Mclaren Catastrophe!

[KoolMonkey 0]

That's actually incorrect. The MP4-18, for what ever reason, kept failing side impact and front impact tests. It was never prone to breakdowns, nor proven to be fragile. It was the first genesis of the current RBR. As the season was well underway, the MP4-17D proving competitive and Newey on the way out, it was shelved.

That's the first time I've heard about the failed impact tests being the reason, and sole reason it got shelved. Maybe it played a part, but the real problem was cooling issues, overheating and many such other failures. It was supposed to be a massive leap forward, but it never raced due to the inherent faults.

This is from back in 2004 on F1Technical. A simple google will reveal so much more information.

They have to run the rear suspension very stiff, as they have very weird rear suspension geometry, an issue that’s hard to resolve, because in regard to geometry, they are very limited. Due to their lightweight aluminium gearbox the team cannot use the pickup points they need, as it would cause structural problems. But despite this, they have been testing a new rear suspension and in reality, it can only be better.

Given the fact that the car is nervous, the unpredictable nature of the Carbon Industries discs adds to the problems. The more forgiving Hitco-discs cannot be used, due to the fact that they overheat this particular car.

Another issue is the Mercedes engine, as it is also on the limit. While it has more power than last years and weighs about 90 kg, it is too fragile in too many ways. They have trouble with the casting, it fails to get sufficient cooling and they cannot get enough heat out of the still quite tightly packed back of the car. The heat under the rear bodywork is also one of the reasons why their carbon-gearbox is not ready to race. They tested it recently in Paul Ricard over 330 km on two days, but over 120 degrees, it started delaminating.

So I'll agree to disagree with you here.

[dribbler 6]

My criticism of your post on the thread relating to the McLaren launch was to do with your immediate response that the car would be slow based on the publicity shots taken in Berlin on launch day and the other images of the car that were released around that time. The car hadn't turned a wheel so no opinion could be drawn on the relative pace of the car to the others on the grid at that time. Now, as testing has gone on it looks like McLaren have got themselves into a bit of a mess with their car and you may well be proved right, but no-one, unless you are privvy to the numbers that the car has been generating in the wind tunnel, CFD and simulator throughout the winter, can assess whether the car will be slower of faster by looking at the few photos. For all I know you could just as easily flip a coin and base your opinion of the cars performance on that outcome. I stand by my criticism of your post at that time.

I agree with this.

For all the same reasons, I think we should be cautious about damning the new McLaren until it's actually bench marked against the opposition in race trim. As others have said, Woking have a good record on turning around the fortunes of what is apparently a lemon, quite quickly. I have no idea how it all works from a design point of view, but my hunch is that they are on to something but have yet been unable to unlock the car's potential.

I have to say too, that it would be easy to be smug about the apparent performance of the Red Bull, but I flipped a metaphoric coin. My opinion was only based on the fact that Red Bull have been at the sharp end for a while now, so I saw no reason for that to change. It was hardly the most shrewd prediction that they would indeed be at the fron again (that's assuming they will be).

The shrewd predictions were ones I remember that people like Shaun made about the Brawn. I was one of those who said there ws no chance of them being at the front; the team were seemingly in termoil after Honda pulled the plug. I think he cdalled it differently. I was wrong, the rest is history.Shaun has predicted a 'good' season for Williams. I'm looking forward to seeing how that one pans out. It seems like there is a spot up for grabs as 'best of the rest' behind Red Bull and Ferrari. It would make my year if Team Willy could assume that mantle. If it happens, I will be tapping up Shaun to find out where he buys his crystal balls. They might be golden by then....

*acknowledgement of bad spelling and punctuation - but with no motivation to change it*

[Quiet One 15]

Yup, as F1 slowly seems to veer towards a 3-tiered event, the second tier is beginning to seem much more interesting than the upper one. STR, Williams, Team Poochie, Force India and, albeit unlikely, maybe Merc or Macca (on their way down) or the Lotus-ish Team (on their way up) might add to the excitement.

Oh, well...in any case I am ready to enjoy the 2011. Bring it on!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Kudos to those who realized, rightly, that my smug response in this thread was completely tongue-in-cheek.

To Senna's Ghost: My source for most of my response was here: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/mclaren-mp4-26-l-shaped-sidepods/ (Note that it was written on Feb 4th) So it is indeed possible to extrapolate a few guesses based on some photos. All it takes is a little knowledge at what you're looking at. On a personal note, please take the stick out from your re ctum and lighten up. Have a nice day!

