planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

Maybe they just needed to get rid of Alonso (kidding)

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

We need to see more. I'm not convinced it was the 3rd fastest in Australia either. Not comfortably the third fastest anyway. I think Verstappen is showing what happens when you put a top driver in a car in a tight midfield.

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Regulation change around some hydraulic parts for 2018 I think so they had to stop or it would've been illegal in 2018 if they ran it.

Thanks, is there anything you can quote what rule changed. Don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to understand the issue. I just don't recall mclaren saying they were hampered by suspension issue. I just remember they did some rear suspension redesign with Renault integration that used some design of the 2013 car and a bit of a copy of the STR design. It was reported that it was actually aggressive design. All I remember of 2018 McLaren issues were not passing some crash tests which meant nose (and therefore related Aero) was delayed to Barcelona.
Further than that wrt suspension in 2017/16 I remember some teams (I think Ferrari) asking FIA for clarification on some trick suspension that they wanted to develop because other teams had it. Fia said it was illegal according to existing rules as it altered ride height and all teams must remove if they have such systems. Fia then inspected at 2017 pre season testing and told defaulting teams to remove. But that was in 2017 and Redbull and Merc were reported to be most affected. Mclaren did not appear in the controversy. In 2018 FIA only included test criteria to prove teams don't use active suspension that was always illegal. So what trick was mclaren suspension performing if it was legal in 2017 but became illegal in 2018.

Some of it is mentioned here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _ferraris/


Also some in here (Mentions the monkey seat blowing as well)...

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/



And here Alonso mentions last year 2 unnamed regulation changes that hurt them...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... 2/3135897/

-------------------

The loss of rear d/f from the changes they couldn't recover meant they had to run more wing last year which along with perhaps their single dumbest mistake of messing up the fixed gear ratios for the year which they weren't allowed to change is what killed them in a straight line last year. They also didn't find the aero separartion issue they created with the engine switch by eating into the bargeboard space with the Renault which sits further forward until the summer by which time it was too late to bring a fix as it required a longer wheelbase to fix it so they just fell like a stone down the grid instead.

They've lengthened the wheelbase now and adopted a Mercedes style front suspension and seem to have recovered the rear d/f so they don't have to run barn door wings now. They just lack a years worth of development in the bargeboard area now but they've started the recovery well, they brought a bigger than expected upgrade in that area in Bahrain and seem on a good path.

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

They weren't third though at the end of last year, they were quickest in a few races. So yes they've either taken a sizeable step backwards in either chassis or engine to be now 8ths-1s slower despite what we're told about Honda being close to Mercedes.

So we can pick whether Honda are behind even last years Renault or we can pick RB have lost up to a second on their chassis side over the winter but pick one we must or yes its a double standard which is all we're pointing out.

I think we'd all agree they'll recover as they're arguably the best at in season development, only Mercedes seem to rival it but they've clear'y taken a step backwards from the end of last year when Max was bossing Mexico and Brazil with an engine that was supposedly far removed from the one they have now.

Lotus49 wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Regulation change around some hydraulic parts for 2018 I think so they had to stop or it would've been illegal in 2018 if they ran it.

Thanks, is there anything you can quote what rule changed. Don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to understand the issue. I just don't recall mclaren saying they were hampered by suspension issue. I just remember they did some rear suspension redesign with Renault integration that used some design of the 2013 car and a bit of a copy of the STR design. It was reported that it was actually aggressive design. All I remember of 2018 McLaren issues were not passing some crash tests which meant nose (and therefore related Aero) was delayed to Barcelona.
Further than that wrt suspension in 2017/16 I remember some teams (I think Ferrari) asking FIA for clarification on some trick suspension that they wanted to develop because other teams had it. Fia said it was illegal according to existing rules as it altered ride height and all teams must remove if they have such systems. Fia then inspected at 2017 pre season testing and told defaulting teams to remove. But that was in 2017 and Redbull and Merc were reported to be most affected. Mclaren did not appear in the controversy. In 2018 FIA only included test criteria to prove teams don't use active suspension that was always illegal. So what trick was mclaren suspension performing if it was legal in 2017 but became illegal in 2018.

Some of it is mentioned here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _ferraris/


Also some in here (Mentions the monkey seat blowing as well)...

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/



And here Alonso mentions last year 2 unnamed regulation changes that hurt them...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... 2/3135897/

-------------------

The loss of rear d/f from the changes they couldn't recover meant they had to run more wing last year which along with perhaps their single dumbest mistake of messing up the fixed gear ratios for the year which they weren't allowed to change is what killed them in a straight line last year. They also didn't find the aero separartion issue they created with the engine switch by eating into the bargeboard space with the Renault which sits further forward until the summer by which time it was too late to bring a fix as it required a longer wheelbase to fix it so they just fell like a stone down the grid instead.

They've lengthened the wheelbase now and adopted a Mercedes style front suspension and seem to have recovered the rear d/f so they don't have to run barn door wings now. They just lack a years worth of development in the bargeboard area now but they've started the recovery well, they brought a bigger than expected upgrade in that area in Bahrain and seem on a good path.

