planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-s ... da-897438/

Quote:
As part of an agreement reached between F1's car manufacturers and the FIA 12 months ago to keep the current turbo hybrid rules in place until 2020, a plan was put in place to ensure all the current engines were pretty equal on performance.

The FIA said it would analyse the potential of each power unit after the first three races of 2017 and, if the difference between them exceeded 0.3 seconds on a simulation around the Barcelona circuit, then the Strategy Group would be asked to intervene.


So we've had the three races and it looks unlike that Honda(And probably Renault) will be outside of that target. Honda probably by some distance so it looks like there will be talks today about what can be done about it.

It's hard to imagine Ferrari and Mercedes are just going to let Honda test until their hearts content of course so what kind of reasonable steps do we think could be taken?.

There's some suggestions they could remove penalties for example but any course of action will require unanimous agreement from the Strategy Group.

What do we think will happen then?.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18560
I don't think removing penalties will go any way towards resolving the issue. If the goal is to allow e.g. Honda to catch up, then it's difficult to look past allowing some form of testing. But that's just logic, and this is F1, so...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Posts: 1994
rant
I've truly given up on Honda. No amount of testing would remedy the situation, something is really really wrong in their engineering and especially QA department. It's unacceptable that 3 years in, something fails every 5 minutes. And even when it works (as evidenced by Boullier), they are perplexed why.

Just give McLaren a Mercedes engine, brand it Honda and be done with it. /rant

I'm curious to see what they come up with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 856
I am not sure what will be done for convergence but as a Mclaren Honda fan i think its a bad idea. At best they should allow Mclaren unlimited PU's to get their reliability and performance right.
Mclaren should be looking at the long game of when the PU can have a significant advantage over the rest. Otherwise they may as well use a customer PU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:35 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Merc engineers must be loling hard


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 241
VDV23 wrote:
rant
I've truly given up on Honda. No amount of testing would remedy the situation, something is really really wrong in their engineering and especially QA department. It's unacceptable that 3 years in, something fails every 5 minutes. And even when it works (as evidenced by Boullier), they are perplexed why.

Just give McLaren a Mercedes engine, brand it Honda and be done with it. /rant

I'm curious to see what they come up with.


Well said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1638
This isn't going to end well. There's two ways it can go:

1.) The Strategy Group approve a month (or twelve) of unlimited testing to allow Honda to catch up. Honda still struggle for pace and unreliability.
2.) Honda manage to catch up - but its rivals will say it's only because they've been given special allowance to do so.

This comeback has been a PR disaster. Whichever way it goes, Honda lose. McLaren is best off cutting their losses, stop dreaming of the past and go for Mercedes PUs. I applaud them for trying it (and bringing in another engine manufacturer in the process) but this is beyond embarrassing.

Three years in and still getting it wrong.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition:
Podium finishes - Australia 2015 (3rd), Austria 2016 (3rd)
2015 Position: 30th (2246 points)
2016 Position: 17th (2824 points)

#KeepFightingMichael
#JB17


Last edited by MistaVega23 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4230
Location: Mumbai, India
Herb Tarlik wrote:
VDV23 wrote:
rant
I've truly given up on Honda. No amount of testing would remedy the situation, something is really really wrong in their engineering and especially QA department. It's unacceptable that 3 years in, something fails every 5 minutes. And even when it works (as evidenced by Boullier), they are perplexed why.

Just give McLaren a Mercedes engine, brand it Honda and be done with it. /rant

I'm curious to see what they come up with.


Well said.


And cause of the recent 2 day test, Alonso is now aiming for a double points finish for McLaren. How things change in a jiffy at McLaren.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
Zoue wrote:
I don't think removing penalties will go any way towards resolving the issue. If the goal is to allow e.g. Honda to catch up, then it's difficult to look past allowing some form of testing. But that's just logic, and this is F1, so...


Yeah I think that's where I'm at. Problem is making testing palatable to the Group which is hard to see. Maybe if the target is 0.3 then say Honda are at 1.0 now then allow FIA controlled testing in anything but a McLaren 2017 car until they get to 0.5 then stop it and check again next year.

Still not very palatable to the other Manufacturers and even the midfield teams who McLaren would likely leapfrog but it still leaves Honda a good step behind but in Renault type of range.

