Lewis Hamilton says McLaren have got to the bottom of the cause of his car’s floor failure during the Australian Grand Prix.
Hamilton had to back off late in the race after part of the MP4-26’s floor worked loose.
He said: “The team have looked into the floor failure we experienced in Melbourne: it seems like the bond between the bib and the chassis was damaged so the damage looked quite bad by the end of the race.
“It was good to see that the car could withstand that sort of punishment, but, even so, I’m looking to give it an easier ride in Malaysia next week."
Hamilton expects to get a clearer picture of the different performances of the cars in next week’s Malaysian Grand Prix:
“After the pace we showed in Melbourne, I think we can have another good race in Malaysia. Albert Park is a great track, but a circuit like Sepang is where the differences between the cars will start to become clearer.
“I’m really looking forward to using KERS and the DRS too – the rapid change of direction you experience when the car is really in the groove is phenomenal around here, and I think both systems will make the cars look sensational, especially in qualifying.”
Team principal Martin Whitmarsh expects their rivals to be strong in Malaysia: “We don’t think Melbourne showed us the best of our competitors’ pace, so that only makes us more motivated to bring as much performance to the table as possible.”
He added: “On paper, it looks positive: we were pleased that our Melbourne upgrade worked as expected, and the car’s performance around the high-speed elements of Albert Park suggests it will be able to cope around Sepang.
“Despite this, the reality is that there was a gap to pole position, and we finished second and not first. Our target is to close that gap and get Lewis and Jenson into a position where they can win.”
Jenson Button said the Sepang circuit, which hosts its 13th round of the world championship, has improved with time: “When I started in Formula 1, the Malaysian Grand Prix was one of the newest events on the grand prix calendar, but it now feels like an old favourite.
“I think Sepang’s a circuit that’s definitely improved with age: it’s always been a great track, but it feels like it’s grown into its own skin now, and is all the better for it.”
2011 Malaysian Grand Prix
Browse all 2011 Malaysian Grand Prix articles
Image © www.mclaren.com
BasCB (@bascb)
1st April 2011, 12:05
Now that is what we want to hear from our drivers:
I hope to see some epic laps there, not just from Vettel!
Patrickl (@patrickl)
2nd April 2011, 10:38
Who’s to say the other drivers aren’t putting in a much better performance?
BasCB (@bascb)
1st April 2011, 12:09
As for that part failing, that really shows just how little running McLaren had on their cars. Its not something they would have easily overseen I suppose.
Alex Bkk
1st April 2011, 12:39
But, Ham got a No. 2 on the podium in spite of it.
Agreed, that would have been a problem to spot with limited tack time. Was it the off track that Lewis had or was it as Macca said it happened earlier in the race?
paolo (@paolo)
1st April 2011, 13:19
It was already broken before he went off-track
DaveBlanc
1st April 2011, 12:10
Hsmilton is a real racer. We need more drivers like him.
pking008
1st April 2011, 19:31
agreed totally
Adrian J (@adrian-j)
1st April 2011, 12:31
I have to agree with Jenson on that one. I think I would miss the Malaysian GP if it disappeared off of the calendar – possibly the only Tilke-drome race I can say that about.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
1st April 2011, 13:28
I remember how excited I was waking up early to see the inaugural race in 1999, especially as it was Schumacher’s return from injury, with the fate of the championship in the balance. It had also been a month since the last GP and I was feeling very frustrated by then!
It will always be remembered for Schumacher’s electric pace on his first time back, only to have to be squandered to hold up the McLarens and give Irvine the win. And then there was McLaren’s protest after the race.
Thankfully the title was decided two weeks later on the track instead.
I think it’s a pretty decent circuit, the middle sector bores me to tears sometimes but I don’t think Tilke was to best it until Turkey came along.
Eggry (@eggry)
1st April 2011, 15:57
I think Malaysian GP is the most successful one of Asian GPs.
Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo)
1st April 2011, 16:42
Yeah, I wasn’t a fan when it came in, but the turn between the two long straights is one of my favourite of any F1 season now. It’s always messy but the great drivers always find a way past the good drivers there (cars permitting).
RandomChimp (@randomchimp)
1st April 2011, 12:39
Regarding the floor damage, I still don’t understand why the car wasn’t disqualified.
Two options that I can see:
The plank wasn’t worn enough to be illegal, though from what I’ve heard and seen this seems unlikely.
OR scrutineering accepted the excuse that plank wear was a result of mechanical failure/race damage and took no action?
If it is the latter, wasn’t the point brought up in the BBC commentary that precedents had been set in past scrutineering decisions; that even if plank wear had been a result of car damage and not excessively low ride height, the car is still deemed illegal.
