-burned-bodywork-1012054/
~misfit~
2018-03-07 11:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by DumbedDownUSA
Post by build
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps
happening out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive.
STR looking good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up
impressive runs at the top of the times and laps.
Anyone else watching?
IOT, it can all change very quickly...
...other than at McLaren where they seem to be in a different time zone.
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Bloody heck, another, third stoppage for Macca.
That's what testing is for - iron out the problems so they don't show
up during racing. AIUI the first two were electrical (the same issue
not completely fixed at first) and the third was due to metal fatigue
in an hydraulic fitting that's been on the car from the start of
testing.
They also have packaging/cooling problems.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-cooling-fix-burned-bodywork-1012054/
Yep, cheers, I knew about that too but didn't want to make it sound too bad.
Like Boullier says "not a show-stopper". Maybe that should be 'not a
sport-stopper'? ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-03-09 11:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.

I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.

While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a waste of time.

Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.

I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?

Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.

Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.

Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.

Back to timing screens.

beers,
build
build
2018-03-09 12:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
beers,
build
Merc's turn to look impressive this morning.
build
2018-03-09 13:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
beers,
build
Merc's turn to look impressive this morning.
Pirelli press release:
HyperSoft for Canada.
Spain: Medium(r), Soft(r), SuperSoft(q).
Canada: SuperSoft(r), UltraSoft(r), HyperSoft(q).
build
2018-03-09 13:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by build
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
beers,
build
Merc's turn to look impressive this morning.
HyperSoft for Canada.
Spain: Medium(r), Soft(r), SuperSoft(q).
Canada: SuperSoft(r), UltraSoft(r), HyperSoft(q).
Nando had me scratching my head, "why the hell is he on wets"?
build
2018-03-12 11:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by build
Post by build
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
beers,
build
Merc's turn to look impressive this morning.
HyperSoft for Canada.
Spain: Medium(r), Soft(r), SuperSoft(q).
Canada: SuperSoft(r), UltraSoft(r), HyperSoft(q).
Nando had me scratching my head, "why the hell is he on wets"?
I've been a bit crook so I haven't finished the long run analysis but here's the adjusted top 10 fastest laps.

Pos Driver Team Adj Time
1 Bottas Mercedes 01:16.325
2 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:16.838
3 Ricciardo RedBull 01:17.027
4 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.075
6 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
8 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
9 Sainz Renault 01:17.542
10 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712

While talking testing. We got the first opportunity to look at the car designs that might be close to what will be raced in Melbourne. The most common theme was design aspects moving towards the Ferrari. Last year (2017) Ferrari successfully introduced a reasonably different sidepod concept and a high rake copied from RedBull (a rake Ferrari have kept this year). To return the favour, towards the end of last year RedBull's Newey, who has big cojones brazenly copied verbatim aspects of the Ferrari external bargeboards or sidepod vanes, they were so close they were almost interchangable. I'm sure the RedBull prat perch was watching and laughing when Ferrari first spotted the stolen idea, it's rumoured that Ferrari were not laughing. This year RedBull has not kept those vanes but has (as have most of the other teams) moved even further towards the Ferrari sidepod concept, *one aspect* of that concept being increased distance between the front suspension and the sidepod. That was achieved in 2017 by moving the sidepod rearwards. That extra distance allows more opportunity to clean up the air before it reaches those pesky sidepods. This year to further enhance the concept, RedBull, Ferrari and others have now moved their front wheels forward therefore further increasing that distance and also the wheelbase. This increase in wheelbase has a quite different purpose to the longer wheelbase of the Merc which is part of an entirely different car design concept.

Back to bed, no beers :-(
build
~misfit~
2018-03-13 03:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
[snipped]
Post by build
While talking testing. We got the first opportunity to look at the
car designs that might be close to what will be raced in Melbourne.
The most common theme was design aspects moving towards the Ferrari.
Last year (2017) Ferrari successfully introduced a reasonably
different sidepod concept and a high rake copied from RedBull (a rake
Ferrari have kept this year).
Ferraris rake has increased even more this year. However that may largely be
a result of increasing the wheelbase by over 12cm compared with the 2017
car. That's quite a lot in F1 terms.
Post by build
To return the favour, towards the end
of last year RedBull's Newey, who has big cojones brazenly copied
verbatim aspects of the Ferrari external bargeboards or sidepod
vanes, they were so close they were almost interchangable. I'm sure
the RedBull prat perch was watching and laughing when Ferrari first
spotted the stolen idea, it's rumoured that Ferrari were not
laughing. This year RedBull has not kept those vanes but has (as have
most of the other teams) moved even further towards the Ferrari
sidepod concept, *one aspect* of that concept being increased
distance between the front suspension and the sidepod. That was
achieved in 2017 by moving the sidepod rearwards. That extra distance
allows more opportunity to clean up the air before it reaches those
pesky sidepods.
Damn wall-of-text!!
Post by build
This year to further enhance the concept, RedBull,
Ferrari and others have now moved their front wheels forward
therefore further increasing that distance and also the wheelbase.
The biggest change to the wheelbase that Ferrari made for 2018 was not to
move the front wheels forward, rather to move the rear wheels back.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/ferrari-sf71h-and-sf70h-comparison-16006982/

If you look closely at Giorgios drawing limked above you can see that
Ferrari have in fact moved their sidepods forwards as well so the gap
between them and the front wheels is the same as last year.
Post by build
This increase in wheelbase has a quite different purpose to the
longer wheelbase of the Merc which is part of an entirely different
car design concept.
I'm sure we'd find the details interesting...
Post by build
Back to bed, no beers :-(
build
I hope you feel better soon.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 03:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
I hope you feel better soon.
Like fuck you do.
Phony fuck.
build
2018-03-13 11:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by build
While talking testing. We got the first opportunity to look at the
car designs that might be close to what will be raced in Melbourne.
The most common theme was design aspects moving towards the Ferrari.
Last year (2017) Ferrari successfully introduced a reasonably
different sidepod concept and a high rake copied from RedBull (a rake
Ferrari have kept this year).
Ferraris rake has increased even more this year. However that may largely be
a result of increasing the wheelbase by over 12cm compared with the 2017
car. That's quite a lot in F1 terms.
The rake is measured in degrees. The increased in wheelbase was 128mm to be precise.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
To return the favour, towards the end
of last year RedBull's Newey, who has big cojones brazenly copied
verbatim aspects of the Ferrari external bargeboards or sidepod
vanes, they were so close they were almost interchangable. I'm sure
the RedBull prat perch was watching and laughing when Ferrari first
spotted the stolen idea, it's rumoured that Ferrari were not
laughing. This year RedBull has not kept those vanes but has (as have
most of the other teams) moved even further towards the Ferrari
sidepod concept, *one aspect* of that concept being increased
distance between the front suspension and the sidepod. That was
achieved in 2017 by moving the sidepod rearwards. That extra distance
allows more opportunity to clean up the air before it reaches those
pesky sidepods.
Damn wall-of-text!!
Hmmmmm, didn't you understand that? or just trying to insult?
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
This year to further enhance the concept, RedBull,
Ferrari and others have now moved their front wheels forward
therefore further increasing that distance and also the wheelbase.
The biggest change to the wheelbase that Ferrari made for 2018 was not to
move the front wheels forward, rather to move the rear wheels back.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/ferrari-sf71h-and-sf70h-comparison-16006982/
If you look closely at Giorgios drawing limked above you can see that
Ferrari have in fact moved their sidepods forwards as well so the gap
between them and the front wheels is the same as last year.
Post by build
This increase in wheelbase has a quite different purpose to the
longer wheelbase of the Merc which is part of an entirely different
car design concept.
I'm sure we'd find the details interesting...
Thanks for the link, the drawing is interesting, I was not aware Ferrari had moved the sidepods forward. Last year Ferrari were using an idea to increase air feeding out above the diffuser. I had guessed that moving the rear wheels back was to enhance that but they've gone even further by moving the sidepod forward as well. Therefore to maintain their very successful bargeboard/sidepod concept they had to move the front wheels.

One of the techy pundits will probably do a full length analysis before too long.