It's tricky to think of something that's fair while actually helping bridge the gap. I think they should release the findings of their convergence testing though as if it's something quite small like 0.7 then I think that would garner a different public reaction and reaction from the teams than if it was something crazy like 1.5 or something.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 5894
I wonder if we will ever get to find out that the simulation comes up with. It would be nice to have an impartial and reliable comparison of where the 4 engines stand relative to each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I wonder if we will ever get to find out that the simulation comes up with. It would be nice to have an impartial and reliable comparison of where the 4 engines stand relative to each other.


I'm hoping Eric* blurts it out after Ferrari and Mercedes shoot down any potential help. :o


*Assuming the FIA tell them at the meeting what the results were of course.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 784
Due to the engine development restrictions of the last few years, it's obvious the FIA want parity in the engines. Of course when any team is allowed to place their agenda first they will do so. But in the long run, it hurts Formula One, and in the long run, each team may receive less income because the image of the sport is tarnished. Even though it is in any team's short term interests to cripple any competitor, on the long run it make sense to strive for parity.

The one fly in the ointment is that three of the four engine manufacturers are doing very well. Ferrari and Mercedes are engaged in a wonderful battle for wins and the title, with Renault nipping at their heels and promising to join the club.

IMO you do nothing to hamper Mercedes, Ferrari, and Renault, but allow Honda the opportunity (by allowing more testing or relaxing development restrictions) for an accelerated improvement program.

Haven't we learned about the last three dismal years of domination by one engine manufacturer? Is not having at least two teams in a genuine fight for wins and the tile exciting? Three may happen soon, and that would be even more exciting for race fans. And if we can get four mixing it up, oh glorious day.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
What about calculating the average distance ran in km the other Manufacturers covered in 2014 and allowing Honda to run that in testing in a launch spec MCL32, closely monitored by the FIA?.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4153
Since the changes in the chassis spec for this year shouldn't affect the PU's ability to eat its own tail. Why not allow Honda to run an adapted 2014-2015 McLaren car around Suzuka until they can get it to last a race weekend at least?

The reliability of the Honda effort is so bad that there's no way to know what the performance gap between a Honda unit and the rest is.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 9:08 am
Posts: 22
When Mclaren had the Mercedes PU (when it was head and shoulders above the others) they only ran in the midfield. Lot of blagging from Mclaren


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18560
Zazu wrote:
When Mclaren had the Mercedes PU (when it was head and shoulders above the others) they only ran in the midfield. Lot of blagging from Mclaren

Yep, they had one bad year. Not sure it outweighs all the good ones they've had, though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
Zazu wrote:
When Mclaren had the Mercedes PU (when it was head and shoulders above the others) they only ran in the midfield. Lot of blagging from Mclaren


No access to software and wrong fuel and lubricants. Plus a meh car of course with those suspension blockers.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 6989
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


Why would getting Honda to 0.3 enable McLaren to get a second in front?. I don't follow. Any steps taken for Honda would purely be for Honda rather than letting McLaren test chassis parts.

Using a time gap is the perfect way. No chassis bias, no PR rubbish, just pure time from the PU around Barcelona so everyone knows where they stand.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 784
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


NO NO NO

At this moment McLaren is losing business, sponsors, and a lot of money. Additionally Honda is losing face. So they cannot afford to play childish games, they must fix the problems NOW and get respectable.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 6989
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


NO NO NO

At this moment McLaren is losing business, sponsors, and a lot of money. Additionally Honda is losing face. So they cannot afford to play childish games, they must fix the problems NOW and get respectable.


Not saying they would, but could and this would not be fair on FI, STR, Williams etc who also have sponsors and employees?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2320
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I wonder if we will ever get to find out that the simulation comes up with. It would be nice to have an impartial and reliable comparison of where the 4 engines stand relative to each other.


Indeed. I would love to see it.

But regarding helping Honda catch up, I highly doubt any of the other teams will agree to such a thing. No one cares that Honda can't get a grip on things. Everyone will start crying foul if Honda is given any advantage at all to help them catch up.