OK so spefically with respect to suspension it is the same issue I was talking about. It is wrong to say they lost a their trick suspensioin 2018. It's more of assumption and false conclusion by misinterpreting FIA technical directive as a rule change. There was no rule change. It was always illegal as the steering altered ride height which mimics active suspension that was always illegal. Any trick suspension is illegal there can be no arguments about that. In 2017 they were told to remove. So they either they did not have it in 2017 or they continued in some way to carry an illegal suspension. If it's the latter it still cannot be an excuse because thats like a thief blaming enforcement for being poor.

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Regulation change around some hydraulic parts for 2018 I think so they had to stop or it would've been illegal in 2018 if they ran it.

Thanks, is there anything you can quote what rule changed. Don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to understand the issue. I just don't recall mclaren saying they were hampered by suspension issue. I just remember they did some rear suspension redesign with Renault integration that used some design of the 2013 car and a bit of a copy of the STR design. It was reported that it was actually aggressive design. All I remember of 2018 McLaren issues were not passing some crash tests which meant nose (and therefore related Aero) was delayed to Barcelona.
Further than that wrt suspension in 2017/16 I remember some teams (I think Ferrari) asking FIA for clarification on some trick suspension that they wanted to develop because other teams had it. Fia said it was illegal according to existing rules as it altered ride height and all teams must remove if they have such systems. Fia then inspected at 2017 pre season testing and told defaulting teams to remove. But that was in 2017 and Redbull and Merc were reported to be most affected. Mclaren did not appear in the controversy. In 2018 FIA only included test criteria to prove teams don't use active suspension that was always illegal. So what trick was mclaren suspension performing if it was legal in 2017 but became illegal in 2018.

Some of it is mentioned here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _ferraris/


Also some in here (Mentions the monkey seat blowing as well)...

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/



And here Alonso mentions last year 2 unnamed regulation changes that hurt them...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... 2/3135897/

-------------------

The loss of rear d/f from the changes they couldn't recover meant they had to run more wing last year which along with perhaps their single dumbest mistake of messing up the fixed gear ratios for the year which they weren't allowed to change is what killed them in a straight line last year. They also didn't find the aero separartion issue they created with the engine switch by eating into the bargeboard space with the Renault which sits further forward until the summer by which time it was too late to bring a fix as it required a longer wheelbase to fix it so they just fell like a stone down the grid instead.

They've lengthened the wheelbase now and adopted a Mercedes style front suspension and seem to have recovered the rear d/f so they don't have to run barn door wings now. They just lack a years worth of development in the bargeboard area now but they've started the recovery well, they brought a bigger than expected upgrade in that area in Bahrain and seem on a good path.

OK so spefically with respect to suspension it is the same issue I was talking about. It is wrong to say they lost a their trick suspensioin 2018. It's more of assumption and false conclusion by misinterpreting FIA technical directive as a rule change. There was no rule change. It was always illegal as the steering altered ride height which mimics active suspension that was always illegal. Any trick suspension is illegal there can be no arguments about that. In 2017 they were told to remove. So they either they did not have it in 2017 or they continued in some way to carry an illegal suspension. If it's the latter it still cannot be an excuse because thats like a thief blaming enforcement for being poor.

No its not wrong and it wasn't illegal as they passed all tests with it as did every other team using variants of hydraulic pitch control suspensions since 2016. Much like with oil burn if you can't actually ban any specific part (And they can't ban oil or using hydraulics in suspensions) then you can only judge it from their FIA set tests and if they pass or not.

What's left is you just keep narrowing the rules and making stricter testing limits until you get the results you want. The continued narrowing of the rules for 2018 is what stopped it when the FIA set a new test limit it had to pass of 5mm. That after trying to clamp down on the rear suspension tricks earlier in the year.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nik-trick/

Lotus49 wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Regulation change around some hydraulic parts for 2018 I think so they had to stop or it would've been illegal in 2018 if they ran it.

Thanks, is there anything you can quote what rule changed. Don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to understand the issue. I just don't recall mclaren saying they were hampered by suspension issue. I just remember they did some rear suspension redesign with Renault integration that used some design of the 2013 car and a bit of a copy of the STR design. It was reported that it was actually aggressive design. All I remember of 2018 McLaren issues were not passing some crash tests which meant nose (and therefore related Aero) was delayed to Barcelona.
Further than that wrt suspension in 2017/16 I remember some teams (I think Ferrari) asking FIA for clarification on some trick suspension that they wanted to develop because other teams had it. Fia said it was illegal according to existing rules as it altered ride height and all teams must remove if they have such systems. Fia then inspected at 2017 pre season testing and told defaulting teams to remove. But that was in 2017 and Redbull and Merc were reported to be most affected. Mclaren did not appear in the controversy. In 2018 FIA only included test criteria to prove teams don't use active suspension that was always illegal. So what trick was mclaren suspension performing if it was legal in 2017 but became illegal in 2018.