[Senna's Ghost 0]

Kudos to those who realized, rightly, that my smug response in this thread was completely tongue-in-cheek.

To Senna's Ghost: My source for most of my response was here: http://scarbsf1.word...haped-sidepods/ (Note that it was written on Feb 4th) So it is indeed possible to extrapolate a few guesses based on some photos. All it takes is a little knowledge at what you're looking at. On a personal note, please take the stick out from your re ctum and lighten up. Have a nice day!

My my, a personal attack against me for simply writing a post justifying why I disagreed with you previous postings. You appear to have a very thin skin and I appear to have touched a nerve.

I read your source material and it was informative and interesting. I have added this to my favourites, so thanks for that. At not point in the source material did Scarborough make any prediction that the McLaren would be fast or slow. I, therefore, can only assume that you managed to join the dots yourself and make that leap into the unknown all on your lonesome. Well done to you.

You appear to have a talent my friend and I would say you are wasted writing on this forum. Instead you should advertise your keen eye, your extrapolations, your guesswork and your little knowledge to the F1 teams. No longer will they have to shell out vast quantities of money on wind tunnels, CFD computers and all those boffins associated with them. Instead all they would have to do would be send you the designs or photographs and you could say to them “fast” or “slow” or even “tendency to understeer.”

Maybe Max Mosely had you in mind when he was talking about the teams slashing their budgets.

As for me and my stick we are very comfortable together, so leave us alone. Finally you can’t seriously tell a ghost to lighten up. I couldn’t be any lighter.

My day is just beginning, I hope it will be nice.

Speak to you soon Chuckles.

Edit: Too many paragraph spaces.

[dribbler 6]

Ouch.

Mike likes to go out on a limb and I'm often the first to criticize him for it. But you know what? I like it a lot. It takes balls to have a strong opinion on something; it can make you look inspired or blow up in your face.

When I make predictions it is often without having qualified my opinion first. I normally go from my gut. At least Mike researches his opinions and gives weight to an argument. Because I'm lazy and he isn't, it doesn't noramlly give me much scope for a convincing rebuttal.

That aside, Red Bull look fast this year, so I'm glad in 5 years I finally guessed something right. I will of course never gloat about this or use it in the future to somehow validate my predicitons.

NAH NAH, NA-NAH NAH!!!!

[Senna's Ghost 0]

Ouch.

Mike likes to go out on a limb and I'm often the first to criticize him for it. But you know what? I like it a lot. It takes balls to have a strong opinion on something; it can make you look inspired or blow up in your face.

When I make predictions it is often without having qualified my opinion first. I normally go from my gut. At least Mike researches his opinions and gives weight to an argument. Because I'm lazy and he isn't, it doesn't noramlly give me much scope for a convincing rebuttal.

That aside, Red Bull look fast this year, so I'm glad in 5 years I finally guessed something right. I will of course never gloat about this or use it in the future to somehow validate my predicitons.

NAH NAH, NA-NAH NAH!!!!

Nothing wrong in people making predictions and having opinions, but you've got to justify 'em. His original post made no reference to any source material, and on viewing the source material, I would question the conclusion he arrived at.

I've been active in this forum for a year now and I think I've got a feeling for those regular contributors who I read more carefully because I sense that they have a great deal of knowledge and experience and love for the sport. Autumnpuma is just such an example. I've read many of his posts throughout the year and I've found them to be considered, insightful, interesting and knowledgeable. However, his post on the McLaren was completely the opposite of these traits. It was straight out of left-field and I called him out on it.

If tomorrow he posts something I like and appreciate on a thread, I will be the first to add to his post and support his view. But if he, or anyone else, writes a pile of sh1te, then you've got to point out the error of their ways, keeping it civilised and always justifying your opinions. Isn't this the purpose of this forum? To inform, educate and entertain others who have a love for F1 and to, hopefully, have a insightful discussions that can acheive all three of these objectives.

Here's my prediction for 2011. I reckon that Sauber is going to have a very good year. On the technical side they have a good team behind them with some good facilities, commercially they should be in a better position than last year. I think the car looks good. Kobayashi is now in his 2nd full season and young Perez has potential. They got 8th in the constructors last season, I believe they can be 6th best this year and on occasion challenge the Renaults, Mercedes, Williams and maybe even get a podium.

