Rubens and McLaren

#71

Frank Adam <fajp (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:25:42 +0000, Dan <no (AT) spam (DOT) here.invalid> wrote:

APLer <APLer (AT) floor (DOT) tilde> wrote:

Agreed. Kimi no longer cares enough about F1 to be a WDC.

Kimi is /already/ a WDC. He beat Alonso and Hamilton for it, in a
slower car.

Hangon a cotton picking second.. Shirley his car had to be faster when
he beat them ?

He beat them to the Championship.

The McLaren was the faster car
over the season, I believe, but both Hamilton and Alonso failed to
keep it on the track too often. Hamilton parking it on the world's
smallest gravel trap springs to mind. I would have loved to see
Hamilton win in his debut year, but kudos to Kimi for consistency
that year.

Dan

#72

Bob Dubery <megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 9, 12:25*pm, Dan <n... (AT) spam (DOT) here.invalid> wrote:
APLer <AP... (AT) floor (DOT) tilde> wrote:
Agreed. Kimi no longer cares enough about F1 to be a WDC.

Kimi is /already/ a WDC. He beat Alonso and Hamilton for it, in a
slower car.

Really? It seems to me it was one of those seasons where one car was
fastest on some tracks and another car was faster elsewhere. Neither
the Ferrari nor the McLaren was superior in all circumstances.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Actually, after looking at the summary, Ferrari won more races that
year than I remembered. They actually won 9 races to McLaren's 8.

http://www.autosport.com/f1/2007.html

I guess Hamilton and Alonso are better drivers than I thought...

Dan

#73

CatharticF1 wrote:

Quote:

build <buildy (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:cd1a68f8-7be3-40c7-bc4b-020035f06934 (AT) y32g2000prd (DOT) googlegroups.com:

On Nov 10, 4:06 pm, Bob Dubery <megap... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:36 am, build <bui... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Nov 10, 3:17 pm, Bob Dubery <megap... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
It's another of these letter of the law V spirit of the law
debates. The Ferrari underfloor passed scrutineering. However a
little later i n the season new tests for that part of the
underfloor were announced - clearly because FIA felt that one or
more teams had found a way of allowing that part of the car to
move in a way that the rules sought to eliminate. Several teams
(including McLaren IIRC) had to modify their cars at that point.
G'day Bob,
Yes, BUT ! as you say (i think) it complied with the rules which
required the test. It passed. It was legal. (as much as I did not
like their Tyrrellesk approach, wink).
Sure it was legal - just like the double diffuser turned out to be.

Interesting that you point out that the McLaren floor required
mods, it did although they thought they had a better trick which
would get passed Charlie, it did not, but many ignore that fact.
AND McLaren were not alone another British constructor modified
theirs too but I'll ignore them in this post ;-)
Well as has frequently been pointed out on RASF1, no part of a racing
car is absolutely inflexible - it will always deform if subjected to
sufficient force. FIA drastically increased the load they would apply
during the test. I think that in the case of McLaren (and others) it
was the case that their underfloors were also flexible, just not AS
flexible.

But as you rightly say, Ferrari's car was passed by the scrutineers
testing as required by the regulations at the time - thus it complied
with the letter of the law at the time.
Not quite, McLaren were more creative than the simple shall we say
"click" springs of Ferrari. Mclaren employed a lever mechanism. It is
too long ago for my simple mind to recall details but both were very
bloody clever.

Charlies trick (as I suspect he knew about McLaren's version) was in
how the load was applied, McLaren had not anticipated that, hence had
to deploy blocks or something in Malaysia to get through.

Oh you're not going to be popular here anymore.. pointing that out.

Why?

--

Chris

I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

#74

mower man <nospam (AT) f2s (DOT) com> wrote in
news:X7KdnS8J1O4zU2TXnZ2dnUVZ8kZi4p2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net:

Quote:

Not quite, McLaren were more creative than the simple shall we say
"click" springs of Ferrari. Mclaren employed a lever mechanism. It is
too long ago for my simple mind to recall details but both were very
bloody clever.

Charlies trick (as I suspect he knew about McLaren's version) was in
how the load was applied, McLaren had not anticipated that, hence had
to deploy blocks or something in Malaysia to get through.

Oh you're not going to be popular here anymore.. pointing that out.

Why?

By sheer weight of numbers it's more popular to point out negatives about
Ferrari than McLaren.

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

#75

On Nov 11, 4:24*am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

mower man <nos... (AT) f2s (DOT) com> wrote innews:X7KdnS8J1O4zU2TXnZ2dnUVZ8kZi4p2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net:

Oh you're not going to be popular here anymore.. pointing that out.

