7 ms·

I don't know if it can be considered "inventing" when the article itself states > it’s pioneering the use of an aerospace industry technique known as Automated

I don't know if it can be considered "inventing" when the article itself states > it’s pioneering the use of an aerospace industry technique known as Automated Rapid Tape Carbon

jerkstate 2y ago
McLaren has a loooong history of applying carbon fiber in new ways that revolutionize racing - the MP4/1 was the first full carbon monocoque chassis way back in 1981. Even though carbon fiber had previously been used in a limited fashion in other automotive and aerospace applications, most people credit McLaren for really bringing carbon fiber to the automotive world, because the MP4 series of racing cars were so dominant, everyone else copied them. McLaren is also currently leading the F1 world championship (after one race) after having won the constructor's championship last year. So whatever they are doing merits understanding.
- archsurface 2y ago
  They didn't win last year as much Checo handed it to them.
  - atonse 2y ago
    And Lawson might do it yet again this year, if the first race was any indication. Still impressive what they’ve accomplished to respond to an utterly dominant RB.
    - rand0m4r 2y ago
      tu tu tu du max verstappen
    - syntaxless 2y ago
      Red Bull isn’t dominant. Max is.
  - syntaxless 2y ago
    McLaren did win. Norris did not. F1 is a team sport. The drivers championship is secondary as it doesn’t award money or affect wind tunnel time.
    - archsurface 2y ago
      You've misunderstood. I know what F1 is and how it works, I've been watching it since the 70s.
      - ForTheKidz 2y ago
        I'd appreciate an insight into what above poster allegedly misunderstands.
        txs 2y ago
        I believe the original point was that McLaren had an easier time winning the constructors because they had two drivers collecting points, while Red Bull — due to Checo not performing — only had one
        wafflemaker 2y ago
        I'd second it. F1 racing is an interesting combination of sport, physics, aerospace engineering and manufacturing. But most of us don't have the background to fully enjoy what you've said without at least some background.
        mauvehaus 2y ago
        Checo (Sergio Perez) was Max Verstappen's teammate at Red Bull. Red Bull had a dominant start to the season which set Verstappen up to win the driver's championship. Lando Norris at McLaren mounted a challenge to Verstappen as the McLaren car went from good to great at Miami, but couldn't pass Verstappen. He did, however, have a strong teammate in Oscar Piastri, and the two of them handily accumulated enough points for McLaren to beat Red Bull for the constructor's championship. Which brings us back to Checo. There's a strong argument to be made that he, driving the dominant car for the first six races and probably second best car for the remainder of the season, should have been able to score enough points to keep McLaren from winning the constructor's championship. He did not and Red Bull cut him loose at the end of last season. The second seat at Red Bull has been a brutal spot to be in since Verstappen came along. Arguably their car is very tailored to his preferences, and it's hard for another driver to get the most out of it, or even set it up to suit their preferences. Whatever the case, it's been a bit of a revolving door.
  - spookie 2y ago
    It doesn't matter what any of the other teams did apart from points. McLaren won the constructor's championship.
  - ksec 2y ago
    I mean judging from Liam Lawson I think the car isn't that well suited to most people other than Max. And I remember Christian Horner said something to Zak Brown that seems to fuel fire inside him. And McLaren have been improving since then. And back to the topic, I was rathe hoping this is some new tech we could reduce the weight of F1. It is still way too long and wide. Even accounting for the upcoming 2026 changes. I wish we could go back to Pre 2009, sub 600kg much smaller F1 cars.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  Carbon Fibre didn’t become mainstream until Pagani Composite Research was established in 1988. The person who brought carbon fibre to the masses was Horacio Pagani through his cooperation with Lamborghini. That’s where Horacio Pagani had the money from to focus on Pagani Automobili.
moomin 2y ago
The article suggests there’s plenty of new tech there.
brookst 2y ago
The age-old “invention versus innovation” semantic tail chasing. Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I appreciate where you are coming from, but I'm not willing to say that there is no objective truth to it. Take the triode, for example, or the transistor. I include the latter because while it did something that functionally the triode could also do, it did it by exploiting different physics, and the difference was significant.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics. We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Yeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      So one must choose between seeing every issue as a stark dichotomy, or never doing so?
      - stronglikedan 2y ago
        Some people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
helsinkiandrew 2y ago
It seems it’s the method of application they’ve invented/developed rather than the tape itself: > McLaren develops aerospace-inspired ART method for volume composite super car engineering https://www.compositesworld.com/news/mclaren-develops-aerospace-inspired-art-method-for-volume-composite-super-car-engineering https://www.compositesworld.com/news/mclaren-develops-aerosp...
irjustin 2y ago
Yeah I agree. On the spectrum of "copying" to "inventing" I concur this is more like "scaled down version" of the aerospace. Maybe "draws heavily".
blitzar 2y ago
I invented gaffer tape yesterday when I pioneered its use in taping things together. I guess my royalty cheques will be rolling in any day now.
mschuster91 2y ago
IMHO, it can because there can be significant challenges of implementing a given (manufacturing) process under completely different constraints. Like, air frames need to deal with a huge amount of weight and massive temperature swings (a flight from Qatar to Europe for example will start with +40 °C, and at travel height -60 °C), and F1 racing cars will instead encounter very frequent and very rapid acceleration/deceleration and up to 5G in dynamic forces.
turtlesdown11 2y ago
this is a PR piece
dan_quixote 2y ago
It looks exactly how the aerospace automated fiber placement robot arms operated starting 10 years ago...but with a slightly smaller table. So they revolutionized the technology by slightly reducing the working volume! It's still very cool to see the technology propagate to other industries though.