[Autumnpuma 0]

My my, a personal attack against me for simply writing a post justifying why I disagreed with you previous postings. You appear to have a very thin skin and I appear to have touched a nerve.

Go back and read your initial response to *my* opinions. Oh, wait, here it is:

Oh come on. How can you make such statements about the car from still photographs taken on launch day. Absurd.

It doesn't look fast. That's because it's standing still. It'll have overheating problems; why? Do you not think McLaren and Mercedes would of done the sums? It'll understeer on the low to medium corners: why? What is the evidence for this. So many factors go into whether a car has a tendency to oversteer, understeer or achieve the hallowed goal of neutral set up; aero setup, mechanical setup weight distribution and of course the tyres and how the car works them. To make assumptions on the cars performance from a few stills is ridiculous.

If you're right on all the counts all I can say is that you are wasted here, you should get yourself a job with one of the teams.

Next thing will be someone writing the cars horoscope. It's an Aquarius by the way.

I was called absurd and ridiculous and you equated my opinions to flighty horoscopes. Everything in your reply was hell-bent on mocking my opinions. The galling thing is, you didn't offer any reasons why my guesses weren't correct. It's easy to wait for someone to venture a thought or two and then bash them for it (your specialty, I've observed) than to come up with thought of your own.

Oh, and I'm a Libra. Cardinal sign of our 'air' triumvirate. That means you're my beeatch.

I read your source material and it was informative and interesting. I have added this to my favourites, so thanks for that. At not point in the source material did Scarborough make any prediction that the McLaren would be fast or slow. I, therefore, can only assume that you managed to join the dots yourself and make that leap into the unknown all on your lonesome. Well done to you.

It's called having thoughts of my own. Try it sometime.

You appear to have a talent my friend and I would say you are wasted writing on this forum. Instead you should advertise your keen eye, your extrapolations, your guesswork and your little knowledge to the F1 teams. No longer will they have to shell out vast quantities of money on wind tunnels, CFD computers and all those boffins associated with them. Instead all they would have to do would be send you the designs or photographs and you could say to them “fast” or “slow” or even “tendency to understeer.”[/size]

Again, you lash out at my opinions but offer no reason why they are wrong. At least Craig (HandyNZL) offers some genuine technical knowledge in response to my guesses. One thing you never quite consider is that people *outside* of an F1 team can have knowledge about F1 tech. Or is it that you're from a nation that doesn't encourage it's people to think for themselves? Do you just repeat what you read, having no thoughts except those that are fed you? How sad, if true.

It begins to appear that you object to my venturing an opinion rather than the content of that opinion. Ask yourself why my opinions are so important to you that you'd lash out like this when you think I'm wrong? These are just my thoughts, right or wrong. No country will collapse if I'm wrong.....hence my exhortation that you 'lighten-up'.

Maybe Max Mosely had you in mind when he was talking about the teams slashing their budgets.

As for me and my stick we are very comfortable together, so leave us alone. Finally you can’t seriously tell a ghost to lighten up. I couldn’t be any lighter.

My day is just beginning, I hope it will be nice.

Speak to you soon Chuckles.

Edit: Too many paragraph spaces.

I practice what I preach. I have followed that old Bible saying 'Before removing the stick from your neighbor's bum, first remove the beam from thine own'. I've been trying to avoid making the kinds of posts you have been making lately, the kind where you attack first and think later. I've 'lightened up' and I still recommend that you do as well. Either way, I *do* like your sense of humor.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Nothing wrong in people making predictions and having opinions, but you've got to justify 'em. His original post made no reference to any source material, and on viewing the source material, I would question the conclusion he arrived at.

I've been active in this forum for a year now and I think I've got a feeling for those regular contributors who I read more carefully because I sense that they have a great deal of knowledge and experience and love for the sport. Autumnpuma is just such an example. I've read many of his posts throughout the year and I've found them to be considered, insightful, interesting and knowledgeable. However, his post on the McLaren was completely the opposite of these traits. It was straight out of left-field and I called him out on it.

Sometimes I just don't have the energy to write a dissertation with each of my posts, complete with source links and index. Funny, though...you question my conclusions about McLaren being slow in this thread which has proven the McLaren to be slow. It takes so littel to give credit where due. Think on that.