In other sports, if you can't hack it you just move down to a lower division. Obviously that can't happen in F1, but Honda may not have any other choice but to leave. If they fail to show any sign of improvement this year, I dont' see how Mclaren can still believe in them, and even Sauber could probably get a better deal elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2320
Lotus49 wrote:
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


Why would getting Honda to 0.3 enable McLaren to get a second in front?. I don't follow. Any steps taken for Honda would purely be for Honda rather than letting McLaren test chassis parts.

Using a time gap is the perfect way. No chassis bias, no PR rubbish, just pure time from the PU around Barcelona so everyone knows where they stand.


There is no way to police that 0.3 gap though. They may get closer to it, they may equal it or they may blow past it. What if Honda gets the help they need and the result is 2 Mclarens on the front row at every race weekend? Not going to fly well in the eyes of many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5353
Location: Nebraska, USA
I think that any idea of F1 and/or other teams helping McLaren to become competitive is complete bullsh1t. How much help did Ferrari & Renault get over the past 3 years?

McLaren & Honda have plenty of money and resources, let them do the job, or let them leave... again, in the case of Honda. Why in the sport that F1 fans call the epitome of racing, the best engineering, the highest technology... would the other teams need to help a competitor get "competitive"? McLaren made the choice to go with Honda, and many of us expected some great things out of them... They weren't forced to go with Honda, they did it because they thought it would be an advantage to them. Had it worked, would be be seeing requests to help Merc, Ferrari and Renault get up to only .3 seconds back? No way in hell. Honda had a full year of unlimited testing and development of their power plant, while the other teams had severe limitations on development of their less than stellar engines. So now we want to see Honda & McLaren helped?

I was all for a relaxing of the engine development restrictions over the last 3 years, but that applied to ALL teams, not just to benefit one team as this would be. If they are going to give extra engines, or extra practices, then they need to do it for all.... or none at all.

I think the whole idea is asinine, and would be very disappointed if anything were done to help them.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3475
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
McLaren made the choice to go with Honda, and many of us expected some great things out of them... They weren't forced to go with Honda, they did it because they thought it would be an advantage to them. Had it worked, would be be seeing requests to help Merc, Ferrari and Renault get up to only .3 seconds back? No way in hell.

You can bet we would, since the whole 0.3 second thing was brought about chiefly by pressure from Red Bull and Renault in the first place, not Honda. McLaren has never gotten preferential treatment from the FIA in its existence - quite the opposite, in fact. I think the implication that McLaren is being specifically favored where other historical teams would not have been is frankly bizarre.

Blake wrote:
McLaren & Honda have plenty of money and resources, let them do the job, or let them leave...

Sure, let's let them do their job! Bring back testing. Without testing, it's awfully hard to do the job of catching up on a massive development gap.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not in favor of this idea the way it's being put about. It's like success ballast, only in reverse - the worse a job you do, the more help you get to catch back up. I think we need to loosen testing and development regulations and let the engineers have a fair shot at fixing what's wrong with the engine - all of the engines, which since the Honda is in the most need of fixing should benefit them the most anyway. But throwing them a bone just because they've done a bad job isn't what F1 is about at all.

That said, I also don't think the argument of 'McLaren chose Honda, so it's their own fault if Honda is terrible' is very fair to McLaren. The other top teams build their own engine (aside from Red Bull, who are basically in the same hole) - if their engine is poor, they can decide to throw more resources at it, work harder to fix it. If Honda isn't willing to devote the resources or money they need to fix the engine, there's absolutely nothing McLaren can do about it. Yes, they chose Honda, but at this point Honda have so catastrophically under-delivered that I don't feel it's reasonable to blame McLaren for choosing them. There is no possible way anyone at McLaren could have known the Honda engine would be this bad in its third year.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3475
Location: Michigan, USA
Double post - WELL DONE, FP1 FORUM! x(

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5353
Location: Nebraska, USA
Exediron wrote:
Blake wrote:
McLaren made the choice to go with Honda, and many of us expected some great things out of them... They weren't forced to go with Honda, they did it because they thought it would be an advantage to them. Had it worked, would be be seeing requests to help Merc, Ferrari and Renault get up to only .3 seconds back? No way in hell.

You can bet we would, since the whole 0.3 second thing was brought about chiefly by pressure from Red Bull and Renault in the first place, not Honda. McLaren has never gotten preferential treatment from the FIA in its existence - quite the opposite, in fact. I think the implication that McLaren is being specifically favored where other historical teams would not have been is frankly bizarre.