BTW, Gorgio is bloody good value.

build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
build
I hope you feel better soon.
--
Shaun.
~misfit~
2018-03-14 00:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by build
While talking testing. We got the first opportunity to look at the
car designs that might be close to what will be raced in Melbourne.
The most common theme was design aspects moving towards the Ferrari.
Last year (2017) Ferrari successfully introduced a reasonably
different sidepod concept and a high rake copied from RedBull (a
rake Ferrari have kept this year).
Ferraris rake has increased even more this year. However that may
largely be a result of increasing the wheelbase by over 12cm
compared with the 2017 car. That's quite a lot in F1 terms.
The rake is measured in degrees. The increased in wheelbase was 128mm to be precise.
Yep and I know. ;)
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
To return the favour, towards the end
of last year RedBull's Newey, who has big cojones brazenly copied
verbatim aspects of the Ferrari external bargeboards or sidepod
vanes, they were so close they were almost interchangable. I'm sure
the RedBull prat perch was watching and laughing when Ferrari first
spotted the stolen idea, it's rumoured that Ferrari were not
laughing. This year RedBull has not kept those vanes but has (as
have most of the other teams) moved even further towards the Ferrari
sidepod concept, *one aspect* of that concept being increased
distance between the front suspension and the sidepod. That was
achieved in 2017 by moving the sidepod rearwards. That extra
distance allows more opportunity to clean up the air before it
reaches those pesky sidepods.
Damn wall-of-text!!
Hmmmmm, didn't you understand that? or just trying to insult?
Just that it's hard to read if you don't break it down into paragraphs.
Before I split it up to reply it was one mega-paragraph.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
This year to further enhance the concept, RedBull,
Ferrari and others have now moved their front wheels forward
therefore further increasing that distance and also the wheelbase.
The biggest change to the wheelbase that Ferrari made for 2018 was
not to move the front wheels forward, rather to move the rear wheels
back.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/ferrari-sf71h-and-sf70h-comparison-16006982/
If you look closely at Giorgios drawing limked above you can see that
Ferrari have in fact moved their sidepods forwards as well so the gap
between them and the front wheels is the same as last year.
Post by build
This increase in wheelbase has a quite different purpose to the
longer wheelbase of the Merc which is part of an entirely different
car design concept.
I'm sure we'd find the details interesting...
Thanks for the link,
You're welcome. So what's the different purpose / concept for Mercedes long
wheelbase?
Post by build
the drawing is interesting, I was not aware
Ferrari had moved the sidepods forward. Last year Ferrari were using
an idea to increase air feeding out above the diffuser. I had guessed
that moving the rear wheels back was to enhance that but they've gone
even further by moving the sidepod forward as well.
Yes you're on the right track. They've also put bodywork 'lids' on top of
the channels they used for the last couple of years.
Post by build
Therefore to
maintain their very successful bargeboard/sidepod concept they had to
move the front wheels.
One of the techy pundits will probably do a full length analysis before too long.
Giorgio already has - that drawing comparing last years and this years
Ferraris wheelbase was from it.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the-secret-behind-ferraris-floor-tunnels-1013893/
Post by build
BTW, Gorgio is bloody good value.
He sure is.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-03-13 11:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
I've been a bit crook so I haven't finished the long run analysis but here's the adjusted top 10 fastest laps.
Pos Driver Team Adj Time
1 Bottas Mercedes 01:16.325
2 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:16.838
3 Ricciardo RedBull 01:17.027
4 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.075
6 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
8 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
9 Sainz Renault 01:17.542
10 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712
ADJUSTED HEADLINE TIMES

The adjusted fastest times posted above used fastest laps across all laps and all tyres. If you use only headline times then the list will change slightly. However you will include a time like that of:
Magnussen from day 3 set on SuperSoft tyres which when adjusted becomes a 01:17.060
And you will ignore a time like:
Raikkonen from day 4 set on SuperSoft tyres which when adjusted becomes a 01:16.838
Because Kimi set a slightly faster time than his SuperSoft run of 01:17.221 on day 4 set on Hypersoft tyres which stays the same.

So with just headline times the picture is even more distorted however just incase someone is interested here is the list:
ADJUSTED HEADLINE TIMES
1 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
2 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
3 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:17.221
4 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.700
6 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712
7 Alonso McLaren 01:17.784
8 Bottas Mercedes 01:17.860
9 Ricciardo Red Bull 01:18.047
10 Sainz Renault 01:18.092
11 Verstappen RedBull 01:18.142
12 Stroll Williams 01:18.254
13 Kubica Williams 01:18.329
14 Gasly Toro Rosso 01:18.363
15 Hulkenberg Renault 01:18.675
16 Vandoorne McLaren 01:18.855
17 Hartley TorroRosso 01:18.949
18 Ocon ForceIndia 01:18.967
19 LeClerc Sauber 01:19.118
20 Ericsson Sauber 01:19.244
21 Perez Force India 01:19.634

build
build
2018-03-13 11:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by build
I've been a bit crook so I haven't finished the long run analysis but here's the adjusted top 10 fastest laps.
Pos Driver Team Adj Time
1 Bottas Mercedes 01:16.325
2 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:16.838
3 Ricciardo RedBull 01:17.027
4 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.075
6 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
8 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
9 Sainz Renault 01:17.542
10 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712
ADJUSTED HEADLINE TIMES
Magnussen from day 3 set on SuperSoft tyres which when adjusted becomes a 01:17.060
Raikkonen from day 4 set on SuperSoft tyres which when adjusted becomes a 01:16.838
Because Kimi set a slightly faster time than his SuperSoft run of 01:17.221 on day 4 set on Hypersoft tyres which stays the same.
ADJUSTED HEADLINE TIMES
1 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
2 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
3 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:17.221
4 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.700
6 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712
7 Alonso McLaren 01:17.784
8 Bottas Mercedes 01:17.860
9 Ricciardo Red Bull 01:18.047
10 Sainz Renault 01:18.092
11 Verstappen RedBull 01:18.142
12 Stroll Williams 01:18.254
13 Kubica Williams 01:18.329
14 Gasly Toro Rosso 01:18.363
15 Hulkenberg Renault 01:18.675
16 Vandoorne McLaren 01:18.855
17 Hartley TorroRosso 01:18.949
18 Ocon ForceIndia 01:18.967
19 LeClerc Sauber 01:19.118
20 Ericsson Sauber 01:19.244
21 Perez Force India 01:19.634
build
BTW.
* Looking at headline times is a waste of time.
* And as I explained even adjusted headline times are very deceptive.
* While all fast laps adjusted is better they are still only a vague indicator if you know the story behind those laps. What they are useful for is providing clues as to what to look for in Free Practice.

build
Bigbird
2018-03-13 16:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
BTW.
* Looking at headline times is a waste of time.
* And as I explained even adjusted headline times are very deceptive.
* While all fast laps adjusted is better they are still only a vague
indicator if you know the story behind those laps. What they are
useful for is providing clues as to what to look for in Free Practice.
I think you will find that most of the useful analysis is based on long
run times.
build
2018-03-23 02:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by build
Post by build
I've been a bit crook so I haven't finished the long run analysis but here's the adjusted top 10 fastest laps.
Pos Driver Team Adj Time
1 Bottas Mercedes 01:16.325
2 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:16.838
3 Ricciardo RedBull 01:17.027
4 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.075
6 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
8 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
9 Sainz Renault 01:17.542
10 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712
ADJUSTED HEADLINE TIMES
Magnussen from day 3 set on SuperSoft tyres which when adjusted becomes a 01:17.060
Raikkonen from day 4 set on SuperSoft tyres which when adjusted becomes a 01:16.838
Because Kimi set a slightly faster time than his SuperSoft run of 01:17.221 on day 4 set on Hypersoft tyres which stays the same.
ADJUSTED HEADLINE TIMES
1 Magnussen Haas 01:17.060
2 Vettel Ferrari 01:17.182
3 Raikkonen Ferrari 01:17.221
4 Sirotkin Williams 01:17.489
5 Hamilton Mercedes 01:17.700
6 Grosjean Haas 01:17.712
7 Alonso McLaren 01:17.784
8 Bottas Mercedes 01:17.860
9 Ricciardo Red Bull 01:18.047
10 Sainz Renault 01:18.092
11 Verstappen RedBull 01:18.142
12 Stroll Williams 01:18.254
13 Kubica Williams 01:18.329
14 Gasly Toro Rosso 01:18.363
15 Hulkenberg Renault 01:18.675
16 Vandoorne McLaren 01:18.855
17 Hartley TorroRosso 01:18.949
18 Ocon ForceIndia 01:18.967
19 LeClerc Sauber 01:19.118
20 Ericsson Sauber 01:19.244
21 Perez Force India 01:19.634
build
BTW.
* Looking at headline times is a waste of time.
* And as I explained even adjusted headline times are very deceptive.
* While all fast laps adjusted is better they are still only a vague indicator if you know the story behind those laps. What they are useful for is providing clues as to what to look for in Free Practice.
build
I haven't had a chance to finish my testing notes but here is what I had done up to last weekend. So it's not complete :-(

20180317

PREAMBLE
Testing is not indicative of teams performances in racing.