If tomorrow he posts something I like and appreciate on a thread, I will be the first to add to his post and support his view. But if he, or anyone else, writes a pile of sh1te, then you've got to point out the error of their ways, keeping it civilised and always justifying your opinions. Isn't this the purpose of this forum? To inform, educate and entertain others who have a love for F1 and to, hopefully, have a insightful discussions that can acheive all three of these objectives.

Amusing. When you 'point out the error of [someone's] ways' you need to give reasons why those ways are errors. I said the McLaren would have cooling problems. I gave a reason for it (U-shape radiator opening and slot to cool the electronics is in the dirty, turbulent air of the front tyre). If you disagree, you need to do more than call my post 'absurd' or seek to put my whole post in the 'flaky astrologist' light. You need to specify why I'm wrong. You can only cure my 'errors' by giving me correct information to replace it with. I'm still waiting for that information.

Here's my prediction for 2011. I reckon that Sauber is going to have a very good year. On the technical side they have a good team behind them with some good facilities, commercially they should be in a better position than last year. I think the car looks good. Kobayashi is now in his 2nd full season and young Perez has potential. They got 8th in the constructors last season, I believe they can be 6th best this year and on occasion challenge the Renaults, Mercedes, Williams and maybe even get a podium.

You're predicting Sauber to be 6th. What a bombshell. They've been around 6th for most of their history in the sport! You, sir, are the kind of person that has very little technical knowledge but would like us to think you do. If you want your objections to others' technical opinions to have any weight, start proving your technical prowess first.

[HandyNZL 1]

Sauber was 4th once.....

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Who says the Mclaren is slow???

[AleHop 0]

Who says the Mclaren is slow???

All kind of problems it had during testing. It wasn't a well born car.

Slow? As Mike said weeks ago, it doesn't look fast.

In a couple of weeks we'll know. I rather see Hamilton cruising for the WDC than the annoying FINGER everywhere.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Who says the Mclaren is slow???

You think it's fast, then? I'm curious to know why. Remember that speed is relative. I said 'slow' in regards to it's competition at the front end of the grid...I suppose the McLaren might not be slow compared to a Virgin.

[Autumnpuma 0]

That aside, Red Bull look fast this year, so I'm glad in 5 years I finally guessed something right. I will of course never gloat about this or use it in the future to somehow validate my predicitons.

Why not? Aren't all of your predictions based past knowledge and observations? If one was good, why not another? Both would be taken from the same brain....exepct in Steph's case (monkey brain and all..not sure where the original ended up). Seriously, there's a book called Blink that talks about this sort of thing. Worth a read.

[Caesar 0]

You think it's fast, then? I'm curious to know why. Remember that speed is relative. I said 'slow' in regards to it's competition at the front end of the grid...I suppose the McLaren might not be slow compared to a Virgin.

we didn't see much mclaren during winter tests, so god knows what pace will they have in australia

[freaky2 1]

Why not? Aren't all of your predictions based past knowledge and observations? If one was good, why not another? Both would be taken from the same brain....exepct in Steph's case (monkey brain and all..not sure where the original ended up). Seriously, there's a book called Blink that talks about this sort of thing. Worth a read.

Thanks for that, I'll try to find the book (seems like the only way for me to get smart - get smart at guessing )

[BradSpeedMan 6]

You think it's fast, then? I'm curious to know why. Remember that speed is relative. I said 'slow' in regards to it's competition at the front end of the grid...I suppose the McLaren might not be slow compared to a Virgin.

I think it has loads of potential in terms of raw speed. The problem is the car is so radical it will take time to develop... they are just behind schedule... my feeling from observing testing

[HandyNZL 1]

Look you lot...stop your bickering!! Fernando Alonso has said that McLaren are faster than everyone thinks, and they will be challenging for the podium. Now, as we all know, Alonso is a God, and who would/could argue with him?

[Autumnpuma 0]

I think it has loads of potential in terms of raw speed. The problem is the car is so radical it will take time to develop... they are just behind schedule... my feeling from observing testing

So what you're saying is that, yes, right now the car is slow. Potential means nothing.

[Rainmaster 7]

Odd to see Autumnpuma complain about personal attacks when I remember well you got personal with me on many occasions, without any other provocation than me disagreeing with your posts. To me it's simple, those who hold strong opinions and make personal attacks don't get to complain when someone disagrees with them strongly or attacks them personally. You do both a fair bit and so it's a bit rich coming from you, imho.

