planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:10 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:09 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
A request or a demand?

Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.

Of course they put pressure on Honda - this is big business we are talking about. None of this exempts Honda from only committing to what they could deliver. I note you didn't answer my questions?

The part about Honda allowing themselves to be dictated to by their partners, I guess they should have done a Renault when they told Red Bull to do one, not part of Japanese culture I guess?
Why is the only option to tell their partner to "do one?" No room for discussion and compromise?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:11 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?

Just highlighted the important bit in bold for you ;)

I guess you didn't read the article about the extra room they found available under the STR engine cover that was designed around the Renault engine enabled Honda to find another 10KW, they've not been restricted by the kind of size zero aero concepts they had at McLaren.
Again, this is something they should have insisted on themselves. If they needed more room to produce a PU that both had extra power and didn't break down every 5 minutes then they should have insisted on it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4870
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the engine came good this year. It's maintaining that works team situation that should have taken precedent. Honda brought a lot of resources to the table that Mclaren now have to do without. They also brought the possibility of becoming champions again some day. For a customer team to win titles in this era or the next would be all but impossible. Maybe Red Bull could pull it off but I'd say the odds are against even them and they have a vastly superior chassis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:26 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the engine came good this year. It's maintaining that works team situation that should have taken precedent. Honda brought a lot of resources to the table that Mclaren now have to do without. They also brought the possibility of becoming champions again some day. For a customer team to win titles in this era or the next would be all but impossible. Maybe Red Bull could pull it off but I'd say the odds are against even them and they have a vastly superior chassis.

I do agree and I argued as much on here when the decision was being made. But at the same time, I can understand why patience ran out after three years of waiting. It's not as though Honda weren't quite there yet: they failed quite spectacularly. There was always a risk that Honda would turn the corner after the divorce but there again the risk that they wouldn't actually improve was probably far greater at the time. They were woeful. It's not that long ago that McLaren were seen as one of the giants in the sport. Now, judging by many of the comments, many appear to have forgotten about their legacy at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3242
Zoue

You don’t get to decide that I lost the argument. You are not the pf1 discussion police, last time I checked anyway. But I know that you are never wrong and it is pointless to argue with you because, once again you have never been wrong. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4870
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the engine came good this year. It's maintaining that works team situation that should have taken precedent. Honda brought a lot of resources to the table that Mclaren now have to do without. They also brought the possibility of becoming champions again some day. For a customer team to win titles in this era or the next would be all but impossible. Maybe Red Bull could pull it off but I'd say the odds are against even them and they have a vastly superior chassis.

I do agree and I argued as much on here when the decision was being made. But at the same time, I can understand why patience ran out after three years of waiting. It's not as though Honda weren't quite there yet: they failed quite spectacularly. There was always a risk that Honda would turn the corner after the divorce but there again the risk that they wouldn't actually improve was probably far greater at the time. They were woeful. It's not that long ago that McLaren were seen as one of the giants in the sport. Now, judging by many of the comments, many appear to have forgotten about their legacy at all

I actually do remember that you were one of the few that said they should stick it out. Yeah, it's sad what has happened to this team. They were my favorite team when I first started watching as a kid because Senna was on the team and so I had to root for them. I've seen most of their high points and low points these last 30 years or so. It's really a shame what seems to be happening to them but I already saw this with Williams so I think I am prepared for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
kleefton wrote:
Zoue

You don’t get to decide that I lost the argument. You are not the pf1 discussion police, last time I checked anyway. But I know that you are never wrong and it is pointless to argue with you because, once again you have never been wrong. :thumbup:

I'm not deciding anything. You made that decision once you resorted to insults instead of reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:45 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the engine came good this year. It's maintaining that works team situation that should have taken precedent. Honda brought a lot of resources to the table that Mclaren now have to do without. They also brought the possibility of becoming champions again some day. For a customer team to win titles in this era or the next would be all but impossible. Maybe Red Bull could pull it off but I'd say the odds are against even them and they have a vastly superior chassis.