Blake wrote:
McLaren & Honda have plenty of money and resources, let them do the job, or let them leave...

Sure, let's let them do their job! Bring back testing. Without testing, it's awfully hard to do the job of catching up on a massive development gap.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not in favor of this idea the way it's being put about. It's like success ballast, only in reverse - the worse a job you do, the more help you get to catch back up. I think we need to loosen testing and development regulations and let the engineers have a fair shot at fixing what's wrong with the engine - all of the engines, which since the Honda is in the most need of fixing should benefit them the most anyway. But throwing them a bone just because they've done a bad job isn't what F1 is about at all.

That said, I also don't think the argument of 'McLaren chose Honda, so it's their own fault if Honda is terrible' is very fair to McLaren. The other top teams build their own engine (aside from Red Bull, who are basically in the same hole) - if their engine is poor, they can decide to throw more resources at it, work harder to fix it. If Honda isn't willing to devote the resources or money they need to fix the engine, there's absolutely nothing McLaren can do about it. Yes, they chose Honda, but at this point Honda have so catastrophically under-delivered that I don't feel it's reasonable to blame McLaren for choosing them. There is no possible way anyone at McLaren could have known the Honda engine would be this bad in its third year.


Actually, McLaren HAS gotten preferential treatment as you put it. I recall their cars being disqualified from the WCC, yet their drivers were still allowed to compete and the cars were still on the track so their sponsors got TV time. I recall two teams colluding about the results of a race... McLaren was one of them. Now before I get Ferraris misdoings thrown at me, I am not arguing on their behalf, only pointing out the error of the McLaren having never "gotten preferential treatment" statement.

You mention that other top teams have the advantage of building their own engines, while McLaren doesn't... whose fault is that??? Nothing has stopped McLaren from building their own engines. Their budgets have generally been at, or very near, the top in F1. McLaren has bought engine because it has worked for them over the decades, and now.. when it isn't, people think that F1 and the top teams should help them out?

You are right...McLaren could not have known the Hondas would be this bad, but they took the chance. (Remember that they had Mercedes engines for nearly 20 years prior to going back to Honda) It was their choice, they weren't forced to do so, they gambled that ir would give them an edge. If it had worked, we would be hearing about the brilliance of their decision, and people would be saying it is up to the others to catch up. Three years ago, Merc gambled that they had the right package for the new rules, and it paid off handsomely for them. Ferrari has had their time in the sun (and in deep shade) too. Certainly engine choices for McLaren have worked for them before, now it isn't. At least they can continue to develop it without the asinine restrictions of recent years.

BTW, how do you know that Honda "isn't willing to devote the time and the money to fix the engine"??? These failures aren't doing their reputation any good either. Surely they are in a bit of a panic, as well.

Exediron, I suspect that you and I are in agreement mostly on what the FIA can or should do. I have no problem with them relaxing development restrictions... but it has to be for ALL... and even then it is three years too late.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3475
Location: Michigan, USA
I typed up another long reply, and the forum junked it with an HTTP error... don't have the energy to re-type it all right now. :?

I really need to start copying my messages before I post them or something.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18560
Exediron wrote:
I typed up another long reply, and the forum junked it with an HTTP error... don't have the energy to re-type it all right now. :?

I really need to start copying my messages before I post them or something.

if you press page back you should find what you typed is still there. Alternatively, refreshing the page has worked for me in the past, even if it does often take several goes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8418
Isn't the 0.3s rule a bit unfair though, what if e.g. Renault had deliberately sacrificed 0.35 seconds of engine performance for 0.5s aero gains made by having a very compact package?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 877
Location: Brazil
Honda's situation makes it sound like the power unit itself has some sort of fundamental flaw, because with two full years and the breaks they've got, they weren't able to fix it. They probably have a lemon and they don't want to admit it, because doing so would force them to redesign the power unit from scratch, at which point they'd just leave instead of wasting more time.

Honda is no stranger to this situation either... They've tried oval pistons in 80s motorcycle racing to take advantage of a possible loophole in the regs, but the resulting engine was too heavy due to the additional parts and didn't have a significant power advantage over the others (if at all). It was also a nightmare to develop due to all the additional parts. Soon they were forced to imitate the others and create a two-stroke engine to become competitive again.