Some of it is mentioned here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _ferraris/


Also some in here (Mentions the monkey seat blowing as well)...

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/



And here Alonso mentions last year 2 unnamed regulation changes that hurt them...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... 2/3135897/

-------------------

The loss of rear d/f from the changes they couldn't recover meant they had to run more wing last year which along with perhaps their single dumbest mistake of messing up the fixed gear ratios for the year which they weren't allowed to change is what killed them in a straight line last year. They also didn't find the aero separartion issue they created with the engine switch by eating into the bargeboard space with the Renault which sits further forward until the summer by which time it was too late to bring a fix as it required a longer wheelbase to fix it so they just fell like a stone down the grid instead.

They've lengthened the wheelbase now and adopted a Mercedes style front suspension and seem to have recovered the rear d/f so they don't have to run barn door wings now. They just lack a years worth of development in the bargeboard area now but they've started the recovery well, they brought a bigger than expected upgrade in that area in Bahrain and seem on a good path.

OK so spefically with respect to suspension it is the same issue I was talking about. It is wrong to say they lost a their trick suspensioin 2018. It's more of assumption and false conclusion by misinterpreting FIA technical directive as a rule change. There was no rule change. It was always illegal as the steering altered ride height which mimics active suspension that was always illegal. Any trick suspension is illegal there can be no arguments about that. In 2017 they were told to remove. So they either they did not have it in 2017 or they continued in some way to carry an illegal suspension. If it's the latter it still cannot be an excuse because thats like a thief blaming enforcement for being poor.

No its not wrong and it wasn't illegal as they passed all tests with it as did every other team using variants of hydraulic pitch control suspensions since 2016. Much like with oil burn if you can't actually ban any specific part (And they can't ban oil or using hydraulics in suspensions) then you can only judge it from their FIA set tests and if they pass or not.

What's left is you just keep narrowing the rules and making stricter testing limits until you get the results you want. The continued narrowing of the rules for 2018 is what stopped it when the FIA set a new test limit it had to pass of 5mm. That after trying to clamp down on the rear suspension tricks earlier in the year.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nik-trick/

The test limit was to just make things easier for teams and the fia. The FIA clearly told teams in 2017 that if they found anything that mimic active suspension they will deem it illegal and burden of proof lay with teams.
The test limit was just to make proving easier. There was no narrowing of rules. It's not like they changed it from 10mm to 5 mm. The overarching rule is simply active suspensions are illegal and has been there for over two decades. It's never about banning hydraulics.
If they ran something and got away from inspections they were still illegal. And every other team did not pass since 2016, many teams failed in 2017. Read your own reddit article that you posted. And you can expect they passed in 2016 because the FIA only became aware since Ferrari started asking for clarification, again it's stated on your reddit article. Mclaren having a trick suspension for the 2017 season is wild speculation.

pokerman wrote:this is Red Bull performing poorly but McLaren would give their right arm for such results as would any midfield team.

Why do you keep returning to this? It feels like a petty desire to reinforce the fact that Red Bull is better than McLaren, which I'm quite aware of. It has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Red Bull didn't start the last season slowly - they had the car to win in Bahrain if they hadn't suffered a double DNF, and they did win in China. They claimed last year that they would have been competing for the WDC with an engine that's as close as what they now say the Honda engine is, and yet they're nowhere close to competing now that they've got one. The parallels to McLaren are obvious, but they're being ignored and brushed aside by you and others because you're treating Red Bull differently.

Red Bull had a great car last year, they've changed engine, and now they don't have a great car. So why couldn't the same thing have happened at McLaren from 2017 to 2018? If you can't answer that question without basically stating that you believe Red Bull more than you believe McLaren, you're applying a double standard and don't have an actual answer.

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

They weren't third though at the end of last year, they were quickest in a few races. So yes they've either taken a sizeable step backwards in either chassis or engine to be now 8ths-1s slower despite what we're told about Honda being close to Mercedes.

So we can pick whether Honda are behind even last years Renault or we can pick RB have lost up to a second on their chassis side over the winter but pick one we must or yes its a double standard which is all we're pointing out.

I think we'd all agree they'll recover as they're arguably the best at in season development, only Mercedes seem to rival it but they've clear'y taken a step backwards from the end of last year when Max was bossing Mexico and Brazil with an engine that was supposedly far removed from the one they have now.

They were 3rd overall is what I meant, like taking the whole year into account. But if you are trying to say that they were the best car at the end that would not be correct either because they were
outqualified by 7 tenths by merc at Abu Dhabi and couldn’t touch the Ferraris either. The way they look so far this year is not all that different to how they looked last year at the same time. That’s what I’m trying to say.

But I agree that they are gonna get better and eventually win some races.

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

We need to see more. I'm not convinced it was the 3rd fastest in Australia either. Not comfortably the third fastest anyway. I think Verstappen is showing what happens when you put a top driver in a car in a tight midfield.

We will revisit in China then. In Australia kmag was convinced they were out of reach for the midfield teams. So I don’t think what we saw in Bahrain is their true pace. I think for them Australia was more representative.