I do agree and I argued as much on here when the decision was being made. But at the same time, I can understand why patience ran out after three years of waiting. It's not as though Honda weren't quite there yet: they failed quite spectacularly. There was always a risk that Honda would turn the corner after the divorce but there again the risk that they wouldn't actually improve was probably far greater at the time. They were woeful. It's not that long ago that McLaren were seen as one of the giants in the sport. Now, judging by many of the comments, many appear to have forgotten about their legacy at all

I actually do remember that you were one of the few that said they should stick it out. Yeah, it's sad what has happened to this team. They were my favorite team when I first started watching as a kid because Senna was on the team and so I had to root for them. I've seen most of their high points and low points these last 30 years or so. It's really a shame what seems to be happening to them but I already saw this with Williams so I think I am prepared for it.

:thumbup:

You're better prepared than me, I have to say. I still can't accept that they've sunk so low as to be a midfield team, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And I still hope that they can turn it around in short order!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3242
sandman1347 wrote:
This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.


I agree with the first paragraph but don’t agree that they should have stuck to Honda. Something was definitely wrong with that relationship and I believe we are just starting to see the fruits of it. Honda never looked like they do now at any point in the last 3 years. Never. So it’s best both parties went their separate ways in my opinion. Sometimes people are just not meant to deal with each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26410
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
It does not look ultra competitive. The Toro Rossos are notably slower than all the Renault powered cars in practice so far.

Indeed but I would say it's pulling it's weight more than the McLaren car and that's despite McLaren having better drivers and supposedly better engineers.

We'll see after quali, but I have to admit that right now it looks as though you're right.

Of course, it's really impossible to say (just like it was between 2015 and 2017) how much of that is Toro Rosso and how much is the Honda PU.

Now were not going to say that the STR is the best car in F1 but it just needs a decent engine? ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5406
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
We'll see after quali, but I have to admit that right now it looks as though you're right.

Of course, it's really impossible to say (just like it was between 2015 and 2017) how much of that is Toro Rosso and how much is the Honda PU.

Now were not going to say that the STR is the best car in F1 but it just needs a decent engine? ;)

Best car? No. But they've started the season with a very good car before, such as in 2015 when it began as probably the 4th-fastest car and actually ahead of the Red Bulls.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26410
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.

Of course they put pressure on Honda - this is big business we are talking about. None of this exempts Honda from only committing to what they could deliver. I note you didn't answer my questions?

The part about Honda allowing themselves to be dictated to by their partners, I guess they should have done a Renault when they told Red Bull to do one, not part of Japanese culture I guess?
Why is the only option to tell their partner to "do one?" No room for discussion and compromise?

How do you know that McLaren were prepared to compromise, they seemed to be all about building the best car they possibly could and then telling anyone that wanted to know, I feel that Honda just bowed to McLaren's greater experience about what it takes to build a race winning car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26410
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?

Just highlighted the important bit in bold for you ;)

I guess you didn't read the article about the extra room they found available under the STR engine cover that was designed around the Renault engine enabled Honda to find another 10KW, they've not been restricted by the kind of size zero aero concepts they had at McLaren.
Again, this is something they should have insisted on themselves. If they needed more room to produce a PU that both had extra power and didn't break down every 5 minutes then they should have insisted on it

Well it seems to me that McLaren controlled the design parameters from day 1, I heard Honda initially designed 3 engines because McLaren kept saying that the engines were too big.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26410
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the engine came good this year. It's maintaining that works team situation that should have taken precedent. Honda brought a lot of resources to the table that Mclaren now have to do without. They also brought the possibility of becoming champions again some day. For a customer team to win titles in this era or the next would be all but impossible. Maybe Red Bull could pull it off but I'd say the odds are against even them and they have a vastly superior chassis.