That aside, on the actual issue of understanding the merits of a car based on its basic exterior photos, I am still unconvinced that you can tell its characteristics, at least in the depth your original post described. I do think you can certainly get some understanding or inclination from pictures, such as you can tell the difference in detail between a Virgin (no jokes please) and a Red Bull, for example. Perhaps, when supplied with some additional technical information about the car, and with some expertise, you can get a sense of cooling, packaging issues and so on which give you a general idea about reliability. But even with all of that, can you tell how a car will handle or which driver it will suit? I don't think so (at least I have never seen any credible source come out after all the launches with a list of the cars from best to worse, which driver will fare better etc, based on pictures). So I can understand why 'puma's original post was met with some scepticism from a few of the techie's here (..although admittedly SG's first reply was perhaps a little harsh, although it was said in a jokey sort of way, which is sort of what we do on this forum..and I've seen 'puma criticise less controversial posts in a much harsher way..but anyway..lets ignore all that).

Of course the 'puma's post seems validated now by the fact the Mclaren doesn't actually look all that fast (although we don't yet know much about whether it has cooling problems as far as I'm aware, or its handling on low to medium speed corners, or if it suits Jenson better than Lewis). The problem with this kind of thinking is that just because the conclusion was (partially) correct, it doesn't mean the logic used to get there was necessarily right. In truth I think Autumnpuma getting this one "right" is no more a testament to his technical knowledge, than his "wrong" prediction that Red Bull would suffer undermines it (neither reflects his knowledge and understanding).

I think the reason for this is that while technical understanding (which 'puma definitely has and which I appreciate in many of his posts) helps you make some inferences about a car or a team, it isn't an exact science and designs can always go either way no matter what, so you'll always be hit and miss with this kind of thing (and should recognise that before making firm predictions, otherwise expect to be criticised..). Which is why to me it's incorrect to think "I got that one right, I know my stuff, give me credit". Until you have a degree or two in whatever the hell it is you need a degree in to understand this stuff and/or get a job in a team, you don't really know much at all (and certainly not enough to draw conclusions based on little evidence); ultimately, all you're doing is relieving yourself in the hope that the wind blows in the right direction.

Well I said my piece. From a non-techie, with love.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Odd to see Autumnpuma complain about personal attacks when I remember well you got personal with me on many occasions, without any other provocation than me disagreeing with your posts. To me it's simple, those who hold strong opinions and make personal attacks don't get to complain when someone disagrees with them strongly or attacks them personally. You do both a fair bit and so it's a bit rich coming from you, imho.

Subtle twisting of reality there. You must be a lawyer-in-training, whomever-you-are. But for the sake of peace, I extend my apologies for any past 'attacks'.

That aside, on the actual issue of understanding the merits of a car based on its basic exterior photos, I am still unconvinced that you can tell its characteristics, at least in the depth your original post described. I do think you can certainly get some understanding or inclination from pictures, such as you can tell the difference in detail between a Virgin (no jokes please) and a Red Bull, for example. Perhaps, when supplied with some additional technical information about the car, and with some expertise, you can get a sense of cooling, packaging issues and so on which give you a general idea about reliability. But even with all of that, can you tell how a car will handle or which driver it will suit? I don't think so (at least I have never seen any credible source come out after all the launches with a list of the cars from best to worse, which driver will fare better etc, based on pictures). So I can understand why 'puma's original post was met with some scepticism from a few of the techie's here (..although admittedly SG's first reply was perhaps a little harsh, although it was said in a jokey sort of way, which is sort of what we do on this forum..and I've seen 'puma criticise less controversial posts in a much harsher way..but anyway..lets ignore all that).

I like aerodynamics and I've read a bunch on the subject (from books to technical articles), enough to look at a front wing and tell what the team is trying to do with the airflow. I can see if a team has a modest update to that front wing or if they have done something radical with it. Those are things that I can see from a photo. I can guess that with KERS in the back, the cars will be rear-heavy and without a developed front wing, understeer is likely. That's just one example of something that can be seen and extrapolated from an article and a photo.