Why?

By sheer weight of numbers it's more popular to point out negatives about
Ferrari than McLaren.

So the reactions to Build's post have been....

#76

Bob Dubery <megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:f67bbbf4-7bcf-4782-9685-da8dd121c570 (AT) r5g2000yqb (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

On Nov 11, 4:24*am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
mower man <nos... (AT) f2s (DOT) com> wrote
innews:X7KdnS8J1O4zU2TXnZ2dnUVZ8kZi4p2d@ pipex.net:

Oh you're not going to be popular here anymore.. pointing that
out.

Why?

By sheer weight of numbers it's more popular to point out negatives
about Ferrari than McLaren.

So the reactions to Build's post have been....

Never spoken of again I think you'll find

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

#77

CatharticF1 wrote:

Quote:

mower man <nospam (AT) f2s (DOT) com> wrote in
news:X7KdnS8J1O4zU2TXnZ2dnUVZ8kZi4p2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net:

Not quite, McLaren were more creative than the simple shall we say
"click" springs of Ferrari. Mclaren employed a lever mechanism. It is
too long ago for my simple mind to recall details but both were very
bloody clever.

Charlies trick (as I suspect he knew about McLaren's version) was in
how the load was applied, McLaren had not anticipated that, hence had
to deploy blocks or something in Malaysia to get through.
Oh you're not going to be popular here anymore.. pointing that out.

Why?

By sheer weight of numbers it's more popular to point out negatives about
Ferrari than McLaren.

Surely the correct answer should have been - that you are
*pathologically* incapable of believing any negative in respect of Ferrari?

It's not a bloody religion, you know. Indded, it's not even a sport in
the usually accepted sense. It's an engineering mind game, always has
been, always will be, and sometimes that lil' ole team at Modena get it
right, sometimes that lil' ole team at Woking do.

--

Chris

I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

#78

mower man <nospam (AT) f2s (DOT) com> wrote in
news:ztydnYjaQJHO9mbXnZ2dnUVZ8nadnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net:

Quote:

CatharticF1 wrote:
mower man <nospam (AT) f2s (DOT) com> wrote in
news:X7KdnS8J1O4zU2TXnZ2dnUVZ8kZi4p2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net:

Not quite, McLaren were more creative than the simple shall we say
"click" springs of Ferrari. Mclaren employed a lever mechanism. It
is too long ago for my simple mind to recall details but both were
very bloody clever.

Charlies trick (as I suspect he knew about McLaren's version) was
in how the load was applied, McLaren had not anticipated that,
hence had to deploy blocks or something in Malaysia to get
through.
Oh you're not going to be popular here anymore.. pointing that out.

Why?

By sheer weight of numbers it's more popular to point out negatives
about Ferrari than McLaren.

Surely the correct answer should have been - that you are
*pathologically* incapable of believing any negative in respect of
Ferrari?

You're wrong, and being selective.
This is about McLaren being guilty of something that Ferrari has copped
abuse here for. In fact it was a claim of Ferrari's cheating that kicked
off this to the point where it came full circle.
And not by me.

Quote:

It's not a bloody religion, you know. Indded, it's not even a sport in
the usually accepted sense. It's an engineering mind game, always has
been, always will be, and sometimes that lil' ole team at Modena get
it right, sometimes that lil' ole team at Woking do.

Indeed!

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

#79

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:32:19 +1100, Frank Adam
<fajp (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:25:42 +0000, Dan <no (AT) spam (DOT) here.invalid> wrote:

APLer <APLer (AT) floor (DOT) tilde> wrote:

Agreed. Kimi no longer cares enough about F1 to be a WDC.

Kimi is /already/ a WDC. He beat Alonso and Hamilton for it, in a
slower car.

Hangon a cotton picking second.. Shirley his car had to be faster when
he beat them ?

Less time in the pits
--
Cheers,
Dave

Don't touch me unless you love me.

#80

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:44:54 +1100, Bob Dubery <megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 10, 12:33 pm, build <bui... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:01 pm, Bob Dubery <megap... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

with the new tests. It got down to the level of him saying "but you
had to add this piece here" and them saying "well yes, but you don't
know what that bit does and what it's for."

LOL, if that referred to the Malaysia mods, it was a simple block to
limit the movement of the lever. I dare say a google would reveal the
mechanism as I have seen a schematic of it.

IIRC it was something to do with something called a "buckling stay".

Arrrrrrr me hearties!!!!!!!!
--
Cheers,
Dave

Don't touch me unless you love me.