Everything in F1 is too secret nowadays so it's difficult to know, but it seems they tried to reinvent the wheel and weren't successful. No shame in that, really.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 173
I am not so sure the Honda project is doomed.

If the engine is as disastrous as everyone claims, and they manage to develop the bounce will be quite high up the field.

And apparently the car is not that bad, at least in the corners. Or so a lot of the pundits say...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 6989
Lotus49 wrote:
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


Why would getting Honda to 0.3 enable McLaren to get a second in front?. I don't follow. Any steps taken for Honda would purely be for Honda rather than letting McLaren test chassis parts.

Using a time gap is the perfect way. No chassis bias, no PR rubbish, just pure time from the PU around Barcelona so everyone knows where they stand.


(sorry, missed this earlier)

What I mean is if it is a .3 second gap, which is what they are talking about, how much of that is the car and how much the motor?

For instance, they take today's Mclaren-Honda and look at the gap to the Merc in qually for the last race, the gap Alonso to Bottas was (rounded) a second.

So they allow Honda to add (say) 7 tenths to pull it equal.
So the new McHonda now has a well sorted engine close to the Merc and a chassis which is hardly sorted at al as they have not had running time and tuning time etc, so could easily find half a second, which then puts the CAR infront of the Merc. It does not seem to be engine based, but car based.

I suspect that trouble free running for Mclaren would pull a huge chunk of that 1 second gap back without even "improving" the engine performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 6989
Exediron wrote:
I typed up another long reply, and the forum junked it with an HTTP error... don't have the energy to re-type it all right now. :?

I really need to start copying my messages before I post them or something.


CRTL +Z ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 877
Location: Brazil
Blake wrote:
Actually, McLaren HAS gotten preferential treatment as you put it. I recall their cars being disqualified from the WCC, yet their drivers were still allowed to compete and the cars were still on the track so their sponsors got TV time. I recall two teams colluding about the results of a race... McLaren was one of them. Now before I get Ferraris misdoings thrown at me, I am not arguing on their behalf, only pointing out the error of the McLaren having never "gotten preferential treatment" statement.

You mention that other top teams have the advantage of building their own engines, while McLaren doesn't... whose fault is that??? Nothing has stopped McLaren from building their own engines. Their budgets have generally been at, or very near, the top in F1. McLaren has bought engine because it has worked for them over the decades, and now.. when it isn't, people think that F1 and the top teams should help them out?

You are right...McLaren could not have known the Hondas would be this bad, but they took the chance. (Remember that they had Mercedes engines for nearly 20 years prior to going back to Honda) It was their choice, they weren't forced to do so, they gambled that ir would give them an edge. If it had worked, we would be hearing about the brilliance of their decision, and people would be saying it is up to the others to catch up. Three years ago, Merc gambled that they had the right package for the new rules, and it paid off handsomely for them. Ferrari has had their time in the sun (and in deep shade) too. Certainly engine choices for McLaren have worked for them before, now it isn't. At least they can continue to develop it without the asinine restrictions of recent years.

BTW, how do you know that Honda "isn't willing to devote the time and the money to fix the engine"??? These failures aren't doing their reputation any good either. Surely they are in a bit of a panic, as well.

Exediron, I suspect that you and I are in agreement mostly on what the FIA can or should do. I have no problem with them relaxing development restrictions... but it has to be for ALL... and even then it is three years too late.


I think Blake is spot on. To the FIA's credit, appeasing a manufacturer does not happen only in F1, but Honda is getting all sorts of breaks and can't figure it out. The reason they get them is purely commercial, if it was someone like the Hart or Judd of the old, heck even Cosworth, they wouldn't get this sort of treatment.

I'm not very familiar with the specifics of the McLaren-Mercedes split, though. I remember McLaren's work on the P1 road car without collaboration with Mercedes being speculated throughout the 2000s, until it eventually became a reality. It might be as simple as, McLaren wanted into the road car market and Mercedes didn't like it, but the 12C was first unveiled still in 2009 I believe, two years in advance of the production start. One thing is certain, though: once Mercedes decided to enter F1 as a works team, which was completely out of the blue since everyone else was leaving, it was obvious they were in it to win and McLaren's success was an obstacle to them.