I don't know if it can be considered "inventing" when the article itself states > it’s pioneering the use of an aerospace industry technique known as Automated Rapid Tape Carbon

jerkstate 2y ago

McLaren has a loooong history of applying carbon fiber in new ways that revolutionize racing - the MP4/1 was the first full carbon monocoque chassis way back in 1981. Even though carbon fiber had previously been used in a limited fashion in other automotive and aerospace applications, most people credit McLaren for really bringing carbon fiber to the automotive world, because the MP4 series of racing cars were so dominant, everyone else copied them. McLaren is also currently leading the F1 world championship (after one race) after having won the constructor's championship last year. So whatever they are doing merits understanding.

archsurface 2y ago
They didn't win last year as much Checo handed it to them.
- atonse 2y ago
  And Lawson might do it yet again this year, if the first race was any indication. Still impressive what they’ve accomplished to respond to an utterly dominant RB.
  - rand0m4r 2y ago
    tu tu tu du max verstappen
  - syntaxless 2y ago
    Red Bull isn’t dominant. Max is.
- syntaxless 2y ago
  McLaren did win. Norris did not. F1 is a team sport. The drivers championship is secondary as it doesn’t award money or affect wind tunnel time.
  - archsurface 2y ago
    You've misunderstood. I know what F1 is and how it works, I've been watching it since the 70s.
    - ForTheKidz 2y ago
      I'd appreciate an insight into what above poster allegedly misunderstands.
      - txs 2y ago
        I believe the original point was that McLaren had an easier time winning the constructors because they had two drivers collecting points, while Red Bull — due to Checo not performing — only had one
      - wafflemaker 2y ago
        I'd second it. F1 racing is an interesting combination of sport, physics, aerospace engineering and manufacturing. But most of us don't have the background to fully enjoy what you've said without at least some background.
      - mauvehaus 2y ago
        Checo (Sergio Perez) was Max Verstappen's teammate at Red Bull. Red Bull had a dominant start to the season which set Verstappen up to win the driver's championship. Lando Norris at McLaren mounted a challenge to Verstappen as the McLaren car went from good to great at Miami, but couldn't pass Verstappen. He did, however, have a strong teammate in Oscar Piastri, and the two of them handily accumulated enough points for McLaren to beat Red Bull for the constructor's championship. Which brings us back to Checo. There's a strong argument to be made that he, driving the dominant car for the first six races and probably second best car for the remainder of the season, should have been able to score enough points to keep McLaren from winning the constructor's championship. He did not and Red Bull cut him loose at the end of last season. The second seat at Red Bull has been a brutal spot to be in since Verstappen came along. Arguably their car is very tailored to his preferences, and it's hard for another driver to get the most out of it, or even set it up to suit their preferences. Whatever the case, it's been a bit of a revolving door.
- spookie 2y ago
  It doesn't matter what any of the other teams did apart from points. McLaren won the constructor's championship.
- ksec 2y ago
  I mean judging from Liam Lawson I think the car isn't that well suited to most people other than Max. And I remember Christian Horner said something to Zak Brown that seems to fuel fire inside him. And McLaren have been improving since then. And back to the topic, I was rathe hoping this is some new tech we could reduce the weight of F1. It is still way too long and wide. Even accounting for the upcoming 2026 changes. I wish we could go back to Pre 2009, sub 600kg much smaller F1 cars.
rad_gruchalski 2y ago
Carbon Fibre didn’t become mainstream until Pagani Composite Research was established in 1988. The person who brought carbon fibre to the masses was Horacio Pagani through his cooperation with Lamborghini. That’s where Horacio Pagani had the money from to focus on Pagani Automobili.

moomin 2y ago

The article suggests there’s plenty of new tech there.

brookst 2y ago

The age-old “invention versus innovation” semantic tail chasing. Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.

mannykannot 2y ago
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I'm not willing to say that there is no objective truth to it. Take the triode, for example, or the transistor. I include the latter because while it did something that functionally the triode could also do, it did it by exploiting different physics, and the difference was significant.
- brookst 2y ago
  Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics. We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Yeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    So one must choose between seeing every issue as a stark dichotomy, or never doing so?
    - stronglikedan 2y ago
      Some people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

It seems it’s the method of application they’ve invented/developed rather than the tape itself: > McLaren develops aerospace-inspired ART method for volume composite super car engineering https://www.compositesworld.com/news/mclaren-develops-aerospace-inspired-art-method-for-volume-composite-super-car-engineering https://www.compositesworld.com/news/mclaren-develops-aerosp...

irjustin 2y ago

Yeah I agree. On the spectrum of "copying" to "inventing" I concur this is more like "scaled down version" of the aerospace. Maybe "draws heavily".

blitzar 2y ago

I invented gaffer tape yesterday when I pioneered its use in taping things together. I guess my royalty cheques will be rolling in any day now.

mschuster91 2y ago

IMHO, it can because there can be significant challenges of implementing a given (manufacturing) process under completely different constraints. Like, air frames need to deal with a huge amount of weight and massive temperature swings (a flight from Qatar to Europe for example will start with +40 °C, and at travel height -60 °C), and F1 racing cars will instead encounter very frequent and very rapid acceleration/deceleration and up to 5G in dynamic forces.

turtlesdown11 2y ago

this is a PR piece

dan_quixote 2y ago

It looks exactly how the aerospace automated fiber placement robot arms operated starting 10 years ago...but with a slightly smaller table. So they revolutionized the technology by slightly reducing the working volume! It's still very cool to see the technology propagate to other industries though.