Of course the 'puma's post seems validated now by the fact the Mclaren doesn't actually look all that fast (although we don't yet know much about whether it has cooling problems as far as I'm aware, or its handling on low to medium speed corners, or if it suits Jenson better than Lewis). The problem with this kind of thinking is that just because the conclusion was (partially) correct, it doesn't mean the logic used to get there was necessarily right. In truth I think Autumnpuma getting this one "right" is no more a testament to his technical knowledge, than his "wrong" prediction that Red Bull would suffer undermines it (neither reflects his knowledge and understanding).

Both reflect my knowledge and understanding. Everything one says or writes reflects their knowledge and understanding. The difference is that my statement on Red Bull was made after the FIA released the rules and *before* the Red Bull was seen. It was truly a 'guess' and should be treated as such. My comments about McLaren were based on some photos, a few articles and my own sensibilities. They were something more than a simple 'guess' and as such, had a greater chance of being right.

I think the reason for this is that while technical understanding (which 'puma definitely has and which I appreciate in many of his posts) helps you make some inferences about a car or a team, it isn't an exact science and designs can always go either way no matter what, so you'll always be hit and miss with this kind of thing (and should recognise that before making firm predictions, otherwise expect to be criticised..). Which is why to me it's incorrect to think "I got that one right, I know my stuff, give me credit". Until you have a degree or two in whatever the hell it is you need a degree in to understand this stuff and/or get a job in a team, you don't really know much at all (and certainly not enough to draw conclusions based on little evidence); ultimately, all you're doing is relieving yourself in the hope that the wind blows in the right direction.

Well I said my piece. From a non-techie, with love.

Wow. That's a bit harsh. Whomever you are, you've certainly got a chip on your shoulder...and probably a low I.Q. I say this because of your assertion that Until you have a degree or two in whatever the hell it is you need a degree in to understand this stuff and/or get a job in a team, you don't really know much at all is, quite frankly, stupid beyond belief. Encountering someone like you is the primary reason I need to take breaks from this forum from time to time. Remember that apology I offered at the start of this post? I rescind it. You probably deserved the responses you've gotten from me in the past.

[dribbler 6]

Okay, let's cut to the chase. If you are going to gain credibility, you have to be consistently right about these things (if you claim that your technical knowledge is sound and enables you to make predictions that are more valid than others). It looks like the Red Bull will have an advantage over the others. You said it might not, based on your understanding of what made their previous car dominant. You called it wrong. To me, this means you have not grasped an understanding of the concepts that you claim to have an understanding of. Or, as I suspect you will say, have I over simplified this?

Below are two posts from the 'Red Bull will suffer' thread.

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread for a while...other stuff came up. Anyway, I'm still waiting to read a somewhat technical reason to believe Newey will design a fast car when almost all the things that made the RB6 a fast car have been taken away.

I hadn't given you a 'technical' reason, so I guess you were waiting for one. I haven't a clue why Red Bull are fast, technically. But I know Adrian Newey is good, better than the rest. So I guessed that he would design something better than the rest. Sometimes reasons don't need technical knowledge.

This isn't very convincing. The RB6's speed was based mostly on clever use of aero loopholes that have now been closed. If you take the sword away from a swordsman, is he still going to run you through?

I have got this image in my mind of that Ninja twirling his blade in front of Indiana Jones, only to be shot dead.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

So what you're saying is that, yes, right now the car is slow. Potential means nothing.

No one really knows if the car is slow or fast... It is testing afterall...

[Rainmaster 7]

Subtle twisting of reality there. You must be a lawyer-in-training, whomever-you-are. But for the sake of peace, I extend my apologies for any past 'attacks'.

I like aerodynamics and I've read a bunch on the subject (from books to technical articles), enough to look at a front wing and tell what the team is trying to do with the airflow. I can see if a team has a modest update to that front wing or if they have done something radical with it. Those are things that I can see from a photo. I can guess that with KERS in the back, the cars will be rear-heavy and without a developed front wing, understeer is likely. That's just one example of something that can be seen and extrapolated from an article and a photo.

Both reflect my knowledge and understanding. Everything one says or writes reflects their knowledge and understanding. The difference is that my statement on Red Bull was made after the FIA released the rules and *before* the Red Bull was seen. It was truly a 'guess' and should be treated as such. My comments about McLaren were based on some photos, a few articles and my own sensibilities. They were something more than a simple 'guess' and as such, had a greater chance of being right.