Help?
Alex Bkk
1st April 2011, 12:45
No reason to disqualify a car that is legal. If the plank wear and weight was within the rules, then it’s all good.
End of the story. Really.
Dan Thorn (@dan-thorn)
1st April 2011, 13:08
Even if it was worn beyond a legal level, the previous examples the BBC gave were a fairly long time ago and occurred before the relatively recent emergence of better and fairer stewarding.
SMB
1st April 2011, 14:25
Apparently the plank actually passed the test. Measurements are taken at 8 specific points and none of those points were worn down and the car was above the minimum weight so there was no issue.
Franz
1st April 2011, 17:22
Yeah, you’re right SMB. The sole purpose of the plank is to limit ride height. Logic would suggest that in order to accurately tell if a car is running lower than legal ride height, the scrutineers would take multiple measurements across the surface of the plank, not just the leading edge. On Lewis’ car, from what I could see only the very leading edge of the floor was contacting the track, & there wouldn’t be much resistance against it (ie: the weight of the car) because the stay that was supposed to hold it rigidly in place was broken. There was definitely damage to the floor, but the leading edge of the plank was probably just skimming along without getting too much wear. It’s obvious the planks can take quite a bit of wear without cars being deemed illegal, as I’m sure every one of us has seen various cars bottom out on track repeatedly when full of fuel, shooting sparks from underneath. The FIA has very specific tests for things like these & Lewis’ car passed, meaning excessive wear wasn’t found at the locations where they measured. Another example of a specific test is the front wing load test: somehow Red Bull keep passing with flying colors, while everyone with eyes watches their front wing bend to the ground every week since the beginning of last season. The test seems to be centered around the actual wings flexing, but to my untrained eyes it seems like the entire nose of their car flexes to the ground… so they’ll continue to pass the tests (unless a nose flexing test is introduced). Pretty simple, IMO.
RandomChimp (@randomchimp)
2nd April 2011, 7:57
Thanks SMB.
lee
1st April 2011, 14:43
Previous rulings where cars were deemed illegal were generally.when a car has damaged just the plank by running over a keen or rough ground. In this instance the it is impossible to tell if the damage was only caused by the kerbs. In Hamilton case the damage was clearly hampering performance and was also clearly caused by the floor failure. Also cars that loose bits during a race are often allowed to replace them for the weigh ins. Not only this but as other have said it appears that the measurements of Lewis’ plank were within legal limits.
Theoddkiwi (@theoddkiwi)
3rd April 2011, 8:38
The BBC commentator you are talkinbg about was David Coulthard, how by the sounds of his commentry was seacrhing for a reason for Lewis to be disqualified to make his mate Vettels championship easier.
Brudle didnt seem too concerned with it.
David is going to have to work out a way to sound less biased as the season progresses.
Alex Bkk
1st April 2011, 12:48
What’s really interesting is that Hamilton says he understands “why” it happened, but he’s not saying “why” it happened.
That’s what we really want to know.
Ash
1st April 2011, 13:20
I think he broke it.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
1st April 2011, 13:25
I know, no answers! Still, that could potentially give any agenda away.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
1st April 2011, 13:30
MB and DC talked about it in the race, they changed the way the tea-tray is attached to the car and it’s now held only by a thin titanium ribbon. It was obviously a failure from not having fully tested the new component.
just.daz (@nemo87)
1st April 2011, 14:45
the McLaren has never had a thin titanium ribbon holdin up the tray
John H
1st April 2011, 15:33
nope. I think it was always carbon fibre before. This thing is very thin, probably failed due to resonance or something.
just.daz (@nemo87)
2nd April 2011, 16:00
no no i mean they have never had anything there (at all) on this years car. had a discussion about it on another thread :)
but after melbourne they probably will have wether it be titanium or carbon lol :)
Calum (@calum)
1st April 2011, 21:42
But JB’s was fine – so they can probably fix it – or go back to carbon, that is what they will want to do because the titanium rear was a bodge job quick fix right?
DaveW
1st April 2011, 15:29
A: The car was not properly tested before the season began.
MJ4
2nd April 2011, 10:53
Yes, this is a textbook case of the evasive, empty PR-speak McLaren is quite famous for. “We understand why this happened, it was because the damaged whatever did whatever.”