Published headline times are totally useless. That is a *full stop* at the end of that sentence.

Looking at faster (not just fastest) times and short runs adjusted for temps, tyres, fuel and taken in context can be *vaguely* useful to indicate what to look for in free practice in Melbourne.

Long runs and race simulations can be useful if taken in context and that is what I concentrate on.

Sandbagging is common in testing and this year Merc, RedBull and Ferrari were all masking their performance in various ways.

It's important to remember that the 2018 Medium tyre is the same as the 2017 Soft tyre compound.

The 2018 Soft and Medium tyre compounds are the race tyres most suited to the testing circuit, Barcelona. So a team having problems with the softer compounds at Barcelona is not necessarily indicative of how that team will perform on softer compounds at other circuits.

The teams pre-select how many of each compound they get during testing, so if a team pre-selects a lot of Medium tyres, only a few softer tyres and no hypersoft then do not read anything into the fact the team don't run on the hypersoft. Commonsense missed by some pundits.

TESTING
The top trio were difficult to unravel.

Ferrari were consistent, very consistent, then on Thursday they confirmed they were too consistent. Sandbagging aside Ferrari did light-up all tyre compounds and keep them glowing for longer than any other team. Ferrari will be there, especially at circuits where tyres are stressed.

RedBull did not want anyone to know what they have and in my case they succeeded. That they have more in the bag on both short and long runs is obvious but how much? While they did have problems on softer compounds initially later in the week those seemed to be under control. From their sector times they will be quick at their traditionally quick circuits, nothing new in that.

Merc started out chewing up the Soft tyre and destroying anything softer and their Medium tyre wear was far from exceptable. Tyre wear did not improve during the test. This is what the W09 did to the UltraSoft: Loading Image.... That said Merc were quickest on the Medium tyre, very damn quick. That speed did not transalate to the Soft tyre and was worse on the softer tyres. But I'd rather be chewing tyres than not lighting tyres up!

I suspect a number of pundits have looked at the timing sheets looking to confirm a preconceived idea. I'm not listening to them, the top three were a tight group and if anyone Ferrari lead it. That will change.

Perhaps influenced by Pundits and PR efforts I expected Renault, Macca and ForceIndia to be fighting for fourth in testing. That wasn't the picture that emerged. There was a clear winner in the fight and it was none of those, it was Haas and the picture wasn't blurred, it was clear.

Haas goes into it's first year of evolution.

UPDATES
Most if not all teams will bring upgrades to Melbourne.

RedBull have made a point of talking a lot about a major, major update for Melbourne. The top three all have the money and resources to bring what they think they need in Melbourne.

Macca, Renault and ForceIndia have all said they'll have big upgrades, we'll see. As I said back in Feb ForceIndia are having money problems again so while hopeful I'm not expecting much. Renault will be throwing the kitchen sink at it to catch-up to Haas. Likewise Macca will be throwing the kitchen sink and everything else in an effort to wipe the memory of their embarrassing test.

Without a history to refer to it's difficult to say how much Haas will bring to the car but they will bring somethings. The Hass boss has said they'll only have minor updates.

Free practice in Melbourne will be fasinating. How much has RedBull got? Will Merc's tyre woes transalate to Melb and can they get a full quick lap on the UltraSoft qually tyre?


MELBOURNE
Melbourne is quite different to other circuits so the car that wins there may not be the car that wins elsewhere.


DEVELOPMENT

~misfit~
2018-03-10 01:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track
time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in
deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much
about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne
might actually set performance back even further, it's possible
they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days
starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from
before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca
rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor
unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that
the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's about;
a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone into one (so
that it actually on longer looks like a chicken wishbone at all) and
mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising the height of the outer
pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots of room between the upper and
lower pickups, allowing for much cleaner through-flow and more 'unsprung
aero' directly on the hub.

You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a shot of
the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear suspension
design".

There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the 'wishbone'
no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a feat of
engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of kerb-jumping.
Post by build
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned
there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess
what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have
one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a
waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in
the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year
of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This
year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that
have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging",
lol, then why are they mentioning it?
From what I read because they were asked about it. They aren't bringing the
subject up themselves.
Post by build
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari
continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg
damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody
disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which
is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not
even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes
however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a
progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
With the variations in fuel loads, tyre compounds, PU modes and energy
deployment timing screens *in testing* are almost completely irrelevant. In
fact I'd say that the top team in the most trouble is the one who has made
an effort to top the times.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
bra
2018-03-12 17:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's about;
a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone into one (so
that it actually on longer looks like a chicken wishbone at all) and
mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising the height of the outer
pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots of room between the upper and
lower pickups, allowing for much cleaner through-flow and more 'unsprung
aero' directly on the hub.
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a shot of
the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear suspension
design".
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the 'wishbone'
no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a feat of
engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of kerb-jumping.
misfit, I have to say that I appreciate your knowledge and your expositions --- because you tell [some of us] things we (a) don't know about in the first place, and (b) can't extricate from F1 engineers' statements. Cheers.
~misfit~
2018-03-12 23:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by bra
Post by ~misfit~
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's
about; a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone
into one (so that it actually on longer looks like a chicken
wishbone at all) and mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising
the height of the outer pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots
of room between the upper and lower pickups, allowing for much
cleaner through-flow and more 'unsprung aero' directly on the hub.
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a
shot of the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear
suspension design".
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the
'wishbone' no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a
feat of engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of
kerb-jumping.
misfit, I have to say that I appreciate your knowledge and your
expositions --- because you tell [some of us] things we (a) don't
know about in the first place, and (b) can't extricate from F1
engineers' statements. Cheers.
Thanks, you're welcome. I'm pleased that I'm not just writing this stuff for
people who want to argue about it. :)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
geoff
2018-03-13 01:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Thanks, you're welcome. I'm pleased that I'm not just writing this stuff for
people who want to argue about it. :)
Yes you are ;-!

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 02:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Thanks, you're welcome. I'm pleased that I'm not just writing this stuff for
people who want to argue about it. :)
Fuck you cunt face.
build
2018-03-13 11:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track
time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in
deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much
about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne
might actually set performance back even further, it's possible
they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days
starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from
before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca
rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor
unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that
the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
G'day Shaun,
Mate I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out that it's not new. Just a quick reply, I'm quite tired.
Post by ~misfit~
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's about;
a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone into one (so
The narrow wishbones are shrouded for aerodynamic purposes and there after the two wishbones separate further apart to their mounting points.
Post by ~misfit~
that it actually on longer looks like a chicken wishbone at all) and
mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising the height of the outer
pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots of room between the upper and
lower pickups, allowing for much cleaner through-flow and more 'unsprung
aero' directly on the hub.
I presume you mean the pick-up point on the upright rather than "hub"? I don't think the pick-up is raised by an upright/kingpin extension or similar, it's still on the upright. Rather the wishbone is shaped/curved downward to the upright and that idea is not new, it's been done before and it was also on at least one other car last year and this year. Do you know which ones?
Post by ~misfit~
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a shot of
the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear suspension
design".
Thanks for those links, both articles are by the one bloke, Giorgio Piola who i reckon is pretty good and he seems to agree that it's not new.
Post by ~misfit~
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the 'wishbone'
no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a feat of
engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of kerb-jumping.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brackets". The wishbone, after curving down connects directly to the upright.