Wow. That's a bit harsh. Whomever you are, you've certainly got a chip on your shoulder...and probably a low I.Q. I say this because of your assertion that Until you have a degree or two in whatever the hell it is you need a degree in to understand this stuff and/or get a job in a team, you don't really know much at all is, quite frankly, stupid beyond belief. Encountering someone like you is the primary reason I need to take breaks from this forum from time to time. Remember that apology I offered at the start of this post? I rescind it. You probably deserved the responses you've gotten from me in the past.

I never criticised you personally in my post, just disagreed with the idea you can tell so much from a picture of a car (and I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours), yet by the end of your post I imagine you frothing at the mouth. You didn't help your "personal attacks" case on that one

Up until the last part of my post you were doing well on the personal attack front and you were making a reasonable, considered post, one which I would've respectfully agreed to disagree with. Then something utterly terrible happened, I made a very stupid statement where I emphasised the value of academic education and personal experience when it comes to the complex field of aerodynamics and engineering. The point of which was to suggest that those with such qualifications and/or experience probably know more than any of us and would be in a far better position to comment (especially if they were working/had worked in F1 itself). How controversial and stupid of me.

Perhaps me saying that made you think I was somehow criticising anything less than that and saying nobody should comment on something unless they had a degree? Obviously not the point I was making. Shades of grey rather than black and white, training and experience is the best but reading books, blogs etc is also good too, of course, I was just pointing out it probably isn't as good. It's almost as if you read that sentence as "people who read books because they are interested in a certain topic will never really know anything about that topic" - which is, of course, completely contrary to the truth, and what I think.

Your apparent offence is all the more bizarre considering I admitted in the same post that I valued your technical understanding (essentially accepting it is higher than mine precisely because you read such books, blogs, etc) and those posts interested me (but to clarify, more the explanatory ones where you explain how something works for example, rather than the predictive ones where too many factors come into play)! I am sorry if you feel the statement in my original post was somehow a criticism of you, it really wasn't (actually it was just a rather simple and obvious point I was making which happened to fit the general theme of my post: that what you were doing was more guesswork than science/logic, yet you present it as solid fact).

Oh and speaking of apologies, that was a great apology to me at the beginning of your post but I'll tell you two things: 1) No apology needed, your repeated attacks/bad attitude never bothered me, and 2) a question, how could an apology have meant anything when in the same line of words you claim to not know who I am? A meaningful apology that would have been.

(I've re-read my post and maybe my use of the word "you" in closing para of my original post is misleading, it was meant as a general one not a specific one, I thought that was clear but maybe it isn't and perhaps that is the reason for your offensive attitude?).

I suspect the primary reason you take breaks from this forum is because you come in, make a controversial or arrogant post which nobody could really back up (amongst some admittedly very good posts), get called on it by someone (and it isn't just me you've had problems with), then run off for a bit when you can't defend yourself any more. I wasn't actually going to get involved in this particular one until I saw your reply to Senna's Ghost "Or is it that you're from a nation that doesn't encourage it's people to think for themselves?". Uhh. Tragic.

[yurp 0]

Okay folks.

Let's all take a deep breath. The season hasn't even begun so it's really quite unfair of you all to get a jump on me when it comes to turning forum 'misunderstandings' into forum 'arguments'.

Perhaps I can ask (not arrogantly, but as a fully paid up member of our lovely little community) that peeps be a little less sensitive and simultaneously a little less offensive. Victim-hood doesn't work well as an excuse to act just as impolitely (if not more so) to the perceived insulter.

Mike - I know you to be a passionate and thoughtful poster who perhaps sometimes takes offence and dishes it out a little quickly - I hope that's fair comment. At least that has been my take from our previous disagreements and from reading this particular thread.

But I know that I (and others) have plenty of faults too, so please don't consider this a slight against you - we're none of us perfect. I'm obtuse, pedantic, arrogant, sarcastic, ignorant, twat-faced... - we only have 9 days to Australia, so I'll stop there

So let's all hug and look forward to seeing the comparative speeds of RBs, Macs, Mercs, Ferraris, Saubers, Loti (that's plural for Lotus ), TRs et al in 9 days.

The anticipation is something we can all giggle about together like teenage schoolgirls in the playground when they spot the class hunk from year 6 swaggering by.

9 DAYS! Teeheehee. I think I peed my pants.

EDIT

PS #46 is George isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong - I was gone for most of the winter break.

EDIT EDIT

Cue Andres with the twatmobile!...

...where is that jerk when you need him?