Oh, but why was it damaged? Never mind…
Actually, the title of the article tells you: “McLaren understand reason for floor failure: Hamilton” :-)
wasiF1 (@wasif1)
1st April 2011, 13:07
I do think they will do good there,they are using the DRS & KERS well,so far we are not sure whether Red Bull will use KERS,they though need it in this race I think & China for it’s two long straight & one short straight in the middle of the track. Can’t wait for the battle to start.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
1st April 2011, 13:27
It will certainly be more interesting to see the cars on a more typical track, not only will it compound the information we have from Melbourne but it may throw up a few surprises also.
sklal79 (@sklal79)
1st April 2011, 13:39
Think red bull will be very strong in Sepang as its a high downforce circuit at times, i hope Mclaren are at least second in terms of speed hierarchy, which would be better than last year!! would love it if new parts/development found them an extra second, you never know as the car may have a lot of untapped potential.
Vishy
1st April 2011, 15:12
If they find another second it would get really boring. Then we would see Lewis and Jensen lapping everyone.
Calum (@calum)
1st April 2011, 21:53
Although I prefer to back drivers, I guess I’m a bit of a Mclaren fan right now, so that could swing my pessimism:
I am not 100% sure it is right to assume Ferrari are out of it and Mclaren are defacto number 2 and leading the chase to RedBull.
Afterall, it is one race that Ferrari have failed to acheive their potential and it was at a track they have never had much luck in recent years. 2008, 2009 both had Ferrari DNFs and 2010’s result for the Scuderia will hardly linger in the memories of Fernado Alonso or Felipe Massa!
I feel to much has been made of the Mclaren loophole exhaust system that is similar to RedBull’s solution. This will have been a huge benefit to the Woking teams MP4-25 but has it really caused them to catch up? I mean the RedBull of Sebastien Vettel was able to qualify near enough a second ahead of Lewis Hamilton at Melboure – a track that is well known to have less of an aero dependancy.
This means that at Sepang – an aero dependant circuit – the RedBull should be able to stretch out it’s advantage in qualifying to at least over a second!
A RedBull with the advantage through the corners, KERS down the straights and Vettel at the wheel, it’s looking onimous if Mclaren want pole!
halifaxf1fan
1st April 2011, 15:48
Why wasn’t this car black flagged with extensive damage such as this? A delaminating floor could cause a sudden failure and result in a dangerous accident.
Himmat S.
1st April 2011, 16:34
And you know this for a fact?
halifaxf1fan
1st April 2011, 16:45
The floor is an integral part of the aero design of the car. A damaged floor could easily cause an accident.
JustAnF1Fanatic (@justanf1fanatic)
1st April 2011, 22:11
alonsos car want black flagged in 2009 when his wheel came off!!! i imagine that was worse than a broken floor
JCF1 (@jcf1)
1st April 2011, 16:36
It stopped sparking after a while. No issue.
tequilatim
2nd April 2011, 19:39
That was when Nicole Sherzinger finally
came off the car when she was stuck under it.
tharris19
1st April 2011, 16:25
I hope McLaren have their strategy and pit teams in order. They have blown more races, including Melbourne this year, than any other team on the grid. Ferrari have made some major mistakes but not as many as McLaren.
The drivers can drive but mediocre pit stops and bad strategy cost them race wins not just points. Example they bring Lewis in on lap fifteen instead of sixteen he comes out ahead of Vettel then we would have seen a real race.
VXR
1st April 2011, 17:07
With these tyres it’s up to Hamilton to tell the team when he intends to come in. If Perez can work out with his team when to do that, then so should Hamilton.
In any case, it’s a team sport (as no doubt Ferrari intend to prove once more) and you will win and lose as a team.
It’s also debatable as to whether or not we would have seen “a real race” if Hamilton and Vettel had been on the track within a few feet of each other. Chances are that any battle wouldn’t have lasted for very long and would have probably ended in tears.
DaveW
1st April 2011, 20:00
The stop was slow, but there is no reason to think they blew the actual strategy. In the alternative universe where the bib stay does not fail due to lack of testing, in fact, notwithstanding his tires going off, if Hamilton’s stop wasn’t so slow and Vettel’s wasn’t so quick (and if Button wasn’t a wet noodle when called upon), Hamilton easily could have jumped Vettel. With Hamilton ahead, with more laps under his belt and on fresher tires, Vettel would have been forced to pass Hamilton on the track and establish enough margin to keep from being jumped again, which would have been even harder the next time.
However, the irony here is that this scenario is annoyingly similar for McLaren to the very last race, when a slow McLaren stop, and a fast RBR stop thwarted Hamilton’s very viable pursuit of Vettel by jamming him behind a couple slower cars.
VXR
1st April 2011, 20:34
Maybe if he hadn’t held Button up at the start. And maybe if he hadn’t damaged the floor. And maybe if……
What was it Murray Walker used to say ?