McLaren was right in their expectation that they wouldn't be able to compete with the Mercedes works team with a Mercedes engine, if we look at how Williams has fared, though Williams obviously runs on a smaller budget. It was Honda who didn't deliver.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


Why would getting Honda to 0.3 enable McLaren to get a second in front?. I don't follow. Any steps taken for Honda would purely be for Honda rather than letting McLaren test chassis parts.

Using a time gap is the perfect way. No chassis bias, no PR rubbish, just pure time from the PU around Barcelona so everyone knows where they stand.


There is no way to police that 0.3 gap though. They may get closer to it, they may equal it or they may blow past it. What if Honda gets the help they need and the result is 2 Mclarens on the front row at every race weekend? Not going to fly well in the eyes of many.


You could police it the same way they measure them in the first place but of course there's the possibility they might find a huge chunk of time in one testing day but that's why I'd suggest a higher target than the 0.3 for the FIA to police. That way if they suddenly found a huge chunk the first couple of days and got down to say 0.6 you could pull the plug and say that's enough.

Still not foolproof though of course.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
Blake wrote:
I think that any idea of F1 and/or other teams helping McLaren to become competitive is complete bullsh1t. How much help did Ferrari & Renault get over the past 3 years?


Ferrari did the right thing and acted first to sign over a dozen engineers from Mercedes. Then Mahle fell into Ferrari's lap and then they went to AVL and Renault had Illien and some suspected help from Mercedes.

Quote:
McLaren & Honda have plenty of money and resources, let them do the job, or let them leave... again, in the case of Honda. Why in the sport that F1 fans call the epitome of racing, the best engineering, the highest technology... would the other teams need to help a competitor get "competitive"?


Can't argue with this but Renault got special dispensation to get their V8 competitive for example so not unheard of.


Quote:
McLaren made the choice to go with Honda, and many of us expected some great things out of them... They weren't forced to go with Honda, they did it because they thought it would be an advantage to them. Had it worked, would be be seeing requests to help Merc, Ferrari and Renault get up to only .3 seconds back? No way in hell.


Of course you would if they were this far back but Ferrari would of sided with Bernie a year or two ago and veto'd these PU's into oblivion long before it got to that stage.


Quote:
Honda had a full year of unlimited testing and development of their power plant, while the other teams had severe limitations on development of their less than stellar engines. So now we want to see Honda & McLaren helped?


Mercedes had 4 years of development including 1yr actually racing on track which is priceless.
Ferrari had 3 years of development including 1yr actually on track which is priceless.
Renault had 3 years of development including 1yr actually on track which is priceless.

Honda had 16 months from inception to track. Including one year sitting on the sidelines with their thumb up their backside listening to all the smart guys in the paddock say Mercedes were winning because of a split turbo and they had a split turbo. Maybe not so priceless?.

Quote:
I was all for a relaxing of the engine development restrictions over the last 3 years, but that applied to ALL teams, not just to benefit one team as this would be. If they are going to give extra engines, or extra practices, then they need to do it for all.... or none at all.

I think the whole idea is asinine, and would be very disappointed if anything were done to help them.


Not much in F1 has ever been fair. If help were given to Honda it wouldn't make a dent on the Top 20 things that's unfair about F1 but I bet we both know which would be No.1 and No.2.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
Covalent wrote:
Isn't the 0.3s rule a bit unfair though, what if e.g. Renault had deliberately sacrificed 0.35 seconds of engine performance for 0.5s aero gains made by having a very compact package?


Good point but I think those kind of packaging sacrifices were the first things to get shelved when they,Ferrari and now Honda tried to catch up.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
moby wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
moby wrote:
This would be unfair the way thy are considering. If they take what ever steps to get the Honda back within .3 of the merc, the developed Honda would then enable Mclaren to unlock far more then this fictitious .3 and would probably put them a second infront of Merc and Ferrari.


To use a time gap is not sensible, especially when allowing an engine to develop. If a team were dishonest, they would deliberately not bring the latest updates to the car until they stopped getting engine development then bring everything for more gain.


Why would getting Honda to 0.3 enable McLaren to get a second in front?. I don't follow. Any steps taken for Honda would purely be for Honda rather than letting McLaren test chassis parts.