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

Something I think that is being missed here is that Red Bull changed the set up of the car just before qualifying which made the car worse, so that wasn't actually the true performance of the car.

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

We need to see more. I'm not convinced it was the 3rd fastest in Australia either. Not comfortably the third fastest anyway. I think Verstappen is showing what happens when you put a top driver in a car in a tight midfield.

Like Ricciardo?

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:this is Red Bull performing poorly but McLaren would give their right arm for such results as would any midfield team.

Why do you keep returning to this? It feels like a petty desire to reinforce the fact that Red Bull is better than McLaren, which I'm quite aware of. It has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Red Bull didn't start the last season slowly - they had the car to win in Bahrain if they hadn't suffered a double DNF, and they did win in China. They claimed last year that they would have been competing for the WDC with an engine that's as close as what they now say the Honda engine is, and yet they're nowhere close to competing now that they've got one. The parallels to McLaren are obvious, but they're being ignored and brushed aside by you and others because you're treating Red Bull differently.

Red Bull had a great car last year, they've changed engine, and now they don't have a great car. So why couldn't the same thing have happened at McLaren from 2017 to 2018? If you can't answer that question without basically stating that you believe Red Bull more than you believe McLaren, you're applying a double standard and don't have an actual answer.

Red Bull won in China because of the safety car otherwise they had the 3rd fastest car, it's true the car has not started as good as last year but it's early days, Red Bull have started on the back foot in the past and then improved to winning races.

Regarding Bahrain they changed the set up just before qualifying and made the car worse and then that's what they had to live with so the car could have been better.

In respect to Honda they're saying they underestimated how good the engine was and went too conservative with the aero package, a new aero package with greater downforce is going to be introduced for Barcelona so maybe let's start judging how good the car is from that point?

Meanwhile 2 years after their Honda break up McLaren are still producing a midfield car and we have to believe during the Honda years they had a top car being let down by a poor engine?

kleefton wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

We need to see more. I'm not convinced it was the 3rd fastest in Australia either. Not comfortably the third fastest anyway. I think Verstappen is showing what happens when you put a top driver in a car in a tight midfield.

We will revisit in China then. In Australia kmag was convinced they were out of reach for the midfield teams. So I don’t think what we saw in Bahrain is their true pace. I think for them Australia was more representative.

Gasly wasn't.

I think Verstappen's Red Bull was out of reach of Magnussen's Haas.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

We need to see more. I'm not convinced it was the 3rd fastest in Australia either. Not comfortably the third fastest anyway. I think Verstappen is showing what happens when you put a top driver in a car in a tight midfield.

Like Ricciardo?

Ricciardo isn't as good as Verstappen and I don't think the Renault is as good as the Red Bull/Haas/Mclaren/Alfa. The drivers have been flattering the Renault as well.

mikeyg123 wrote:Ricciardo isn't as good as Verstappen and I don't think the Renault is as good as the Red Bull/Haas/Mclaren/Alfa. The drivers have been flattering the Renault as well.

It's too bad Alonso isn't still driving this year, because I'd be curious to see how close it would be between Alonso's Macca and Verstappen's Red Bull.

Based on the Bahrain race, Mclaren seems quite close to RedBull. It may be just the new rules and DRS that made Sainz be so close to Max at the start. But if we were to base our knowledge only on this, it would seem they are quite close.

I guess we will see in the next races.

I think that the Honda years were 50/50 for Mclaren. Their car was mediocre and definitely Honda wasn't very good.

Mclaren is still a big organization, and 10 years ago they were a bit like Redbull, starting slow and developing quite fast. I guess this year they have a better starting point and we will see what happens from here on.

For Redbull, I think that this year, from the little background we have so far, they might have built a car that isn't as good relatively to others as last year. But it can all change in the upcoming races.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Ricciardo isn't as good as Verstappen and I don't think the Renault is as good as the Red Bull/Haas/Mclaren/Alfa. The drivers have been flattering the Renault as well.

It's too bad Alonso isn't still driving this year, because I'd be curious to see how close it would be between Alonso's Macca and Verstappen's Red Bull.

We saw Sainz able to fight with Verstappen in Bahrain. I think Alonso would be sniffing at the back end of the podium.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Ricciardo isn't as good as Verstappen and I don't think the Renault is as good as the Red Bull/Haas/Mclaren/Alfa. The drivers have been flattering the Renault as well.

It's too bad Alonso isn't still driving this year, because I'd be curious to see how close it would be between Alonso's Macca and Verstappen's Red Bull.

We saw Sainz able to fight with Verstappen in Bahrain. I think Alonso would be sniffing at the back end of the podium.

Yes I'm inclined to agree

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Ricciardo isn't as good as Verstappen and I don't think the Renault is as good as the Red Bull/Haas/Mclaren/Alfa. The drivers have been flattering the Renault as well.

It's too bad Alonso isn't still driving this year, because I'd be curious to see how close it would be between Alonso's Macca and Verstappen's Red Bull.