Oliver
1st April 2011, 22:45
You can attempt to distort reality to satisfy ypour obsession. Even coulthard spotted the failed tray before Hamilton ran off track. Which must mean the part had just failed and destroyed the balance of the car at his first opportunity to use his brakes after a high speed run. Well if he held Button back you have to ask what button was doing behind in the first place after all “these tyres will suit Button’s driving style”.
VXR
3rd April 2011, 17:58
“The team have looked into the floor failure we experienced in Melbourne: it seems like the bond between the bib and the chassis was damaged so the damage looked quite bad by the end of the race. It was good to see that the car could withstand that sort of punishment, but, even so, I’m looking to give it an easier ride in Malaysia next week!”
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=43233
hmmmm….
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
3rd April 2011, 20:44
That very quote is in the article above.
Patrickl (@patrickl)
2nd April 2011, 10:45
The tyres are way to slow when they are worn. Hamilton didn’t stand a chance to get past Vettel in that first stop.
The whole benefit of being able to go a few laps longer is to be in a fighting position at the end of the race. Hamilton would be on tyres that were 4 laps fresher and would be able to go for 2 laps longer anyway.
At that point Vettel won’t be able to stop earlier and get a gap on Hamilton again. He is losing speed and he needs to fight for position.
Oliver
1st April 2011, 23:10
Good thing they spotted the bonding issue. Next thing to investigate, is why they are losing the tactical edge. Repeatedly last year, Mclaren made the wrong call on when to pit Hamilton.
Considering the new fuel rules places greater emphasis on fresh tyres, the onus is on the team to determine the performance differences between their cars and their direct opponents and make the right call on when to change tyres.
Excepting the car that has just been to the pits is in traffic, it is unlikely that the previously trailing car can hope to jump into the lead by doing in excess of a single lap extra on older tyres.
The moment you see the sector times going purple of your opponent, it is the time to make the decison. Such tactical calls are done by the team. A driver can never have the necessary information to make that call.
Which leaves me wondering if Mclaren have lost some key members who were good with race strategy. Because all they seem to do are routine stops. Sticking to the simulation or race plan with no option for a dynamic strategy overhaul.
Patrickl (@patrickl)
2nd April 2011, 10:49
The only way a driver can jump an opponent during a stop is when he can go much much faster still on his old tyres. With didn’t see this happen with last year’s Bridgestones, but with the Pirelli’s it’s completely out of the question.
So right now, the on who stops first has an on track advantage.
The thing is, this is temporary. At the end of the race the one who is able to save his tyres is on fresher tyres and he should be in a good position to overtake. Obviously Hamilton’s floor failure meant that he dropped back and we never saw the strategy work.
Still, it’s pretty obvious that, either you stop first and hope to stay ahead OR you go longer and hope for the best at the end of the race.
NDINYO
4th April 2011, 9:19
McLaren have these times in realtime and clearly the Redbull’s ability to get its tyres upto speed very quickly is the reason why Vettel stretched his lead. Having said that even if Lewis had pitted on the same lap, Vettel would still have stretched the same lead going by what happened at the start of the race. Only hope was for McLaren to overtake Redbull towards the end of the race but unfortunately Hamilton’s floor got damaged and the rest is history.
PaulK (@paulk)
2nd April 2011, 2:57
I see what you did there :)
Oliver
2nd April 2011, 20:49
You are correct but not absolutely so. What matters now is if your tyres are degraded to such an extent that you are losing massive amounts of time during your in lap and also if you are able to make up time during your out lap, for the leading driver that is.
Before Vettel was called to the pits, his sector times, compared to Hamilton’s, were getting much slower, and if he had done an additional lap, Hamilton may yet have overtaken him.
The scenarios that can allow a trailing car to jump the leading car after it pits, still exists. But this is depedent on the leading driver haven his tyres deteriorate to such an extent that the performance drop is very steep. And also the out lap is not sufficiently faster than that of the trailing car when it pits.
It is a very small window of opportunity, however my bet is that the Redbulls will be the cars more likely to pull it out than any other car, because of thier phenomenal ability to generate performance from fresher tyres.
VXR
3rd April 2011, 18:17
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn’t it. ;)
VXR
3rd April 2011, 18:24
Which reminds me:
“The team have looked into the floor failure we experienced in Melbourne: it seems like the bond between the bib and the chassis was damaged so the damage looked quite bad by the end of the race. It was good to see that the car could withstand that sort of punishment, but, even so, I’m looking to give it an easier ride in Malaysia next week!”
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=43233
“it seems like the bond between the bib and the chassis was damaged”
“I’m looking to give it an easier ride in Malaysia next week!”
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
3rd April 2011, 20:45
Again, the same quote is already in the article.