McLaren Tells the Truth.....Finally

Wrong way to look at it. The way I look at it, is what would 2007 have been without Stepneygate?

McLaren had a great car. It wasn't as fast as the Ferrari, but most likely better than the BMW. The Ferrari boys would have been duking it out against each other with a McLaren guy normally ending up in 3rd. Not as epic a battle like what we have seen, but a more honest one. And probably what we'll see in 08.

 

I think the racing would have been exactly the same. However without the distractions of the scandal, perhaps McLaren would have been able to do a better job managing their drivers and thus taken both titles.

Massa would still have wound up a distant 4th...

 

Without Ferrari's brake system they would not have been as competitive.

 

The Mclaren had a better chassis around tight tracks ,better over high kerbs you can go on forever with what if's.

My point is had Mclaren not been racing out finished it would be have been a boring crap season, and these boards alot quieter.

Your point I do take had the spying not taken place in a ideal world no cheating, but dont lose sight of the fact it takes two to tango it started with Stephney pissed off at Ferrari.

You must like Max afterall.

 

Easy there.

No I don't like him personally and I disagree with most of his decisions.

I tend to agree that the whole Stepneygate investigation should have probably better never have happened. This should have been left to the courts and the police. FIA's involvement based on "bringing disgrace to the sport" is a very thin line of arguing.

That aside, once they decided to go forward with this, I honestly feel they took the rights steps: Leave McLaren untouched after the first hearing due to lack of evidence, then coming down hard on them after that evidence showed up in the 2nd hearing, leaving the drivers' points intact because they were given immunity and hence making it hurt by setting an extraordinary fine.

It is debatable whether they should have been thrown out for 08. Based on their recent acknowledgements, they should have, but then what season would give that to us? So I can understand Mad Max for letting bygones be bygones.

Whether I like or dislike somebody shouldn't have an affect on how I view that person's decisions.

 

Sorry its a sore subject with me..

And thats that fully agree.

 

I still stand by this as a FALSE statement as it's never been proven, was never in the FIA report, or corroborated by ANY other news site or investigation. It's just hearsay. THERE WAS NO FERRARI BRAKE SYSTEM USED ON THE 2007 McLaren. The FIA did report that McLaren were poised to run a similar system on the 2008 car had the spy scandal not broken. That much is FACT.

If you can show me corroborating evidence to the Business F1 claims I'm more than happy to concede but as it stands there is nothing. Given their many past claims that have been proven false in a court of law I'd say that without any such corroborating evidence their claims should be deemed suspect.

 

How dare I suspect the honorable gentlemen running the McLaren team of any wrong doing? The mere thought is preposterous.

I'm sure it is all a big misunderstanding and some sort of miscommunication.

PS: This (my) answer is btw very similar to what BusinessF1 had to say to McLaren for challenging them on their report. The court proceedings in Italy will eventually tell us what is real and what isn't.

 

I'm not saying they weren't doing anything wrong. Yes, IMO they did wrong. But, I certainly have more faith in the more transparent court proceedings that'll be taking place in England than in Italy.

 

I dont buy this. There are several manufacturers of the discs, I'm sure its the same with the pads.
Then you have hydraulic lines, a proportioning valve, master cylinder and a pedal. All this was figured out years ago.
Changing disc and pad compounds are the only major physical changes. The rest is tuning.
Alonso even prefered a different disc manufacturer to Hami on occation.
I dont remember Mclaren having a superior braking ability in any race except when Hami passed a neck injured Kimster. Not a brake issue.

 

In fact I remember LH couldn't stop one time entering the pits. DOH!

 

Yes agreed thats how I understood it to be.

 

Well, I did, as during the 2006 season Mc Laren was equal or behind where BMW was this season and all of a sudden in 2007 it is out in the front and it seems invincible, with everyone raving about its chassis......
I may not be an expert, but this kind of progress in F1 does not happen overnight, unless it is a Hollywood movie.

 

Oh, absolutely: in England no one would even think about cheating and covering up afterwards, while in Italy they are all crooks !!

 

Never would have guessed

 

oh you should never impune the infallible English , they are the champions of fair play **cough cough**

 

LOL As sharp as a sack full of wet mice as usual John

 

Thank you. Spot on.

Short of sending the Ferrari mechanics over to install the system in the McLaren Stepney did everything he possibly could to make this work. The hundreds of emails and phone calls in April and May were all about the brake system. Once it worked in the McLaren, the cooperation basically stopped.

 

Still smarting over the rugby, didnt see your guys being exactly fair either.