We saw Sainz able to fight with Verstappen in Bahrain. I think Alonso would be sniffing at the back end of the podium.

Yes I'm inclined to agree

Didn't Sainz say even if at that point he overtook Verstappen, a few laps down he would have been overtaken back by Verstappen, plus his car would have stopped due to a gearbox issue anywayl.. You give Alonso too much credit on this... not even he can overcome a breakdown...

mpls2 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Ricciardo isn't as good as Verstappen and I don't think the Renault is as good as the Red Bull/Haas/Mclaren/Alfa. The drivers have been flattering the Renault as well.

It's too bad Alonso isn't still driving this year, because I'd be curious to see how close it would be between Alonso's Macca and Verstappen's Red Bull.

We saw Sainz able to fight with Verstappen in Bahrain. I think Alonso would be sniffing at the back end of the podium.

Yes I'm inclined to agree

Didn't Sainz say even if at that point he overtook Verstappen, a few laps down he would have been overtaken back by Verstappen, plus his car would have stopped due to a gearbox issue anywayl.. You give Alonso too much credit on this... not even he can overcome a breakdown...

The gearbox issue is not to do with the pace of the car. I don't think either of us are saying Alonso would hit necessarily hit the podium with Sainz's car in that exact situation in Bahrain. Just generally that with the pace of the Mclaren he could be close.

Controversial opinion I know, but I've been saying it for a while that it's no coincidence Alonso seems to be always in the right place at the wrong time. Like how McLaren seems to be quite a bit more competitive once he left. For McLaren's sake I hope he stays out.

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote: What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

We need to see more. I'm not convinced it was the 3rd fastest in Australia either. Not comfortably the third fastest anyway. I think Verstappen is showing what happens when you put a top driver in a car in a tight midfield.

We will revisit in China then. In Australia kmag was convinced they were out of reach for the midfield teams. So I don’t think what we saw in Bahrain is their true pace. I think for them Australia was more representative.

Gasly wasn't.

I think Verstappen's Red Bull was out of reach of Magnussen's Haas.

Gasly's race was ruined by Red Bull's poor qualifying strategy on a track were you can't really overtake.

[quote="pokerman"
Gasly's race was ruined by Red Bull's poor qualifying strategy on a track were you can't really overtake.[/quote]

That's also a possibility. To few races so far to know which.

mikeyg123 wrote: That's also a possibility. To few races so far to know which.

Indeed we are only 2 races into a season were the cars are into a redesign and no one is quite sure which are the best options yet.

Yellowbin74 wrote:Even if the Honda is underpowered, RB wont say so. They don't want to annoy Honda yet, or give Renault the ability to say "I told you so".

I can't help but wonder if this is why Marko made such a fuss about Gasly after pre-season testing.

Destroying the only new parts (which he did), therefore giving an excuse as to why they are slower than they want to be.

I wonder if more is being made of this than the actual effect of not being able to fully test the new bits on the car - therefore protecting Honda.

I am sure RBR will not say anything in public like Mclaren did. TBH RBR wants Honda and vice-versa because RBR and Honda future in F1 depends on this partnership. I think people are exaggerating what happened in Bahrain. RBR will obviously improve their package over the time and will be able to compete with top 2 teams
http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... y_of_RB15/

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

AravJ wrote:
Thanks, is there anything you can quote what rule changed. Don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to understand the issue. I just don't recall mclaren saying they were hampered by suspension issue. I just remember they did some rear suspension redesign with Renault integration that used some design of the 2013 car and a bit of a copy of the STR design. It was reported that it was actually aggressive design. All I remember of 2018 McLaren issues were not passing some crash tests which meant nose (and therefore related Aero) was delayed to Barcelona.
Further than that wrt suspension in 2017/16 I remember some teams (I think Ferrari) asking FIA for clarification on some trick suspension that they wanted to develop because other teams had it. Fia said it was illegal according to existing rules as it altered ride height and all teams must remove if they have such systems. Fia then inspected at 2017 pre season testing and told defaulting teams to remove. But that was in 2017 and Redbull and Merc were reported to be most affected. Mclaren did not appear in the controversy. In 2018 FIA only included test criteria to prove teams don't use active suspension that was always illegal. So what trick was mclaren suspension performing if it was legal in 2017 but became illegal in 2018.

Some of it is mentioned here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... _ferraris/


Also some in here (Mentions the monkey seat blowing as well)...

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/



And here Alonso mentions last year 2 unnamed regulation changes that hurt them...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... 2/3135897/

-------------------

The loss of rear d/f from the changes they couldn't recover meant they had to run more wing last year which along with perhaps their single dumbest mistake of messing up the fixed gear ratios for the year which they weren't allowed to change is what killed them in a straight line last year. They also didn't find the aero separartion issue they created with the engine switch by eating into the bargeboard space with the Renault which sits further forward until the summer by which time it was too late to bring a fix as it required a longer wheelbase to fix it so they just fell like a stone down the grid instead.

