Grand Prix Rejects

And we start with..


Oh Renault

Think it in a positive way: Now they have fresher engine for Singapore and the chance of winning is better.

AxelP800 wrote:Think it in a positive way: Now they have fresher engine for Singapore and the chance of winning is better.

Bingo. This was always the plan - what chance of a result was Red Bull gonna have at Monza anyway? The track is almost completely reliant on engine power.

What's the over/under on Honda penalties? 120?

Wallio wrote:What's the over/under on Honda penalties? 120?

Do you mean you will allow us 120 leeway on the number of penalties McLaren Honda will get?

dr-baker wrote:

Wallio wrote:What's the over/under on Honda penalties? 120?

Do you mean you will allow us 120 leeway on the number of penalties McLaren Honda will get?

Still wouldn't bet on it...

dr-baker wrote:

Wallio wrote:What's the over/under on Honda penalties? 120?

Do you mean you will allow us 120 leeway on the number of penalties McLaren Honda will get?

No I mean if the over/under is set at exactly 120 grid spots total, which would you bet high or low? I'm honestly torn after Spa.

I think we have Reject of the Race sewn up already.

good_Ralf wrote:

"Attempting to win over popular opinion for the recently announced Grand Prix of the People's Republic, Mercedes has hired Dennis Rodman as brand ambassador....."

Salamander wrote:

AxelP800 wrote:Think it in a positive way: Now they have fresher engine for Singapore and the chance of winning is better.

Bingo. This was always the plan - what chance of a result was Red Bull gonna have at Monza anyway? The track is almost completely reliant on engine power.

McLaren adopted a similar tactic in Belgium too - part of the reason for the massive engine penalties was because McLaren and Honda deliberately introduced components out of the normal cycle in order to change to the new specification powertrain in one hit. It also makes sense given that Renault intend to introduce a new specification engine around the Russian GP - it enables them to split the mileage reasonably evenly between the final eight races and to get a decent amount of mileage with the new engine, so it is actually quite a sensible approach given that Red Bull knew they'd have to take engine penalties later in the year.

On the topic of engines, there is talk that Mercedes will be bringing a large chunk of changes too - there are reports that Mercedes has decided to deploy all of their engine tokens as the works drivers switch to their third engines in Monza in order to test out development parts for their 2016 car. However, it appears that the changes are not focussed at increasing the power of the engines, but are focussing more on improving reliability and fuel efficiency. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... italian-gp

As an aside, McLaren have also shown off their Monza spec package, and it is quite remarkable in one sense:

I don't think that I've seen a team use a rear wing that was that thin for a long time - which underlines how weak the powertrain must be.

mario wrote:As an aside, McLaren have also shown off their Monza spec package, and it is quite remarkable in one sense:

I don't think that I've seen a team use a rear wing that was that thin for a long time - which underlines how weak the powertrain must be.

Well, they need all the speed they can get from the aero because that powertrain is not going to be helping them.

roblomas52 wrote:

mario wrote:As an aside, McLaren have also shown off their Monza spec package, and it is quite remarkable in one sense:

I don't think that I've seen a team use a rear wing that was that thin for a long time - which underlines how weak the powertrain must be.

Well, they need all the speed they can get from the aero because that powertrain is not going to be helping them.

I agree, because the rear wing is thin (which means not full size) then that also means that the powertrain of the McLaren car is poor, which means not good. From this, we can determine that the Honda engine in the back of that McLaren is down on power, because the aero on the rear is significantly smaller than it has been in the past. By reducing the rear wing to such a small size, it really emphasises the fact that McLaren don't have a strong engine. In a parallel world, McLaren would be using a deeper rear wing since the powertrain would be good, but since we don't live in such a world the Honda engine is therefore less than idea, and so by reducing the rear wing size means that the poor qualities of the powertrain are leveled out to a degree. To summarise, by reducing the rear downforce of the McLaren to such an extent, we're able to see how down on power the engine may be.

I need to catch my breath after that...

Ataxia wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:

mario wrote:As an aside, McLaren have also shown off their Monza spec package, and it is quite remarkable in one sense:

I don't think that I've seen a team use a rear wing that was that thin for a long time - which underlines how weak the powertrain must be.