In Formula 1 2007 will be remembered for one thing, the so-called spygate saga than ran over the summer months, where Nigel Stepney was found to have been passing information to McLaren chief designer Mike Coughlan. It cost McLaren $100 million (£50 million) but, to get to that fine, a fascinating court case was held to decide whether McLaren had been using the information. During the case a large amount of technical data relating to the Ferrari F2007 was revealed and, whilst most publications have focused on the most obvious elements of the case, Racecar [ital] has delved deeper to reveal the secrets of the F2007.

One of the most talked-about elements of the case was a special gas used by Ferrari in its tyres - in particular, an incriminating email from McLaren test driver Pedro De La Rosa to lead driver Fernando Alonso that revealed that the gas reduced the internal temperature and blistering. In the email De La Rosa is quoted as saying 'we'll have to try it, it's easy!' Racing tyres are typically filled with air or, in more professional series like Formula 1, Nitrogen. But in an email from Alonso to De La Rosa he states it is 'very important' that McLaren test the gas that Ferrari uses in its tyres as 'they have something different from the rest.' He follows this up with 'not only this year. There is something else and this may be the key. Let's hope we can test it during this test, and that we can make it a priority!' It has been widely reported that the gas used by Ferrari was carbon dioxide and, whilst this is partially correct, it's not the full story.

In fact, the gas used by Ferrari is a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-based mixture designed specifically for use in racecar tyres, though not dissimilar in composition to gasses used in refrigerators, which are comprised entirely of hydrogen, carbon and fluorine. A team headed by Andrea Seghezzi of Monza, Italy, in association with Gruppo Sapio developed the gas and subjected it to extensive track testing.

It was discovered that the HFCs were able to effectively conduct the heat generated during the rotation of the tyre to the wheel rim at a more or less constant pressure. The wheel rim then acts as a radiator, exchanging the heat with the outside air, maintaining a lower internal temperature and preventing it from overheating. This is particularly effective on aluminum or magnesium wheels.

Racing rubber inflated with air also suffers from the effects of some internal chemical interactions, which damage the structure of the tyre, and can result in a sudden drop in performance. Due to the high capacity for heat transfer, tyres inflated with the new mixture achieve excellent longevity, since the temperature of the tyre is kept low and the pressure is constant.

After extensive tyre testing the best blend of HFCs was found to be 52 per cent Tetrafluoroethane, 44 per cent Pentafluoroethane and four per cent Trifluoroethane. This mixture, known as HFC R404 A, was found to be most effective in a racing tyre when it was inflated with a blend of 50 per cent HFC R404 A and 50 per cent CO2.
The use of this new gas mix for tyres has implications far beyond Formula 1, of course, as using it allows teams to run softer compounds for longer, or to work the tyres harder. It could also be that there will be worthwhile benefits in races run over longer distances, like NASCAR or Le Mans.

The court case continued without revealing the precise details of HFC R404 A, but it transpires that, despite the encouragement of the drivers, a Bridgestone engineer doubted whether the gas mixture would be effective if used on the McLaren MP4/22. However, it is thought that the McLaren drivers were not fully aware of the gas mix, rather they only knew of the CO2 element.

During the hearing another email was produced that gave a fascinating insight into Ferrari's use of variable brake bias on its cars. It was again sent to Alonso by De La Rosa on March 25 2007 and says, 'They [Ferrari] have this system which delays the rear braking initially then proceeds to increase it gradually.'
The benefits of this are not as obvious as they might first appear. In the first instance it is easy to assume that because an F1 car generates much higher braking forces with the aid of downforce at high speed that at lower ones, the weight transfer is also much greater at high speeds. That would suggest the need for a greater forward brake bias, gradually migrating rearward as speed and downforce reduce. However, even at 5.0g deceleration, the long wheelbase and low centre of gravity of an F1 car mean the weight transfer is dwarfed by the aerodynamic downforce that enables such high deceleration. So the relative loads on the front and rear tyres do not necessarily correlate directly with braking force and weight transfer.

Why, then, would the Ferrari be attempting to migrate its brake bias rearward during the braking period? Perhaps the most likely explanation is the aerodynamic balance is also shifting greatly under braking. If the team has been successfully shedding downforce at high speed to reduce drag then this may well be from the rear of the car. For instance, despite the organisers' attempts to prevent it, teams have been finding ever more sophisticated ways of allowing their cars' rear wings to drop efficiency at high speed. This will both reduce drag and also cause a significant forward shift in the centre of lift.

Obviously a brake bias set to prevent the rear wheels locking at these speeds would have a heavy forward bias, but this would seriously compromise the braking efficiency at lower speeds, with the rear brakes only working at a fraction of their potential. So, to bias the braking effort to the front then move it rearward during the braking event would seem desirable, but how could it be achieved? Mention was made at the hearing of a spring that Ferrari uses to achieve the effect. Obviously a spring on its own cannot effect a change over time, but combined with input from the driver it could.