That arrangement has run previously on other cars and in 2017 without any problems that I'm aware of so there shouldn't be any this year.

Mate please don't get upset, it is good design, well engineered and very pretty, I like it. My point is it's not new and I doubt others will break a leg to copy it, and the outboard part is already in use that's all :-). No biggy, just a comment.

beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned
there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess
what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have
one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a
waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in
the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year
of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This
year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that
have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging",
lol, then why are they mentioning it?
From what I read because they were asked about it. They aren't bringing the
subject up themselves.
Post by build
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari
continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg
damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody
disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which
is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not
even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes
however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a
progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
With the variations in fuel loads, tyre compounds, PU modes and energy
deployment timing screens *in testing* are almost completely irrelevant. In
fact I'd say that the top team in the most trouble is the one who has made
an effort to top the times.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
~misfit~
2018-03-14 00:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track
time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in
deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much
about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne
might actually set performance back even further, it's possible
they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these
days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work
from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca
rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor
unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way
that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
G'day Shaun,
Mate I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out that it's not
new. Just a quick reply, I'm quite tired.
Post by ~misfit~
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's
about; a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone
into one (so
The narrow wishbones are shrouded for aerodynamic purposes and there
after the two wishbones separate further apart to their mounting
points.
Almost all wishbones are shrouded in F1 these days. What's notable is how
the top wishbone is more like a Y shape than a V shape (and it's inboard
mount is so far forward).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
that it actually on longer looks like a chicken wishbone at all) and
mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising the height of the outer
pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots of room between the
upper and lower pickups, allowing for much cleaner through-flow and
more 'unsprung aero' directly on the hub.
I presume you mean the pick-up point on the upright rather than
"hub"?
Yeah, the 'hub end', using simple terminology to keep it brief or I'll be
leaning forward and in more pain for much longer. We can call it 'upright'
if you like.
Post by build
I don't think the pick-up is raised by an upright/kingpin
extension or similar, it's still on the upright.
It's hard to say where what is joined to what. Elvis made mention of an
'extension bracket' between the wishbone and upright. <shrug>
Post by build
Rather the wishbone
is shaped/curved downward to the upright and that idea is not new,
it's been done before and it was also on at least one other car last
year and this year. Do you know which ones?
Yep. Torro Rosso is one. I know it's not new. However McLaren have taken it
further than anyone else has and, combined wth the Y shaped wishbone and
aero on the upright (in the wheel hub area) it's noteworthy enough for me to
keep pausing the video whenever I saw it (and Giorgio to write more than one
article for more than one magazine about it).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a
shot of the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear
suspension design".
Thanks for those links, both articles are by the one bloke, Giorgio
Piola who i reckon is pretty good and he seems to agree that it's not
new.
Again it's a combination of the height of the pickup, the Y shaped wishbone
and the aero on the upright that's intersting. Combined they make a huge
difference to the smoothness of the airflow through the back suspension.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the
'wishbone' no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a
feat of engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of
kerb-jumping.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brackets". The wishbone, after curving
down connects directly to the upright.
Maybe, hard to be sure (unless you have inside info?).
Post by build
That arrangement has run previously on other cars and in 2017 without
any problems that I'm aware of so there shouldn't be any this year.
But not to the same extent.
Post by build
Mate please don't get upset,
I don't get upset if I'm treated civilly. Why would I? Discussion and a
trade of viewpoints can be useful.
Post by build
it is good design, well engineered and
very pretty, I like it.
So do I.
Post by build
My point is it's not new and I doubt others
will break a leg to copy it, and the outboard part is already in use
that's all :-). No biggy, just a comment.
As I said it's not that it's new (there is very little that's completely new
in F1) it's how far McLaren have pushed the various elements. Much further
than anyone has before.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned
there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess
what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have
one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a
waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in
the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first
year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation.
This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that
have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging",
lol, then why are they mentioning it?
From what I read because they were asked about it. They aren't
bringing the subject up themselves.
Post by build
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari
continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg
damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody
disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which
is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not
even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes
however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a
progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
With the variations in fuel loads, tyre compounds, PU modes and
energy deployment timing screens *in testing* are almost completely
irrelevant. In fact I'd say that the top team in the most trouble is
the one who has made an effort to top the times.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
build
2018-03-14 10:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track
time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in
deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much
about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne
might actually set performance back even further, it's possible
they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these
days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work
from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca
rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor
unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way
that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
G'day Shaun,
Mate I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out that it's not
new. Just a quick reply, I'm quite tired.
Post by ~misfit~
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's
about; a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone
into one (so
The narrow wishbones are shrouded for aerodynamic purposes and there
after the two wishbones separate further apart to their mounting
points.
Almost all wishbones are shrouded in F1 these days. What's notable is how
the top wishbone is more like a Y shape than a V shape (and it's inboard
mount is so far forward).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
that it actually on longer looks like a chicken wishbone at all) and
mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising the height of the outer
pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots of room between the
upper and lower pickups, allowing for much cleaner through-flow and
more 'unsprung aero' directly on the hub.
I presume you mean the pick-up point on the upright rather than
"hub"?
Yeah, the 'hub end', using simple terminology to keep it brief or I'll be
leaning forward and in more pain for much longer. We can call it 'upright'
if you like.
G'day Shaun,
Briefly, the "hub" is what the wheel bolts to, the hub goes on the axle, the axle attaches to the upright and the suspension attaches to the top and bottom of the upright.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
I don't think the pick-up is raised by an upright/kingpin
extension or similar, it's still on the upright.
It's hard to say where what is joined to what. Elvis made mention of an
'extension bracket' between the wishbone and upright. <shrug>
Post by build
Rather the wishbone
is shaped/curved downward to the upright and that idea is not new,
it's been done before and it was also on at least one other car last
year and this year. Do you know which ones?
Yep. Torro Rosso is one.
Nah, Torro Rosso don't use it. Mercedes, Williams, Ferrari, Haas and Macca all run a wishbone that bends down to the upright. In profile they all have a similar height, bend, etc. And Sauber has a milder version. As you know the purpose is to lift the top wishbone up to allow cleaner air to pass under.

beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
I know it's not new. However McLaren have taken it
further than anyone else has and, combined wth the Y shaped wishbone and
aero on the upright (in the wheel hub area) it's noteworthy enough for me to
keep pausing the video whenever I saw it (and Giorgio to write more than one
article for more than one magazine about it).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a
shot of the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear
suspension design".
Thanks for those links, both articles are by the one bloke, Giorgio
Piola who i reckon is pretty good and he seems to agree that it's not
new.
Again it's a combination of the height of the pickup, the Y shaped wishbone
and the aero on the upright that's intersting. Combined they make a huge
difference to the smoothness of the airflow through the back suspension.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the
'wishbone' no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a
feat of engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of
kerb-jumping.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brackets". The wishbone, after curving
down connects directly to the upright.
Maybe, hard to be sure (unless you have inside info?).
Post by build
That arrangement has run previously on other cars and in 2017 without
any problems that I'm aware of so there shouldn't be any this year.
But not to the same extent.
Post by build
Mate please don't get upset,
I don't get upset if I'm treated civilly. Why would I? Discussion and a
trade of viewpoints can be useful.
Post by build
it is good design, well engineered and
very pretty, I like it.
So do I.
Post by build
My point is it's not new and I doubt others
will break a leg to copy it, and the outboard part is already in use
that's all :-). No biggy, just a comment.
As I said it's not that it's new (there is very little that's completely new
in F1) it's how far McLaren have pushed the various elements. Much further
than anyone has before.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned
there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess
what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have
one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a
waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in
the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first
year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation.
This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that
have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging",
lol, then why are they mentioning it?
From what I read because they were asked about it. They aren't
bringing the subject up themselves.
Post by build
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari
continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg
damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody
disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which
is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not
even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes
however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a
progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
With the variations in fuel loads, tyre compounds, PU modes and
energy deployment timing screens *in testing* are almost completely
irrelevant. In fact I'd say that the top team in the most trouble is
the one who has made an effort to top the times.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
~misfit~
2018-03-15 01:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track
time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in
deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt
much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for
Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's
possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a
car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a
baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.
I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca
rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor
unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way
that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.
G'day Shaun,
Mate I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out that it's
not new. Just a quick reply, I'm quite tired.
Post by ~misfit~
You're missing the point. It's not about "shrouded wishbones". It's
about; a) Co-joining the two inboard elements of the upper wishbone
into one (so
The narrow wishbones are shrouded for aerodynamic purposes and there
after the two wishbones separate further apart to their mounting
points.
Almost all wishbones are shrouded in F1 these days. What's notable
is how the top wishbone is more like a Y shape than a V shape (and
it's inboard mount is so far forward).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
that it actually on longer looks like a chicken wishbone at all)
and mounting it a long way forward and b) Raising the height of
the outer pickup-points on the rear hubs to give lots of room
between the upper and lower pickups, allowing for much cleaner
through-flow and more 'unsprung aero' directly on the hub.
I presume you mean the pick-up point on the upright rather than
"hub"?
Yeah, the 'hub end', using simple terminology to keep it brief or
I'll be leaning forward and in more pain for much longer. We can
call it 'upright' if you like.
G'day Shaun,
Briefly, the "hub" is what the wheel bolts to, the hub goes on the
axle, the axle attaches to the upright and the suspension attaches to
the top and bottom of the upright.
Thanks for explaining that here. I already knew how the geometery of
suspension works but I didn't think laypeople would necessarily know what I
meant by 'upright'. Also the posts were already a bit techie and I didn't
want to loose my audience by getting *too* technical.