They've lengthened the wheelbase now and adopted a Mercedes style front suspension and seem to have recovered the rear d/f so they don't have to run barn door wings now. They just lack a years worth of development in the bargeboard area now but they've started the recovery well, they brought a bigger than expected upgrade in that area in Bahrain and seem on a good path.

OK so spefically with respect to suspension it is the same issue I was talking about. It is wrong to say they lost a their trick suspensioin 2018. It's more of assumption and false conclusion by misinterpreting FIA technical directive as a rule change. There was no rule change. It was always illegal as the steering altered ride height which mimics active suspension that was always illegal. Any trick suspension is illegal there can be no arguments about that. In 2017 they were told to remove. So they either they did not have it in 2017 or they continued in some way to carry an illegal suspension. If it's the latter it still cannot be an excuse because thats like a thief blaming enforcement for being poor.

No its not wrong and it wasn't illegal as they passed all tests with it as did every other team using variants of hydraulic pitch control suspensions since 2016. Much like with oil burn if you can't actually ban any specific part (And they can't ban oil or using hydraulics in suspensions) then you can only judge it from their FIA set tests and if they pass or not.

What's left is you just keep narrowing the rules and making stricter testing limits until you get the results you want. The continued narrowing of the rules for 2018 is what stopped it when the FIA set a new test limit it had to pass of 5mm. That after trying to clamp down on the rear suspension tricks earlier in the year.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nik-trick/

The test limit was to just make things easier for teams and the fia. The FIA clearly told teams in 2017 that if they found anything that mimic active suspension they will deem it illegal and burden of proof lay with teams.
The test limit was just to make proving easier. There was no narrowing of rules. It's not like they changed it from 10mm to 5 mm. The overarching rule is simply active suspensions are illegal and has been there for over two decades. It's never about banning hydraulics.
If they ran something and got away from inspections they were still illegal. And every other team did not pass since 2016, many teams failed in 2017. Read your own reddit article that you posted. And you can expect they passed in 2016 because the FIA only became aware since Ferrari started asking for clarification, again it's stated on your reddit article. Mclaren having a trick suspension for the 2017 season is wild speculation.

The test limit is there to prove whether your car is legal or not. If you pass its legal. Obviously the more you tighten the rule and/or set new limits the teams have to adhere to it has an effect otherwise they wouldn't do it. We've known for years EM's are burning oil for power gains but if it passes the tests its legal so all they did was continue to tighten the limits and the HPC suspensions were no different.

Show me a team that failed any test about their suspension in 2017? They were given new directives from time to time like the ones mentioned on reddit and they were clarifications issued but again much like the oil burn there was no teams that actually failed a test, it was just the FIA further clamping down on areas they felt could be exploited for aero gains because they and others felt that was going on.

So yes its speculation but its not mine, it was widely reported they were one of the ones that had one.

kleefton wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:One bad race for Redbull and we have to read of these complaints of double standards. Wow! Didn't a Redbull split the Ferraris in Melbourne? How close the midfield was to Max in Melbourne during the race? I would wait a few more races before making any kind of judgement that the Redbull is a midfield car this year. In Australia their trap speeds were super high, in Bahrain they were among the slowest in the traps. My guess is they are trying to add downforce to the car, but in Bahrain it didn't work for whatever reason. But Mclaren this year has done a great job and they are recovering. Now this year's Mclaren is pretty slippery and hence fast in the straights. This was a big problem for them last year, and likely during the Honda years too. But Mclaren is definitely still a midfield car. Let's not get carried away just yet.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the McLaren is better than the Red Bull. Red Bull has gone from a great chassis (acknowledged by just about everyone as the best on the grid) to a chassis that - whether you think it's midfield or not - is obviously much worse, and this happened right after switching their engine. And yet, nobody is saying that their car was poor last year because of this year's chassis.

They are clearly given different treatment and the benefit of a doubt. People are willing to believe that they've created a weaker chassis this year than last. So why not with Macca?

But the midfield cars have closed the gap so obviously if the third best car is not having a good weekend it might fall into their clutches. Whereas last year if that happened the gap was big enough that they still would stay ahead of the best midfield car. That is likely what we saw last weekend. So no, I don't agree that they have produced a much worse car just yet. To me I still don't see major differences between Redbull Honda and Redbull Renault. They are still third.

But this year's Mclaren is a start over project anyway, with new philosophy, so to me it is a departure from what Mclaren had been doing before and no parallels should be drawn between the two. JMO.

They weren't third though at the end of last year, they were quickest in a few races. So yes they've either taken a sizeable step backwards in either chassis or engine to be now 8ths-1s slower despite what we're told about Honda being close to Mercedes.

So we can pick whether Honda are behind even last years Renault or we can pick RB have lost up to a second on their chassis side over the winter but pick one we must or yes its a double standard which is all we're pointing out.

I think we'd all agree they'll recover as they're arguably the best at in season development, only Mercedes seem to rival it but they've clear'y taken a step backwards from the end of last year when Max was bossing Mexico and Brazil with an engine that was supposedly far removed from the one they have now.