Under the highest downforce, driver brake effort is at the maximum, as is displacement of the pedal. But as downforce reduces, so does the pedal effort and displacement and this can be used to vary the brake bias during the brake event. A spring could be placed in the system to resist the force on the rear master cylinder, reducing the rear braking effort at maximum force. However, as downforce diminishes and the driver modulates his braking effort to prevent wheel locking, pedal displacement would reduce gradually, taking the spring out of action and allowing the rear cylinder a greater proportion of the total force relative to the front cylinder.

In fact Ferrari has been observed to employ a three-position lever on the right-hand side of its cockpit that the drivers are seen to change several times during a lap. This could well be changing the bias profile for different corner scenarios. It could give different settings for high and low-speed corners or different levels of stability under high-speed braking to aid turn in. Put simply, it could insert a wedge between the pedal linkage and the spring, altering the pressure at which it starts to have an influence.

With the information from this email, McLaren installed and tested its own version of the system. But unlike the Ferrari version, it is said to use a valve instead of a spring and is a direct development of a system the team was using in 2001 and 2002. This may have been part of the brake steer system subsequently banned by the FIA, leading F1 regulations to now state: 'The brake system must be designed in order that the force exerted on the brake pads within each circuit are the same at all times.' In its current form the valve is most likely an interconnect between the front and rear circuits that, via a connecting piston, allows the pressure in one circuit to affect the other. To what degree will be determined by the fluid pressure in the system ie how hard the driver is braking.

One of the defences used by McLaren was that Stepney, the former Ferrari employee, was 'whistle blowing' - something the court struggled to accept covered the whole affair, but it did certainly have an effect at the Australian Grand Prix. Ferrari won the race, but the FIA later outlawed the car's floor. McLaren contended that the Ferrari that won was illegal, and a letter from Stepney to the FIA sent after the hearing revealed that it may well have been, as it was in effect a mass damper. Such devices were banned last season as they were controversially deemed to be a moveable aerodynamic device.

Stepney reveals in detail the exact workings of the floor that was used at the race: 'The front floor is attached to the chassis via a mechanical hinge system at its most rearward point. The most forward support is a body with one compression spring and one tension spring inside which can be adjusted according to the amount of mass that is fitted to the front floor. There is also a skirt that seals the floor to the chassis, which is made out of rubber and Kevlar to help flexibility and reduce friction in the system.
'If the system had been allowed it could have meant a huge cost of development for other teams in such areas as chassis and under trays etc to make way for the provision for storing the system and the variable quantity of mass. The possible long-term consequences of such a system would be quite substantial because the system is in a crude state of development.'

The system detailed by Stepney allowed the F2007 to ride kerbs harder due to the 14-15mm deflection at the leading edge of the floor, which means the Ferraris could straight line chicanes more than other chassis. Front plank wear would also be reduced, allowing the car to run lower at the front, giving an aerodynamic gain.
Stepney also explains the dynamic behaviour of the car, and the advantages the flexing floor gives: 'From around 160-180km/h (100-112mph) the car is about 7-8mm lower at the leading edge of the floor, which multiplies up to nearly 19-20mm lower front wing height. The benefits in terms of ground effects and efficiency would be gained all around, with components like turning vanes and front wings at a reduced height relative to the ground.'
[x-head - Moveable front splitter]

Perhaps the hardest phenomenon being exploited on the Ferrari to deduce from the documents at the hearing is the aerodynamics of the moveable front splitter. While questioning Paddy Lowe of McLaren, Nigel Tozzi brings up the term 'buckling stay'. Lowe describes this as a stay or bracket that is 'stiff initially, then buckles. This means it would be very rigid at the start then very soft, which would cynically exploit the behaviours in Article 3.17.'
The article in the 2007 Formula 1 Technical Regulations he refers to states: 'Bodywork may deflect no more 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it [downwards],' and 'Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically [upwards]'. This 15mm movement is the tolerance Ferrari was probably exploiting with its mass damper splitter mentioned earlier and the much stiffer compression spring in the mounting ensured it would pass the upward load test. However, this spring would be compliant enough to allow the splitter to hinge up over kerbs and, crucially, when it hits the ground. Why they would want this is a particularly interesting course of conjecture.

It would appear from the information that an F1 car is likely to turn the fastest lap times at many circuits if it is designed to produce maximum downforce below 200km/h (125mph) and then start shedding downforce to reduce drag above that speed.

