McLaren Statement

[ioan]

Just like you would defend Ferrari...and don't deny it...

If they were in such deep $hit as McL&C are now? Don't think so.

[pino]

If they were in such deep $hit as McL&C are now? Don't think so.

I don't believe you :

[ioan]

I don't believe you :

You $£*&^%$"£$%&^*&^$%£ ! :

[AJP]

I don't believe you :

neither do I.

[ioan]

What use is there to try to convince you? :
I can just hope I won't be put into the McC&L fans position.

[AJP]

What use is there to try to convince you? :
I can just hope I won't be put into the McC&L fans position.

That shouldn't happen with FIA and Ferrari being such good buddies...

just kidding...sort of.

[tinchote]

One thing I don't quite understand however is this. If all the big teams are useing seamless shift, how can you make something that is seamless even quicker? It's a bit like saying I have here some water, but look, this stuff I have designed is even wetter.......

if you look at any onboard footing from this year, you see the revs changing a lot when shifting. So there's certainly no "seamless shift" in absolute terms (which is forbidden, by the way). They probably call "seamless" a system that smoothes/speeds the shifting, and it probably lacks gears in the traditional sense?

[SGWilko]

if you look at any onboard footing from this year, you see the revs changing a lot when shifting. So there's certainly no "seamless shift" in absolute terms (which is forbidden, by the way). They probably call "seamless" a system that smoothes/speeds the shifting, and it probably lacks gears in the traditional sense?

Indeed, but you are describing CVT there methinks. Seeless (to me) means no loss of drive between shifts. I thought that had been achieved through pre engaging the next set of cogs on a seperate shaft.

When these things go wrong, it is a watchmaker you need, not a mechanic!!!!!

CVT and the whole idea behind it is not allowed (quite why is beyond me, because it would aid fuel efficiency by keeping the motor at optimum revs at all times).

So in other words the FIA had no evidence ("we cannot conclude with certainty") to suggest that Ferrari information relating to the wheelbase was used.

Nor does the FIA report say it was.

But it does state -

"Mclarens insistence before the WMSC that Coughlan only had a functional design role at Mclaren is not backed up by documents or interviews. He played a leadership role, among others, in the brake strategy for Mclaren for the 2007 & 2008 cars"

FIA also have plenty of evidence that a whole lot more Mclaren engineers were party to the stream of info coming illegally from Maranello than was claimed by the Mclaren management, do they not?

Therefore, what the FIA report did show was that Ron Dennis's public assertion that Mike Coughlan was not involved in development of the 2007 car was a blatant lie.

How you can not pass judgement on that, when you are quick to reprimand the FIA for their failings is, quite simply, an astonishing piece of bias.

[tinchote]

Indeed, but you are describing CVT there methinks. Seeless (to me) means no loss of drive between shifts. I thought that had been achieved through pre engaging the next set of cogs on a seperate shaft.

When these things go wrong, it is a watchmaker you need, not a mechanic!!!!!

CVT and the whole idea behind it is not allowed (quite why is beyond me, because it would aid fuel efficiency by keeping the motor at optimum revs at all times).

You are right, my bad. Still, I'm not sure whether a perfect shifting is possible.

Anyway, CVT would be terrible, with all the engines at constant revs