I don't think anyone else had an issue with my use of 'hub end' or 'pickup
points' and I think that it was largely understood already.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
I don't think the pick-up is raised by an upright/kingpin
extension or similar, it's still on the upright.
It's hard to say where what is joined to what. Elvis made mention of
an 'extension bracket' between the wishbone and upright. <shrug>
Post by build
Rather the wishbone
is shaped/curved downward to the upright and that idea is not new,
it's been done before and it was also on at least one other car last
year and this year. Do you know which ones?
Yep. Torro Rosso is one.
Nah, Torro Rosso don't use it. Mercedes, Williams, Ferrari, Haas and
Macca all run a wishbone that bends down to the upright.
I was talking about a bracket (for want of a better word) or extension on
the top of the upright that extends up and that the wishbone connects to.
Torro Rosso use such a system on the front of their 2018 car. You didn't
specify rear.
Post by build
In profile
they all have a similar height, bend, etc.
And Sauber has a milder
version. As you know the purpose is to lift the top wishbone up to
allow cleaner air to pass under.
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the *front* end
for the same reasons. That's the example I used as it's very easy to see in
lots of pictures and videos.
Here's a pic Giorgio took:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone? There was talk
earier that McLaren are using a similar bracket / extension on the back of
their car rather than have such a tight bend in the wishbone.

In fact if you go back to the pic at the top of this page is appears that
there *is* a bracket / extension on the top of the McLaren upright (with the
afore-mentioned fins on it) rather than there being a downwardly curved
wishbone. One thing's for sure, that visible outboard join means it's not
one piece.

Also I now realise that I didn't mention the fact that McLaren are also
attaching their push / pull rods to the middle of the upper wishbones rather
than to the top of the upright (as visible in the pic at the top of page
linked above). Obviously my first post on the subject of their rear
suspension got a bit long for me. However that push / pull rod attachment
point is as important as the raised and fused / curved upper wishbone when
it comes to smooth airflow through that area.

Cheers, need to rest the back.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
I know it's not new. However McLaren have taken it
further than anyone else has and, combined wth the Y shaped wishbone
and aero on the upright (in the wheel hub area) it's noteworthy
enough for me to keep pausing the video whenever I saw it (and
Giorgio to write more than one article for more than one magazine
about it).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for a
shot of the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear
suspension design".
Thanks for those links, both articles are by the one bloke, Giorgio
Piola who i reckon is pretty good and he seems to agree that it's
not new.
Again it's a combination of the height of the pickup, the Y shaped
wishbone and the aero on the upright that's intersting. Combined
they make a huge difference to the smoothness of the airflow through
the back suspension.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the
'wishbone' no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite a
feat of engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of
kerb-jumping.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brackets". The wishbone, after
curving down connects directly to the upright.
Maybe, hard to be sure (unless you have inside info?).
Post by build
That arrangement has run previously on other cars and in 2017
without any problems that I'm aware of so there shouldn't be any
this year.
But not to the same extent.
Post by build
Mate please don't get upset,
I don't get upset if I'm treated civilly. Why would I? Discussion
and a trade of viewpoints can be useful.
Post by build
it is good design, well engineered and
very pretty, I like it.
So do I.
Post by build
My point is it's not new and I doubt others
will break a leg to copy it, and the outboard part is already in use
that's all :-). No biggy, just a comment.
As I said it's not that it's new (there is very little that's
completely new in F1) it's how far McLaren have pushed the various
elements. Much further than anyone has before.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned
there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test
guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other
teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars
these days is a waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in
the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first
year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation.
This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.
I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams
that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not
sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?
From what I read because they were asked about it. They aren't
bringing the subject up themselves.
Post by build
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari
continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg
damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.
Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody
disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development
which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18
car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes
however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a
progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
With the variations in fuel loads, tyre compounds, PU modes and
energy deployment timing screens *in testing* are almost completely
irrelevant. In fact I'd say that the top team in the most trouble
is the one who has made an effort to top the times.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-15 01:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
I already knew how the geometery of
suspension works but I didn't think laypeople would necessarily know what I
meant by 'upright'. Also the posts were already a bit techie and I didn't
want to loose my audience by getting *too* technical.
You delusional piece of shit.
You don't have a fucking audience.
Your killfile is full.
Post by ~misfit~
Cheers, need to rest the back.
Fuck you and your back.
~misfit~
2018-03-16 00:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
[snipped]
Post by ~misfit~
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the
*front* end for the same reasons. That's the example I used as it's
very easy to see in lots of pictures and videos.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone?
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently Mercedes)
first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the upper
wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.

