F1 » 'Innovative' McLaren will provoke 'lots of discussion'

Martin Whitmarsh tells Crash.net that the new McLaren-Mercedes MP4-26 will be 'innovative' and provoke 'lots of discussion' - and with 'the best driver pairing in F1', it will also vie for title glory in 2011

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest


January 21, 2011 1:48 PM

calvin. i was responding to norvilles comment that the wing was illegal. if it passed the tests and was declared legal by the fia (as it did), that is good enough for me. it is NOT illegal. just like the f-duct. many held the belief that the driver activating a tube, was outside the regs, but fia decided it was legal, and i accepted that!
as others have said, the photos meant nothing, without knowing the suspension loads, tyre pressures, car position on track etc. and remember NO team protested the wing.

Calvin _

January 21, 2011 3:09 PM

As far as the F-Duct, I don't think that it was even conceived by the regulations, and thus it was legal.

As far as RBR is concerned the philosophical part of me says that they were doing something fishy, but as they didn't get caught, it's OK. It's an FIA problem.


January 21, 2011 4:23 PM

calvin. not wanting to go into a prolonged argument, but, several teams protested the f-duct, as it was seen to be a driver assisted aero device. but once it was declared legal by fia, i fully accepted their decision.

Calvin _

January 21, 2011 4:36 PM


I like to think that I don't have arguments, but discussions.

The mere fact that the FIA adjusted their test kind of supports my position that tests are fallable. Part of the sport of beating the regulations is finding a way to beat the tests.


January 21, 2011 6:06 PM

Last year mclaren started a new trend in complaining about others not complying with the rules, they complained till blue in the face but stopped short of lodging a complain, they first started on about the RBR suspension and when put in their place by the FIA they took off about the front wing, when the FIA called a meeting of the parties involved (Aldo Costa, Adrian Newey, Paddy Lowe) both Costa and Newey suggested doubling the front wing stiffness from having a deflection of 10mm to a deflection of 5mm but Lowe wanted it to remain at 10mm, the end result was mclaren had to stiffen their front wing to pass the new FIA test.


January 21, 2011 6:46 PM

Still going on about this I see. How many F-ducts this year? How mant double diffs? Seems the FIA saw something most MCL/Brawn fans did not. Let alone the flex wing imployed by the Bulls.
Legal smegal. The advantage was developed and used, period. Now it seems we are back to electric horses. Why not 'simply' add a turbo to be used only so many times. Simple and not difficult or expencive to develope. Of course the FIA may have to add a few engines to each team's amount allowed.
Heck, why make it so difficult? Back to basics would probably add to passing and hopefully simple down the overly complicated quallys currently employed.

Rob01 - Unregistered

January 21, 2011 7:51 PM

Brawn complained as well on the subject of redbunk front wing. The FIA changed the rule on their own as to avoid or clear confusion with the RedBull wing hitting the ground. The complaint or concern was no different to the hundreds of complaints made by teams before. No different than some unsure of the fduct.


January 22, 2011 12:20 AM

Hairpin-- it works this way. The turbo is always working but, extra boost can be used at certain times. IE, during passing attempts, on straits, etc. In fact, if wanted, it could be unused at all. I have owned turbo cars and unless the revs were there-no boost. Geeze, read a book...

Page 5 of 6
« 1 2 3 4 5 6  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.