I do agree and I argued as much on here when the decision was being made. But at the same time, I can understand why patience ran out after three years of waiting. It's not as though Honda weren't quite there yet: they failed quite spectacularly. There was always a risk that Honda would turn the corner after the divorce but there again the risk that they wouldn't actually improve was probably far greater at the time. They were woeful. It's not that long ago that McLaren were seen as one of the giants in the sport. Now, judging by many of the comments, many appear to have forgotten about their legacy at all

McLaren were already on a downward path before Honda linked up with them, they have not won a race since 2012.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26410
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
We'll see after quali, but I have to admit that right now it looks as though you're right.

Of course, it's really impossible to say (just like it was between 2015 and 2017) how much of that is Toro Rosso and how much is the Honda PU.

Now were not going to say that the STR is the best car in F1 but it just needs a decent engine? ;)

Best car? No. But they've started the season with a very good car before, such as in 2015 when it began as probably the 4th-fastest car and actually ahead of the Red Bulls.

The only thing that mitigates the car being that good is the competitive top speed of the Honda engine, poor top speed was the metric to show how bad the Honda engine was inside the McLaren.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:
emb1496 wrote:
Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.


You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


How are Honda doing better than they were at the end of last year? (Specifically since they started getting constant deployment now from Monza).

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
mikeyg123 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:
emb1496 wrote:
Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.


You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...


Indeed. McLaren are over 9ths quicker than they were last year in FP2 while STR are 8ths slower.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait


More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?


All competitive chassis builders put demands on their PU department. Renault have confirmed they were at fault for putting in a damaged turbo in testing. They also said McLaren have enough cooling, Brundle confirmed this again in the show today. What they have is a heat pocket which isn't a big deal.

McLaren allowed changes to the Honda PU in winter 2015/16 and massive changes in winter 16/17. What changes didn't they allow?

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:
emb1496 wrote:
Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.


You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.


Again, how?

I can see the argument for improvement over the winter and agree, but the big step came in Monza where they finally started getting full deployment from the MGU-H.

With McLaren.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3242
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:
emb1496 wrote:
Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.


You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


How are Honda doing better than they were at the end of last year? (Specifically since they started getting constant deployment now from Monza).


Please tell me when mclaren honda was in the top 3 in trap speeds at any point last year and when did they have as good reliability over such an extended period of time (the barcelona tests, and now p1 and p2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait


More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?


Same thing. What did Mercedes chassis department do last winter as confirmed on Sky's development corner with Ted? They "demanded" changes to 90% of the PU so they could package it tighter at the rear.

Renault supply 3 entirely different packaged PU's to 3 teams. Including one insanely packaged Red Bull.

These are the demands people that want to win make.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:
emb1496 wrote:
Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.


You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


How are Honda doing better than they were at the end of last year? (Specifically since they started getting constant deployment now from Monza).


Please tell me when mclaren honda was in the top 3 in trap speeds at any point last year and when did they have as good reliability over such an extended period of time (the barcelona tests, and now p1 and p2)


Speed trap data is inherently flawed because of chassis influence. Look at how often Manor crushed Mercedes, and Sauber with a year old engine crushed Ferrari in the traps last year. McLaren also self admittedly stopped stripping the car of d/f in 2017 and focused on overall lap time and tyre performance over straightline speed. That would hurt Honda on the traps last year.

They didn't suffer any reliability issues post Monza though and did over 300 laps in two days of testing in November at Abu Dhabi.

All with McLaren. STR used 3 PU's in week one of the test and suffered an undisclosed issue on the last day of week two with Hartley.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.


One of the best cars they said. And that's without a full chassis dyno like the big 3 allowing 24/7 running and testing and they have had their hydraulic suspension taken off them this year and have a brand new rear suspension design to bed in and with limited running in winter testing and a late PU change they are about 0.5-0.8 away from Red Bull on the long runs.

You'll forgive me if I don't find that a bad starting point considering the above.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26410
Lotus49 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:
emb1496 wrote:
Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.


You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...


Indeed. McLaren are over 9ths quicker than they were last year in FP2 while STR are 8ths slower.