They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such. "Mercedes' and
Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something not seen on any car last
year."
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by ~misfit~
There
was talk earlier that McLaren are using a similar bracket / extension
on the back of their car rather than have such a tight bend in the
wishbone.
In fact if you go back to the pic at the top of this page is appears
that there *is* a bracket / extension on the top of the McLaren
upright (with the afore-mentioned fins on it) rather than there being
a downwardly curved wishbone. One thing's for sure, that visible
outboard join means it's not one piece.
Also I now realise that I didn't mention the fact that McLaren are
also attaching their push / pull rods to the middle of the upper
wishbones rather than to the top of the upright (as visible in the
pic at the top of page linked above). Obviously my first post on the
subject of their rear suspension got a bit long for me. However that
push / pull rod attachment point is as important as the raised and
fused / curved upper wishbone when it comes to smooth airflow through
that area.
Cheers, need to rest the back.
Post by build
beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
I know it's not new. However McLaren have taken it
further than anyone else has and, combined wth the Y shaped wishbone
and aero on the upright (in the wheel hub area) it's noteworthy
enough for me to keep pausing the video whenever I saw it (and
Giorgio to write more than one article for more than one magazine
about it).
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
You're saying everyone else has it wrong?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-takes-suspension-to-next-level-1009835/
Their take on the suspension is in the URL. See first picture for
a shot of the resulting gap and fins.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2018/3/f1-tech-round-up-innovations-test-1.html
Top of page heading; "Tech insight: McLaren's aggressive rear
suspension design".
Thanks for those links, both articles are by the one bloke, Giorgio
Piola who i reckon is pretty good and he seems to agree that it's
not new.
Again it's a combination of the height of the pickup, the Y shaped
wishbone and the aero on the upright that's intersting. Combined
they make a huge difference to the smoothness of the airflow through
the back suspension.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
There's a a lot of stress on those top outboard brackets as the
'wishbone' no longer connects directly to the hub. They are quite
a feat of engineering - or will be if they stand up to a season of
kerb-jumping.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brackets". The wishbone, after
curving down connects directly to the upright.
Maybe, hard to be sure (unless you have inside info?).
Post by build
That arrangement has run previously on other cars and in 2017
without any problems that I'm aware of so there shouldn't be any
this year.
But not to the same extent.
Post by build
Mate please don't get upset,
I don't get upset if I'm treated civilly. Why would I? Discussion
and a trade of viewpoints can be useful.
Post by build
it is good design, well engineered and
very pretty, I like it.
So do I.
Post by build
My point is it's not new and I doubt others
will break a leg to copy it, and the outboard part is already in
use that's all :-). No biggy, just a comment.
As I said it's not that it's new (there is very little that's
completely new in F1) it's how far McLaren have pushed the various
elements. Much further than anyone has before.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
beers,
build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned
there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test
guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other
teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars
these days is a waste of time.
Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation
in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the
first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater
variation. This year the designs have converged towards the
leading cars. I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the
two teams
that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not
sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?
From what I read because they were asked about it. They aren't
bringing the subject up themselves.
Post by build
Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari
continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre
deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the
rest. Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody
disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development
which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18
car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.
Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of
changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to
see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.
Back to timing screens.
With the variations in fuel loads, tyre compounds, PU modes and
energy deployment timing screens *in testing* are almost
completely irrelevant. In fact I'd say that the top team in the
most trouble is the one who has made an effort to top the times.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
~misfit~
2018-03-16 00:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by ~misfit~
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the
*front* end for the same reasons. That's the example I used as it's
very easy to see in lots of pictures and videos.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone?
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently
Mercedes) first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the upper
wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.
They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such.
"Mercedes' and Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something not
seen on any car last year."
You can see the 2018 car (STR13) front end here;
https://www.racefans.net/2018/02/26/2018-f1-season-testing-pictures-circuit-de-catalunya-day-one/motor-racing-formula-one-testing-test-one-day-1-barcelona-spain-479/
it's quite a good pic showing the upper wishbone attachments.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 01:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
You can see the 2018 car (STR13) front end here;
https://www.racefans.net/2018/02/26/2018-f1-season-testing-pictures-circuit-de-catalunya-day-one/motor-racing-formula-one-testing-test-one-day-1-barcelona-spain-479/
it's quite a good pic showing the upper wishbone attachments.
Looks like your audience is yourself.
You fucking fool.
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-16 01:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently Mercedes)
first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the upper
wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.
They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such. "Mercedes' and
Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something not seen on any car last
year."
Talking to yourself.
Some audience you go there. Stupid.
build
2018-03-16 11:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by ~misfit~
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the
*front* end for the same reasons. That's the example I used as it's
very easy to see in lots of pictures and videos.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone?
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently Mercedes)
first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the upper
wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.
They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such. "Mercedes' and
Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something not seen on any car last
year."
--
Shaun.
G'day Shaun,
Mate do me a favour, would you explain why Merc used an extended upright to connect to the wishbone on the front and used a wishbone curved down to the upright on the rear last year and again this year. I'm too buggered to read, let alone write.

Or 425, Alan or any other racer might like to help as it's very simple.

regards,
build

[snip]
~misfit~
2018-03-17 03:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by ~misfit~
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the
*front* end for the same reasons. That's the example I used as it's
very easy to see in lots of pictures and videos.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone?
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently
Mercedes) first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the upper
wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.
They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such.
"Mercedes' and Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something not
seen on any car last year."
--
Shaun.
G'day Shaun,
Mate do me a favour, would you explain why Merc used an extended
upright to connect to the wishbone on the front and used a wishbone
curved down to the upright on the rear last year and again this year.
2017 Merc, rear view;
Loading Image...
There is no curvature on that upper wishbone. I can't find a good shot of
the 2018 car.
http://www.sutton-images.com/getpreview.aspx?id=Z%2BAbmZUPNQ8j1%2BZpdCJrCe31%2FVh2WYGEApjwH8gsbgz%2Fo11dgDyDcKraJBJCk%2BGN
That's the best I can find and that upper wishbone looks flat to me too.
Save it and zoom in.
Post by build
I'm too buggered to read, let alone write.
Well when you feel better you can explain - as well as explaining your
comment that Mercedes car is a different design philosophy to RBR / Ferrari
that you tried to dismiss some of my earlier comments with.
Post by build
Or 425, Alan or any other racer might like to help as it's very simple.
Fuck you and your passive-aggressive bullshit build. This follows on from
your comment to me "those who can do and those who can't criticise" (or
words to that effect). Being a driver (hobbyist of otherwise) has absolutely
no relevance when it comes to discussions on engineering.You're starting to
act more and more like Bob every day. Avoiding questions and instead
bringing up other issues and trying to get others to dance for you.

Or are you saying that the principle is *so* fucking simple that even a
hobbyist race car driver can explain it? If so drag your tired arse to the
computer and explain yourself instead of asking others to do it for you.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-03-17 11:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by ~misfit~
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the
*front* end for the same reasons. That's the example I used as it's
very easy to see in lots of pictures and videos.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone?
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently
Mercedes) first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the upper
wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.
They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such.
"Mercedes' and Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something not
seen on any car last year."
--
Shaun.
G'day Shaun,
Mate do me a favour, would you explain why Merc used an extended
upright to connect to the wishbone on the front and used a wishbone
curved down to the upright on the rear last year and again this year.
2017 Merc, rear view;
https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl/Y9oK5y70/s8/f1-malaysian-gp-2017-mercedes-f1-w08-diffuser.jpg
There is no curvature on that upper wishbone. I can't find a good shot of
the 2018 car.
http://www.sutton-images.com/getpreview.aspx?id=Z%2BAbmZUPNQ8j1%2BZpdCJrCe31%2FVh2WYGEApjwH8gsbgz%2Fo11dgDyDcKraJBJCk%2BGN
That's the best I can find and that upper wishbone looks flat to me too.
Save it and zoom in.
G'day Shaun,
Because the W08 is last years car I thought you'd be familiar with that top wishbone, I think I discussed it early in this thread??. It definitely curves down to the upright, I'm quite surprised you are questioning that. And I'm surprised you can't find a good image, as it's last years car I'd have thought there would be plenty of images showing it quite clearly. But just in case, here's one from my own collection showing the bend/curve down to the upright:
Loading Image....html

That wishbone is very similar to the one on the W09 and they've added a biggish bullet shaped aero device on the top inboard of the bend.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
I'm too buggered to read, let alone write.
Well when you feel better you can explain - as well as explaining your
comment that Mercedes car is a different design philosophy to RBR / Ferrari
that you tried to dismiss some of my earlier comments with.
Post by build
Or 425, Alan or any other racer might like to help as it's very simple.
Fuck you and your passive-aggressive bullshit build. This follows on from
your comment to me "those who can do and those who can't criticise" (or
words to that effect). Being a driver (hobbyist of otherwise) has absolutely
no relevance when it comes to discussions on engineering.You're starting to
act more and more like Bob every day. Avoiding questions and instead
bringing up other issues and trying to get others to dance for you.
Or are you saying that the principle is *so* fucking simple that even a
hobbyist race car driver can explain it? If so drag your tired arse to the
computer and explain yourself instead of asking others to do it for you.
Mate, I was just trying to bring others into the discussion. I had no intention of upsetting you so I apologise!

How I used the word "racer" includes designers, engineers, mechanics, etc as well as drivers, everyone in the pits. I'm sure you've heard Sir Frank, Adrian Newey, others being referred to as "racers". A425 or whatever his moniker is, is an experienced racer of many years and it would not surprise me if his experience surpasses my 40 odd years racing.