Well, they need all the speed they can get from the aero because that powertrain is not going to be helping them.

I agree, because the rear wing is thin (which means not full size) then that also means that the powertrain of the McLaren car is poor, which means not good. From this, we can determine that the Honda engine in the back of that McLaren is down on power, because the aero on the rear is significantly smaller than it has been in the past. By reducing the rear wing to such a small size, it really emphasises the fact that McLaren don't have a strong engine. In a parallel world, McLaren would be using a deeper rear wing since the powertrain would be good, but since we don't live in such a world the Honda engine is therefore less than idea, and so by reducing the rear wing size means that the poor qualities of the powertrain are leveled out to a degree. To summarise, by reducing the rear downforce of the McLaren to such an extent, we're able to see how down on power the engine may be.

I need to catch my breath after that...

So what you're saying is McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is poor?

Wallio wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

Wallio wrote:What's the over/under on Honda penalties? 120?

Do you mean you will allow us 120 leeway on the number of penalties McLaren Honda will get?

No I mean if the over/under is set at exactly 120 grid spots total, which would you bet high or low? I'm honestly torn after Spa.

Note to self: remember that irony does not always work in written form on the internet... McLaren may as well bring in as many new engines and ancillaries for each car as possible in one hit to avoid further penalties further down the line.

So what you're saying is McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is poor?

Wasn't it perfectly clear?

So why are McLaren running a thin rear wing?

AdrianSutil wrote:So why are McLaren running a thin rear wing?

There are rumours circulating in the paddock that McLaren's new engine supplier for 2015, the Japanese car manufacturer Honda, are suffering power delivery issues with their drivetrain package. As a result, McLaren have been left little option but to develop an extremely thin, near horizontal plane for their rear wing to compensate for these deficiencies.

Is that the old, long nosecone on that McLaren? Why would they use that, could it cause less drag or something?

And, by the way, what happened to that rear wing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7g0862r2qU

Simtek wrote:

Ataxia wrote:I agree, because the rear wing is thin (which means not full size) then that also means that the powertrain of the McLaren car is poor, which means not good. From this, we can determine that the Honda engine in the back of that McLaren is down on power, because the aero on the rear is significantly smaller than it has been in the past. By reducing the rear wing to such a small size, it really emphasises the fact that McLaren don't have a strong engine. In a parallel world, McLaren would be using a deeper rear wing since the powertrain would be good, but since we don't live in such a world the Honda engine is therefore less than idea, and so by reducing the rear wing size means that the poor qualities of the powertrain are leveled out to a degree. To summarise, by reducing the rear downforce of the McLaren to such an extent, we're able to see how down on power the engine may be.

I need to catch my breath after that...

So what you're saying is McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is poor?

No he is not saying that. He is saying that McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is not good as it is down on power.

DanielPT wrote:

Simtek wrote:So what you're saying is McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is poor?

No he is not saying that. He is saying that McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is not good as it is down on power.

I don't think that's quite the angle he was going for there.

I interpreted his comments more as a case of the Honda drivetrain package being far from optimised, and as a result McLaren have opted to run a primary rear wing element with a narrower angle of attack and reduced surface area.

Biscione wrote:

DanielPT wrote:

Simtek wrote:So what you're saying is McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is poor?

No he is not saying that. He is saying that McLaren are running a thin rear wing because the Honda engine is not good as it is down on power.

I don't think that's quite the angle he was going for there.

I interpreted his comments more as a case of the Honda drivetrain package being far from optimised, and as a result McLaren have opted to run a primary rear wing element with a narrower angle of attack and reduced surface area.

Actually, that's not quite true.

I believe he rather means that the internal combustion unit as well as the auxiliary equipment surrounding it, all of which are designed to provide power through the transmission to drive the rear wheels, are in fact not quite producing enough of the required grunt to propel the automobile with quite the desired velocity, especially at a venue like Monza, where such swiftness is necessary.

It is due to this unfortunate lack of speed that the aerodynamic aerofoil mounted in a rather rearward position, colloquially referred to as the "rear wing", must be designed to be much thinner than its usual incarnation, for a smaller area exposed to the airflow resulting from the car's movement would result in much less drag force being generated, therefore allowing the McLaren MP4-30 to recoup some of this straightline deficit.