Using a time gap is the perfect way. No chassis bias, no PR rubbish, just pure time from the PU around Barcelona so everyone knows where they stand.


(sorry, missed this earlier)

What I mean is if it is a .3 second gap, which is what they are talking about, how much of that is the car and how much the motor?

For instance, they take today's Mclaren-Honda and look at the gap to the Merc in qually for the last race, the gap Alonso to Bottas was (rounded) a second.

So they allow Honda to add (say) 7 tenths to pull it equal.
So the new McHonda now has a well sorted engine close to the Merc and a chassis which is hardly sorted at al as they have not had running time and tuning time etc, so could easily find half a second, which then puts the CAR infront of the Merc. It does not seem to be engine based, but car based.

I suspect that trouble free running for Mclaren would pull a huge chunk of that 1 second gap back without even "improving" the engine performance.


It's only a PU measurement with no interference from the chassis. It's then simulated what that translates to around Barcelona in lap time. They all agreed to the 0.3s spread when they all agreed to keep these PU's until 2020. If anyone is outside that spread then the Strategy Group would intervene.

If any help was offered then McLaren wouldn't be allowed to gain anything from it on the car front. Like an even more strict Pirelli test for example.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2522
Pole2Win wrote:
Blake wrote:
Actually, McLaren HAS gotten preferential treatment as you put it. I recall their cars being disqualified from the WCC, yet their drivers were still allowed to compete and the cars were still on the track so their sponsors got TV time. I recall two teams colluding about the results of a race... McLaren was one of them. Now before I get Ferraris misdoings thrown at me, I am not arguing on their behalf, only pointing out the error of the McLaren having never "gotten preferential treatment" statement.

You mention that other top teams have the advantage of building their own engines, while McLaren doesn't... whose fault is that??? Nothing has stopped McLaren from building their own engines. Their budgets have generally been at, or very near, the top in F1. McLaren has bought engine because it has worked for them over the decades, and now.. when it isn't, people think that F1 and the top teams should help them out?

You are right...McLaren could not have known the Hondas would be this bad, but they took the chance. (Remember that they had Mercedes engines for nearly 20 years prior to going back to Honda) It was their choice, they weren't forced to do so, they gambled that ir would give them an edge. If it had worked, we would be hearing about the brilliance of their decision, and people would be saying it is up to the others to catch up. Three years ago, Merc gambled that they had the right package for the new rules, and it paid off handsomely for them. Ferrari has had their time in the sun (and in deep shade) too. Certainly engine choices for McLaren have worked for them before, now it isn't. At least they can continue to develop it without the asinine restrictions of recent years.

BTW, how do you know that Honda "isn't willing to devote the time and the money to fix the engine"??? These failures aren't doing their reputation any good either. Surely they are in a bit of a panic, as well.

Exediron, I suspect that you and I are in agreement mostly on what the FIA can or should do. I have no problem with them relaxing development restrictions... but it has to be for ALL... and even then it is three years too late.


I think Blake is spot on. To the FIA's credit, appeasing a manufacturer does not happen only in F1, but Honda is getting all sorts of breaks and can't figure it out. The reason they get them is purely commercial, if it was someone like the Hart or Judd of the old, heck even Cosworth, they wouldn't get this sort of treatment.

I'm not very familiar with the specifics of the McLaren-Mercedes split, though. I remember McLaren's work on the P1 road car without collaboration with Mercedes being speculated throughout the 2000s, until it eventually became a reality. It might be as simple as, McLaren wanted into the road car market and Mercedes didn't like it, but the 12C was first unveiled still in 2009 I believe, two years in advance of the production start. One thing is certain, though: once Mercedes decided to enter F1 as a works team, which was completely out of the blue since everyone else was leaving, it was obvious they were in it to win and McLaren's success was an obstacle to them.

McLaren was right in their expectation that they wouldn't be able to compete with the Mercedes works team with a Mercedes engine, if we look at how Williams has fared, though Williams obviously runs on a smaller budget. It was Honda who didn't deliver.


Mercedes wanted to buy McLaren and Ron said no. Whitmarsh then convinced Mercedes to give Brawn an engine in 2009. Brawn and Mercedes decided to hook up permanently. Ron and Martin went to Honda.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], neostar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group