You will remember we discussed our racing experience and jobs/career etc when I stayed at your home :-)

warmest,
build
Post by ~misfit~
--
Shaun.
~misfit~
2018-03-19 01:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
[snipped]
Post by ~misfit~
Yep. As I mentioned Toro Rosso are doing the same thing on the
*front* end for the same reasons. That's the example I used as
it's very easy to see in lots of pictures and videos.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/photo/main-gallery/scuderia-toro-rosso-str12-detail-11895907/
See the bracket / extension between the upright and wishbone?
Here's an article from last year when Toro Rosso (and coincidently
Mercedes) first introduced that 'trick' to the front of their cars;
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/technical/2017/3/f1-tech-insight-mercedes-toro-rosso-suspension-trick.html
Going by the wording of that article it seems that raising the
upper wishbone outboard attahment was new to 2017.
They don't specify front only and I'm sure that if it were already
implimented at the rear it wouldn't have been news as such.
"Mercedes' and Toro Rosso's solutions are elegant, and something
not seen on any car last year."
--
Shaun.
G'day Shaun,
Mate do me a favour, would you explain why Merc used an extended
upright to connect to the wishbone on the front and used a wishbone
curved down to the upright on the rear last year and again this year.
2017 Merc, rear view;
https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl/Y9oK5y70/s8/f1-malaysian-gp-2017-mercedes-f1-w08-diffuser.jpg
There is no curvature on that upper wishbone. I can't find a good
shot of the 2018 car.
http://www.sutton-images.com/getpreview.aspx?id=Z%2BAbmZUPNQ8j1%2BZpdCJrCe31%2FVh2WYGEApjwH8gsbgz%2Fo11dgDyDcKraJBJCk%2BGN
That's the best I can find and that upper wishbone looks flat to me
too. Save it and zoom in.
I don't call that curved. To me it's flat along its length and then has a
sharp angle at the end.
Post by build
G'day Shaun,
Because the W08 is last years car I thought you'd be familiar with
that top wishbone, I think I discussed it early in this thread??. It
definitely curves down to the upright, I'm quite surprised you are
questioning that. And I'm surprised you can't find a good image, as
it's last years car I'd have thought there would be plenty of images
showing it quite clearly. But just in case, here's one from my own
http://s411.photobucket.com/user/buildy/media/Merc%20W08%20Rear_zpssbt7spel.jpg.html
That wishbone is very similar to the one on the W09 and they've added
a biggish bullet shaped aero device on the top inboard of the bend.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
I'm too buggered to read, let alone write.
Well when you feel better you can explain - as well as explaining
your comment that Mercedes car is a different design philosophy to
RBR / Ferrari that you tried to dismiss some of my earlier comments
with.
Post by build
Or 425, Alan or any other racer might like to help as it's very simple.
Fuck you and your passive-aggressive bullshit build. This follows on
from your comment to me "those who can do and those who can't
criticise" (or words to that effect). Being a driver (hobbyist of
otherwise) has absolutely no relevance when it comes to discussions
on engineering.You're starting to act more and more like Bob every
day. Avoiding questions and instead bringing up other issues and
trying to get others to dance for you.
Or are you saying that the principle is *so* fucking simple that
even a hobbyist race car driver can explain it? If so drag your
tired arse to the computer and explain yourself instead of asking
others to do it for you.
Mate, I was just trying to bring others into the discussion. I had no
intention of upsetting you so I apologise!
Accepted, cheers.
Post by build
How I used the word "racer" includes designers, engineers, mechanics,
etc as well as drivers, everyone in the pits.
So that includes the PR and support people but not engineers at the factory?
Also that's not the usual usage of the term 'racer' in motorsport.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
I'm sure you've heard
Sir Frank, Adrian Newey, others being referred to as "racers". A425
or whatever his moniker is, is an experienced racer of many years and
it would not surprise me if his experience surpasses my 40 odd years
racing.
You will remember we discussed our racing experience and jobs/career
etc when I stayed at your home :-)
warmest,
build
Post by ~misfit~
--
Shaun.
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 14:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Fuck you and your passive-aggressive bullshit build. This follows on from
your comment to me "those who can do and those who can't criticise" (or
words to that effect). Being a driver (hobbyist of otherwise) has absolutely
no relevance when it comes to discussions on engineering.You're starting to
act more and more like Bob every day. Avoiding questions and instead
bringing up other issues and trying to get others to dance for you.
Or are you saying that the principle is *so* fucking simple that even a
hobbyist race car driver can explain it? If so drag your tired arse to the
computer and explain yourself instead of asking others to do it for you.
Killfile him or adjust your meds.
build
2018-03-16 12:58:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 12:08:28 UTC+11, ~misfit~ wrote:
[big snip, it's above anyway]
Post by ~misfit~
Also I now realise that I didn't mention the fact that McLaren are also
attaching their push / pull rods to the middle of the upper wishbones rather
than to the top of the upright (as visible in the pic at the top of page
linked above). Obviously my first post on the subject of their rear
suspension got a bit long for me. However that push / pull rod attachment
point is as important as the raised and fused / curved upper wishbone when
it comes to smooth airflow through that area.
Cheers, need to rest the back.
--
Shaun.
[snip]

G'day Shaun,
Which image are you referring to? Would you please post the link.

As you've probably noticed attaching the pull (not push?) rod in the middle(ish) of the top wishbone is not unknown after all the SF70H was attached pretty much in the middle before the first bend.

Thanks,
build
~misfit~
2018-03-17 02:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
[big snip, it's above anyway]
Post by ~misfit~
Also I now realise that I didn't mention the fact that McLaren are
also attaching their push / pull rods to the middle of the upper
wishbones rather than to the top of the upright (as visible in the
pic at the top of page linked above). Obviously my first post on the
subject of their rear suspension got a bit long for me. However that
push / pull rod attachment point is as important as the raised and
fused / curved upper wishbone when it comes to smooth airflow
through that area.
Cheers, need to rest the back.
--
Shaun.
[snip]
G'day Shaun,
Which image are you referring to? Would you please post the link.
Strange that you'd "big snip, it's above anyway" then ask me to re-post it.
The second link below is a direct link to the picture I was reffering to.
Post by build
As you've probably noticed attaching the pull (not push?) rod
I know it's a pull rod on the back but even F1 journos call it a push rod
most of the time so by calling it both I'm making sure everyone knows what
I'm talking about if they cross-reference. I'm assuming the confusion
started after Ferrari tried using a pull rod *front* suspension from 2012 to
2015.
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12474/10138091/ferrari-switch-to-push-rod-suspension-for-f1-2016-season
Post by build
in the
middle(ish) of the top wishbone is not unknown after all the SF70H
was attached pretty much in the middle before the first bend.
It wasn't attached in the middle. It was 'pretty much' *on* the outboard
bend which makes sense as that's likely to be the strongest part of the
wishbone (and is more perpendicular to the plane of the pull rod than it
would be if it were further inboard).

The more upright the pull rod is the less lateral loads are on it. The
down-side is that it's travel is shorter so the springing and damping has to
act over much less travel distance and the forces are higher and more...
concentrated (? I can't think of a better word right now but there is one).
That requires much more precision and gives much less leeway for error.
Another downside is the forces are much higher at the attachment point when
the pullrod is angled up more requiring lots of strength.