Has Ron Dennis hacked his way into the accounts of some of the long-term esteemed members of the Rejects forum?

Ah, so that's why McLaren are running such a thin rear wing. It's all down to the shortcoming in their powertrain. By doing this, they can mitigate the deficit in power with an increase in straightline speed.

I've learnt loads reading these posts because before I did I simply thought that the McLaren was slow but now I know different.

is that an engine like a search engine
i thought wings went on the side of things
y do we need engines
what's a monza

Miguel98 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7g0862r2qU

But actually it makes sense, isn't it? An engine abusing circuit after all.
I'm surprised that McLaren went for that kind of wing, but I doubt that they will be able to achieve anything major in the end with that.

And yet, Alonso was 16th in FP2.

Lotus and especially Force India are on form so far, both had the better of Williams.

Well, I wasn't expecting that throwaway comment of mine to take on a life of its own - we really are bored this season, aren't we?

tBone wrote:Is that the old, long nosecone on that McLaren? Why would they use that, could it cause less drag or something?

And, by the way, what happened to that rear wing?

It's not entirely clear why exactly McLaren have reverted back to the older nosecone (and McLaren have brought only the older nosecones with them to Monza). It could be for drag reasons, although it could also be that the newer short nose wasn't delivering the results they expected on track - they seem to have spent time running aero rakes and flow viz tests in FP1 and FP2, suggesting that they might have been collecting data for comparative purposes with their new nose cone.

Shizuka wrote:But actually it makes sense, isn't it? An engine abusing circuit after all.

There seems to be a range of reasons for introducing the upgrades in one hit here, and you are right that reliability is one aspect (some of the upgrades are intended to address reliability concerns).

The upgrade package also reportedly improves fuel consumption, which is particularly useful when some of the upcoming circuits, such as Singapore, are particularly taxing on that point, and comes at a very convenient point in Mercedes's engine cycle - they can introduce those upgrades without having to take an engine penalty, whereas Ferrari will almost certainly have to do so later in the year.

Asides from that, it seems that Mercedes are using this as an opportunity to collect data on parts which they are developing for 2016 - they have the luxury of effectively being able to focus their development efforts for next year and, with testing being cut back to just two pre-season sessions, utilising track time this year to collect data for 2016 could be very valuable.

Some of us are only occasionally bored.

So, Ricky came to a stop in FP3, and it seems his engine problem is terminal.

Looks like another tough weekend for Renault, as even Will Stevens was faster than the Red Bulls and Toro Rossos in FP3. Kudos to Manor, btw.

Meanwhile the regional governor of Lombardy looks optimistic about Monza staying on the F1 calendar after 2016.

Spectoremg wrote:Some of us are only occasionally bored.

It's more than that. Some are even slightly bored.

novitopoli wrote:Looks like another tough weekend for Renault, as even Will Stevens was faster than the Red Bulls and Toro Rossos in FP3. Kudos to Manor, btw.

Meanwhile the regional governor of Lombardy looks optimistic about Monza staying on the F1 calendar after 2016.

And it was also confirmed during that session that Verstappen will also be changing his engine, so all of the Renault powered drivers will be taking penalties for this race (it looks like Toro Rosso didn't even both trying to simulate a qualifying run). With so many drivers taking penalties, we will probably see the two Manor's crop up somewhere around 14th place, and that assumes that there aren't any further penalties in qualifying itself.

Not even Deletraz knows what Ericsson was doing

Now now, Toro Rosso...

Given what's just happened in America this last fortnight, the last thing we need to be seeing is bodywork flying through the air. Well done on securing my nomination for Reject Of The Race before the race has even started.

mario wrote:Well, I wasn't expecting that throwaway comment of mine to take on a life of its own - we really are bored this season, aren't we?

It was the fact that rob quoted you and then typed near verbatim what you'd already written. I'd wondered if you'd made that post in a large, open room, because you had a bit of an echo...

Rosberg chocked again or Will Power replaced him?

Dj_bereta wrote:Rosberg chocked again or Will Power replaced him?

Neither. He was using the old-spec Mercedes engine.