They were 3rd overall is what I meant, like taking the whole year into account. But if you are trying to say that they were the best car at the end that would not be correct either because they were
outqualified by 7 tenths by merc at Abu Dhabi and couldn’t touch the Ferraris either. The way they look so far this year is not all that different to how they looked last year at the same time. That’s what I’m trying to say.

But I agree that they are gonna get better and eventually win some races.

Fair point about AD, I'd forgot they were that far away there but for two out of the last 3 they looked outright quickest anyway and they don't sound as happy with the car so far but maybe it'll be on point from even as soon as China, we'll find out soon enough.

Mercedes-Benz wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Even if the Honda is underpowered, RB wont say so. They don't want to annoy Honda yet, or give Renault the ability to say "I told you so".

I can't help but wonder if this is why Marko made such a fuss about Gasly after pre-season testing.

Destroying the only new parts (which he did), therefore giving an excuse as to why they are slower than they want to be.

I wonder if more is being made of this than the actual effect of not being able to fully test the new bits on the car - therefore protecting Honda.

I am sure RBR will not say anything in public like Mclaren did. TBH RBR wants Honda and vice-versa because RBR and Honda future in F1 depends on this partnership. I think people are exaggerating what happened in Bahrain. RBR will obviously improve their package over the time and will be able to compete with top 2 teams
http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... y_of_RB15/

Which goes along with what I've been saying.

Lotus49 wrote:
The test limit is there to prove whether your car is legal or not. If you pass its legal. Obviously the more you tighten the rule and/or set new limits the teams have to adhere to it has an effect otherwise they wouldn't do it. We've known for years EM's are burning oil for power gains but if it passes the tests its legal so all they did was continue to tighten the limits and the HPC suspensions were no different.

Show me a team that failed any test about their suspension in 2017? They were given new directives from time to time like the ones mentioned on reddit and they were clarifications issued but again much like the oil burn there was no teams that actually failed a test, it was just the FIA further clamping down on areas they felt could be exploited for aero gains because they and others felt that was going on.

So yes its speculation but its not mine, it was widely reported they were one of the ones that had one.

I agree with you on the purpose of the test limit. But it was not a rule change and it did not mean that in its absence trick suspensions were legal.
The overarching rule is trick suspensions are illegal.
Read this article in February 2017
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... 97/878197/
I goes on to say “The document goes on to make it clear if a team fails to satisfy the technical delegate the primary purpose of the suspension system is to insulate the chassis and the driver from undulations in the road surface, if asked to do so, the FIA may ask for the system to be removed or disabled."
That simply means whether or not test limits are existing a trick suspension is illegal and the burden of proof rests with teams.
This is what your reddit article states." The calm lasted only briefly. At the 2017 Austrian GP, the teams whose cars were equipped with hydraulic suspensions again, received mail from the FIA. The control guards heard that these teams were able to change the chassis characteristics through targeted heat transfer between qualifying and the race by preheating the hydraulic elements or skillfully placing the actuators near oil lines. Mercedes, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Force India and Red Bull had to adjust" unless the article was sarcastic they were deemed illegal to answer your question. They FIA themselves never named anybody, they made statements like they were surprised at the teams that did have illegal systems.
My point is we don't know if mclaren continued with a trick suspension in 2017 following the FIA inspections and crackdown. And we don't know if mclaren were more affected by the fia crackdown as other teams were also affected. They may have been more in 2017 itself. So saying their 2018 chassis was remained midfield because "they lost a trick suspension" is not a defense as other teams were also affected. Most articles say Redbull and Merc were most affected.
We can say the same for the monkey seat, everybody was affected. Although that was a proper rule change as opposed to a clarification.
The oil burning issue was Grey. It technically violated the fuel limit. The FIA gave Manufactures time to comply given the complexity of PU's and it would mean teams would have to use an additional PU for the year if they had to change PU's immediately. And of course teams are at the mercy of the OEM to ensure legality. So it's different from the suspension issue in the way it was handled. Further than that it will be silly for merc to come out and say we lost power on our engine because we can no longer technically violate the fuel limit.

AravJ wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
The test limit is there to prove whether your car is legal or not. If you pass its legal. Obviously the more you tighten the rule and/or set new limits the teams have to adhere to it has an effect otherwise they wouldn't do it. We've known for years EM's are burning oil for power gains but if it passes the tests its legal so all they did was continue to tighten the limits and the HPC suspensions were no different.

Show me a team that failed any test about their suspension in 2017? They were given new directives from time to time like the ones mentioned on reddit and they were clarifications issued but again much like the oil burn there was no teams that actually failed a test, it was just the FIA further clamping down on areas they felt could be exploited for aero gains because they and others felt that was going on.

So yes its speculation but its not mine, it was widely reported they were one of the ones that had one.