Despite venturi tunnels being legislated out of F1 cars many years ago, the cars still manage to generate considerable ground effect from their stepped, flat floors. Properly exploited, the phenomenon of ground effect creates a low-pressure area under the car that pulls it down onto the road. It also creates a rearward force pulling the car back as a form of aerodynamic drag. The floor area of the car can deliver around 40 per cent of the downforce, but with a drag penalty, so shedding that downforce above 200km/h can be very beneficial.

When the gap under a car reduces below a certain point, typically around 40mm, viscous effects of the air start to dominate and the airflow under the car chokes off and no longer produces ground effect. But how can this phenomenon be used to advantage on an F1 car, and how does a compliant splitter help?
Under aerodynamic load the ride height of an F1 car obviously reduces. By how much and at what speeds can be dictated simply by clever use of the road springs. The cars also use heave springs, which have no effect on roll stiffness but make a large contribution under the vertical compression of the car. It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to come up with a system that allows the car's ride height to drop below 40mm at around 200km/h, choking off the flow underneath, thereby reducing downforce and, in turn, drag.

But surely F1 cars are fitted with a 10mm thick skid block that extends to the front of the splitter and prevents the floor either side from getting too close to the road surface? True, but if the front end of the block can hinge up when it touches the road, it will allow other areas of the car to get closer to the road and choke off the airflow.

This may well have been a phenomenon the Ferrari was exploiting with its spring-loaded splitter. That was taken out of contention by a rule clarification after the race in Australia and, on the basis that nothing in F1, once learned, is ever forgotten, teams would be looking for acceptable means for achieving the same effect.
And so we come to the buckling stay. As per Paddy Lowe's description, we should be envisaging a support bracket that has a non-linear rate. In other words, it will barely move until it experiences a load, perhaps from the road surface, that exceeds its buckling point and gives way, its rate moving into a zone of much lower resistance. It would probably stay in this mode until the load on it dropped to considerably less than is yield load when it would then drop back into its more rigid state. Applied to the support bracket of a splitter its advantages are clear.

Who, if anyone, is using this principle is unclear, but it does seem to be something the FIA is aware of and either condones or is policing effectively.
With the case concluded, Ferrari became 2007 Formula 1 World Constructors Champions as McLaren also lost all its points in that classification. While the data that came out during the court proceedings certainly revealed some of the secrets of the F2007, doubtless more will become apparent in the future...

copied from racecar

 

Ok, here is another source:

And btw the FIA transcripts did mention the brake bias system as one of the areas of information passed as well.

 

no, you lot learned how to play cricket yet ?

5 zip in the last round of real cricket with us from memory but then we expect you lot to have short term memory loss, especially when a lot of this trouble in the last season centred around cheating and deceitful poms (sorry Steve), is it any wonder Ferrari are returning to in-house players.

They should have learnt their lesson after the Barnard fiasco, what a waste of time he turned out to be and weren't we thankful to get Rory Byne who knew what a racecar was all about

 

No we only invented it John, but we as a nation are not good at any sport John and dont pretned to be, all we have is highly paid individuals that do not play well for their country.

But a least we can lose gracefully sometimes unlike the Aussies who seem to think is is the end of the world, especially when it is by the poms!! Lighten up mate

Anyway

You state that JB was a waste of time, where exactly do you think Ferrari was beforehand. Dead and sinking even faster. England is renowned for it's excellence in F1 technology which is why all the major teams come over here. (except Renault but they bought Benetton)

JB put in place many disciplines that was the foundation for the 2 RB's and many others to build on in the late 90's. His biggest problem was that Ferrari had no structure and this had to be implemented first. His second obstacle was overcoming the political machinations in Ferrari once Enzo passed away, very difficult i would imagine. Designing, building and assembling components that distance apart was the undoing of the partnership. But it was effective and instrumental (IMO) in the resurrgence of Ferrari in the early 90's (prost,mansell).

Harvey Posthelwaite was also in charge and had limited success but again fought a political game. I think it wasn't until Jean Todt arrived that he was the shield against this.

So please do not think all of us poms are like Ron Dennis or Nigel Stepney en all, as it is a bit like saying all your Shelia's are like Kylie or Dame Edna!!!

 

Tony, John's ok he just loves winding us Pom's up..badly...

The national sport of England is obstacle racing. People fill their rooms with useless and cumbersome furniture, and spend the rest of their lives trying to dodge it.

Bet the Aussies can't beat us at that..!!!!

 

thanks Steve, I am just returning the lessons I learnt while working in England from the best life teachers I have found.

I was wound up by some of the world's experts and came out a better person for it

I always liked the English excuse for calling Aussies Kiwis when they were unsure which antipodean accent they heard , "the difference between an Aussie and Kiwi is an Aussie has a chip on both shoulders while a Kiwi has both chips on the one shoulder"

we're so bad at thugby we've just hired a Kiwi to teach us how to play