The pull rod on the SF70H was attached a lot further outboard than McLarens
2018 car. Load these two pages and look at the difference in angle of the
pull rods;
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Sorry about the long URLs. However they should be clickable (at least in a
real usenet reader - I can't speak for GG).
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-03-17 11:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
[big snip, it's above anyway]
Post by ~misfit~
Also I now realise that I didn't mention the fact that McLaren are
also attaching their push / pull rods to the middle of the upper
wishbones rather than to the top of the upright (as visible in the
pic at the top of page linked above). Obviously my first post on the
subject of their rear suspension got a bit long for me. However that
push / pull rod attachment point is as important as the raised and
fused / curved upper wishbone when it comes to smooth airflow
through that area.
Cheers, need to rest the back.
--
Shaun.
[snip]
G'day Shaun,
Which image are you referring to? Would you please post the link.
Strange that you'd "big snip, it's above anyway" then ask me to re-post it.
The second link below is a direct link to the picture I was reffering to.
G'day Shaun,
Thank you for the link.
My snip is not at all "strange". I asked for the link because if you look back you will see that that link was not in text that I snipped.
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
As you've probably noticed attaching the pull (not push?) rod
I know it's a pull rod on the back but even F1 journos call it a push rod
most of the time so by calling it both I'm making sure everyone knows what
I'm talking about if they cross-reference.
I don't recall hearing F1 journos calling a "pullrod" a "pushrod". A funny thing to say? why did you bring this into the discussion???
Post by ~misfit~
I'm assuming the confusion
started after Ferrari tried using a pull rod *front* suspension from 2012 to
2015.
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12474/10138091/ferrari-switch-to-push-rod-suspension-for-f1-2016-season
Post by build
in the
middle(ish) of the top wishbone is not unknown after all the SF70H
was attached pretty much in the middle before the first bend.
It wasn't attached in the middle. It was 'pretty much' *on* the outboard
bend which makes sense as that's likely to be the strongest part of the
wishbone (and is more perpendicular to the plane of the pull rod than it
would be if it were further inboard).
The more upright the pull rod is the less lateral loads are on it. The
down-side is that it's travel is shorter so the springing and damping has to
act over much less travel distance and the forces are higher and more...
concentrated (? I can't think of a better word right now but there is one).
That requires much more precision and gives much less leeway for error.
Another downside is the forces are much higher at the attachment point when
the pullrod is angled up more requiring lots of strength.
The pull rod on the SF70H was attached a lot further outboard than McLarens
2018 car. Load these two pages and look at the difference in angle of the
pull rods;
https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl/63qzBOq2/s8/f1-malaysian-gp-2017-the-rear-wing-detail-of-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-sf70h.jpg
https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp/6DBE3b42/s6/f1-barcelona-february-testing-2018-fernando-alonso-mclaren-mcl33-7685153.jpg
Sorry about the long URLs. However they should be clickable (at least in a
real usenet reader - I can't speak for GG).
Mate, I said "middle(ish)" to avoid disagreement, because the pullrod link is not attached in the middle. But as you've brought it up; here are the two images you linked to. Using clunky old "MS Paint" I've drawn lines showing the top wishbone and the pullrod attachment point.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Clearly the pullrod attachment point is not in the middle.

Then I resized the Ferrari image to match the size of the Macca as best as I could and lined up the images, again as best as I could, it's not easy in MSPaint. Here are both images lined-up:
Loading Image...

The pullrod attachment point on both the Macca and Ferrari are in a very similar position.

regards, build.
Post by ~misfit~
--
Shaun.
~misfit~
2018-03-19 02:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
[big snip, it's above anyway]
Post by ~misfit~
Also I now realise that I didn't mention the fact that McLaren are
also attaching their push / pull rods to the middle of the upper
wishbones rather than to the top of the upright (as visible in the
pic at the top of page linked above). Obviously my first post on
the subject of their rear suspension got a bit long for me.
However that push / pull rod attachment point is as important as
the raised and fused / curved upper wishbone when it comes to
smooth airflow through that area.
Cheers, need to rest the back.
--
Shaun.
[snip]
G'day Shaun,
Which image are you referring to? Would you please post the link.
Strange that you'd "big snip, it's above anyway" then ask me to
re-post it. The second link below is a direct link to the picture I
was reffering to.
G'day Shaun,
Thank you for the link.
My snip is not at all "strange". I asked for the link because if you
look back you will see that that link was not in text that I snipped.
The direct link to that picture wasn't but it was "pic at the top of page
linked above". I simply gave you a direct link to it.
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
As you've probably noticed attaching the pull (not push?) rod
I know it's a pull rod on the back but even F1 journos call it a
push rod most of the time so by calling it both I'm making sure
everyone knows what I'm talking about if they cross-reference.
I don't recall hearing F1 journos calling a "pullrod" a "pushrod". A
funny thing to say?
I agree. It happens quite a lot if you listen to every word - things like
that really jump out at me. Maybe being journos and not engineers they get
confused between front and rear suspension?
Post by build
why did you bring this into the discussion???
Because you chose to correct my using the term "push / pull rod" and educate
me that it is in fact a pull rod at the rear - something I am well aware of
but wasn't sure others were.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
I'm assuming the confusion
started after Ferrari tried using a pull rod *front* suspension from
2012 to 2015.
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12474/10138091/ferrari-switch-to-push-rod-suspension-for-f1-2016-season
Post by build
in the
middle(ish) of the top wishbone is not unknown after all the SF70H
was attached pretty much in the middle before the first bend.
It wasn't attached in the middle. It was 'pretty much' *on* the
outboard bend which makes sense as that's likely to be the strongest
part of the wishbone (and is more perpendicular to the plane of the
pull rod than it would be if it were further inboard).
The more upright the pull rod is the less lateral loads are on it.
The down-side is that it's travel is shorter so the springing and
damping has to act over much less travel distance and the forces are
higher and more... concentrated (? I can't think of a better word
right now but there is one). That requires much more precision and
gives much less leeway for error. Another downside is the forces are
much higher at the attachment point when the pullrod is angled up
more requiring lots of strength.
The pull rod on the SF70H was attached a lot further outboard than
McLarens 2018 car. Load these two pages and look at the difference
in angle of the pull rods;
https://cdn-9.motorsport.com/images/mgl/63qzBOq2/s8/f1-malaysian-gp-2017-the-rear-wing-detail-of-sebastian-vettel-ferrari-sf70h.jpg
https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/amp/6DBE3b42/s6/f1-barcelona-february-testing-2018-fernando-alonso-mclaren-mcl33-7685153.jpg
Sorry about the long URLs. However they should be clickable (at
least in a real usenet reader - I can't speak for GG).
Mate, I said "middle(ish)" to avoid disagreement, because the pullrod
link is not attached in the middle. But as you've brought it up; here
are the two images you linked to. Using clunky old "MS Paint" I've
drawn lines showing the top wishbone and the pullrod attachment
point.
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/buildy/Macca%20Temp%2001_zpsfgifyqhl.jpg
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/buildy/Ferrari%20Temp%2001_zpskpkj2xlv.jpg
Clearly the pullrod attachment point is not in the middle.
Then I resized the Ferrari image to match the size of the Macca as
best as I could and lined up the images, again as best as I could,
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/buildy/Merged%20Image_zpsgszptgj1.jpg
The pullrod attachment point on both the Macca and Ferrari are in a very similar position.
regards, build.
Post by ~misfit~
--
Shaun.
build
2018-03-09 11:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Test 2 Day 4.
Another day and Macca has another problem. Testing is about track time and *not* about repairing the car in the garage. Macca are in deep excrement, with minimal track time they can't have learnt much about the base line car so the announced *big upgrade* for Melbourne might actually set performance back even further, it's possible they'll push it back until Bahrain. As the design of a car these days starts and finishes with Aero they'll need a baseline to work from before confusing the situation with changes.

I noticed some noise in the media (and elsewhere) about the Macca rear suspension. The shrouded wishbones is not a new concept nor unusual, I doubt we'll see anyone rush out to copy it in the way that the Macca front wing mount has been adopted.

While on design widgets. At a car launch the principal mentioned there was no T-Wing on their car this year, first day of test guess what? That car had a T-Wing. And they're not alone other teams have one too. Which emphasis's that analysing launch cars these days is a waste of time.

Contrary to what someone else said there's a lot less variation in the car designs this year but that's quite usual after the first year of new regulations, in 2017 we saw a much greater variation. This year the designs have converged towards the leading cars.

I noticed in the media that the mouthpieces from the two teams that have been sandbagging the most have said "we are not sandbagging", lol, then why are they mentioning it?

Back to the test and totally ignoring headline times. Ferrari continue to look good, Merc and RBR are getting on top of tyre deg damned quick smart, Renault continue to look the best of the rest.

Force India (a favourite team). Shit, bugga, damn, I'm bloody disappointed. There seems to be a distinct lack of development which is rumoured to be caused by lack of funds. Hence the '18 car is not even near the best of the rest. Fingers crossed.

Williams, well I'm worried. They seem to be making lots of changes however the pace is quite erratic, I'd very much like to see a progressive, steady rise in pace. Again, fingers crossed.

Back to timing screens.

beers,
build
build
2018-03-06 12:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Tues 06/03/18 09:00 track temp 27C, so some meaningful laps happening out there but not for Macca, RBR not yet impressive. STR looking good, Ferrari the pacesetter and Merc knocking up impressive runs at the top of the times and laps.
Anyone else watching?
Lunch break; the Scarlet looking ominous, Merc and RBR both in trouble with the rubber but as bird said that can change quickly ...
Loading...