I agree with you on the purpose of the test limit. But it was not a rule change and it did not mean that in its absence trick suspensions were legal.
The overarching rule is trick suspensions are illegal.
Read this article in February 2017
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... 97/878197/
I goes on to say “The document goes on to make it clear if a team fails to satisfy the technical delegate the primary purpose of the suspension system is to insulate the chassis and the driver from undulations in the road surface, if asked to do so, the FIA may ask for the system to be removed or disabled."
That simply means whether or not test limits are existing a trick suspension is illegal and the burden of proof rests with teams.
This is what your reddit article states." The calm lasted only briefly. At the 2017 Austrian GP, the teams whose cars were equipped with hydraulic suspensions again, received mail from the FIA. The control guards heard that these teams were able to change the chassis characteristics through targeted heat transfer between qualifying and the race by preheating the hydraulic elements or skillfully placing the actuators near oil lines. Mercedes, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Force India and Red Bull had to adjust" unless the article was sarcastic they were deemed illegal to answer your question. They FIA themselves never named anybody, they made statements like they were surprised at the teams that did have illegal systems.
My point is we don't know if mclaren continued with a trick suspension in 2017 following the FIA inspections and crackdown. And we don't know if mclaren were more affected by the fia crackdown as other teams were also affected. They may have been more in 2017 itself. So saying their 2018 chassis was remained midfield because "they lost a trick suspension" is not a defense as other teams were also affected. Most articles say Redbull and Merc were most affected.
We can say the same for the monkey seat, everybody was affected. Although that was a proper rule change as opposed to a clarification.
The oil burning issue was Grey. It technically violated the fuel limit. The FIA gave Manufactures time to comply given the complexity of PU's and it would mean teams would have to use an additional PU for the year if they had to change PU's immediately. And of course teams are at the mercy of the OEM to ensure legality. So it's different from the suspension issue in the way it was handled. Further than that it will be silly for merc to come out and say we lost power on our engine because we can no longer technically violate the fuel limit.

If you introduce a new limit that the teams have to comply with its a regulation change. Its something they didn't have to comply to before so we can argue semantics all day but its not going to change they introduced a new limit. All of those suspensions passed compliance so were perfectly legal, whether we term them "trick" or not when discussing them.

And to be clear I'm not saying the loss of any trick suspension is why they were in the midfield, I'm just pointing out more changed than just the engine so we should be taking it all into account. And whether they ran one in 2017 or not we can say with absolute certainty they ran a different suspension in 2018 than they ran in 2017. We can also say Alonso pointed to two regulation changes that had hurt them, and while that may well be the Halo introduction or maybe Honda were more involved in oil burning than Renault were, I obviously can't say. (I can't think of any of the other changes off the top of my head but I'm sure there were some)

But what I can say is they suffered with a loss of rear d/f compared to the previous year as they talked about in Canada so if they did have a 'trick' suspension as widely rumoured in AMuS throughout 2017 that allowed them to run more d/f without extra penalty on the straights then that and the monkey seat ban fits perfectly with both what we saw in 2018 with the loss of d/f and having to run more wing and also happens to fit with Alonso's comments. And the nature of the 'trick' may well be why he didn't specify which reg change hurt so it fits there too.

You're obviously free to draw your own conclusions, and there was many more mistakes made in 2018 from McLaren like the gear ratio issue and the aero issue in the bargeboard tor example so there isn't just one thing that led to the poor performance and certainly not just any loss of a suspension. The bargeboard area issue was the singe biggest problem I believe because they were losing whatever d/f they did have every time they turned a wheel.

Here's where the big three really flex their muscles and show how far McLaren have to go to get on par. It took McLaren 6 months to find their aero issue last year by which time it was too late to fix. Here's Red Bull with it identified after the second race and confident it'll be fixed by Spain...

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... for-spain/

Lotus49 wrote:Here's where the big three really flex their muscles and show how far McLaren have to go to get on par. It took McLaren 6 months to find their aero issue last year by which time it was too late to fix. Here's Red Bull with it identified after the second race and confident it'll be fixed by Spain...

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... for-spain/

Yeah I posted this earlier in this thread but without a bonafida source, how a top team operates compared to a midfield team?

Lotus49 wrote:Here's where the big three really flex their muscles and show how far McLaren have to go to get on par. It took McLaren 6 months to find their aero issue last year by which time it was too late to fix. Here's Red Bull with it identified after the second race and confident it'll be fixed by Spain...

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... for-spain/

I could be wrong here as I'm just going off memory but didn't Ferrari have an issue related to the wind tunnel that took them quite a while to fix? And they're safely a top team. I think sometimes things are an easier fix than others

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Here's where the big three really flex their muscles and show how far McLaren have to go to get on par. It took McLaren 6 months to find their aero issue last year by which time it was too late to fix. Here's Red Bull with it identified after the second race and confident it'll be fixed by Spain...

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bull- ... for-spain/

I could be wrong here as I'm just going off memory but didn't Ferrari have an issue related to the wind tunnel that took them quite a while to fix? And they're safely a top team. I think sometimes things are an easier fix than others

True, we do not know the magnitude of the thing that needed fixing. Ferrari's wind tunnel took ages to fix from memory. I think they were using someone else's tunnel for a while as well, Toyota's maybe. Can't be sure without looking at it