When you look in detail it points to the cars themselves being quite equal and also bear in mind STR have different (slower?) drivers this year, yes the Honda engine is weaker but it doesn't point to the McLaren itself being a world beater either last season.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
UnlikeUday wrote:
A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.


Yes they needed 3 years just to use the mgu-h properly. And even then large parts of the ers system is still McLaren made because of Honda's complete lack of knowledge on the ers side as they never even ran KERS. They knew nothing and admitted so just this winter.

They fixed it, with McLaren, in Monza last year but it came too late to save the partnership. I do agree with Kleefton about they should've split as they couldn't work together and communication looked poor on that documentary so McLaren are hardly completely blameless but they ain't the EM.

If Honda don't know anything and can't say no if they're being stretched then how do McLaren operate when they've specifically signed a star driver expecting competitiveness from day one. Promises Arai himself had offered.

What do you do? Do an STR and giving them free reign only works because they have 3 years of knowledge behind them and have the consultants McLaren forced on them (Illien) still in place. Doing that in 2015 gets you what? Still no ERS knowledge, still no lean burn, still no oil burn. still no reliability and no Illien.

Where does this magic performance and knowledge come from just because McLaren tell them don't worry about the chassis, we'll be 9th like STR until you get it right.

Blame McLaren for being naive enough to think Honda could hit the ground running, blame them for poor communication sure but how on earth are they the problem when the engine manufacturer can't build the engine and don't know anything about the hybrid side?

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Teddy007 wrote:

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..


Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.


Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...


Indeed. McLaren are over 9ths quicker than they were last year in FP2 while STR are 8ths slower.

When you look in detail it points to the cars themselves being quite equal and also bear in mind STR have different (slower?) drivers this year, yes the Honda engine is weaker but it doesn't point to the McLaren itself being a world beater either last season.


Considering their winter testing lap count and the car was being shaken to death to the point the drivers couldn't change gear properly it would be pretty outstanding to have been a world beater at that stage though wouldn't it?

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?

Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.


Getting an influence in engine design is the entire reason they left Mercedes and is the entire point of works status. 'Size Zero' was just a term for maximising aero in an aero limited formula like it was supposed to be. Ferrari did the same and it cost Marmoni and Tombazis their job. Renault did the same, their turbo was even smaller than Ferrari's.

Only Mercedes did it the right way, Honda weren't under some extra strain that no-one else was asked to do here. The difference was what was produced was even worse than Ferrari's and Renault's. They just couldn't get the ers to work as they knew nothing about even the simplest part like the K.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.

Not missing it. That was last year, was it not? I've little doubt that the architecture of the Renault and the Honda are completely different, so I don't think a direct comparison is possible.

And last year McLaren weren't the only ones making claims about their chassis. Several independents also stated the car looked very good in the corners. What makes you think they didn't?

Really which teams were claiming they had the fastest car?


Amus claimed several times the car was one of the best according to GPS traces, they also said it was one of the best on the tyres and that they along with Red Bull had a trick suspension that could lower the car on the straights. The year before James Allen wrote about rival engineers believing McLaren finished the year 3rd best (Only coz Ferrari stopped developing imo, but still).

It was never only Alonso and McLaren talking up their chassis. But that suspension is banned now, they have a new one, they've had the least running in winter testing again and were installing a new PU over the winter. All without a dyno, half the workforce and at least 100m less than the top 3 budget wise.

Give them a chance eh. Because of no full chassis dyno they need all the running they can get so you will see bigger improvements in season than out of season.

They've been 9th,6th and 9th and now look like certain fighters for 4th best with Renault once Haas fall away as usual. And that's straight out the gate with a new suspension,limited running and a new pu.

It's bonkers how this is being treated as some embarrassing failure because of two practice sessions.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?


A few weeks ago he said he hoped they can be on Renault level by mid season. https://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/mark ... ible-2019/

Then he gave an interview a few days ago where he changed it to the end of the season. https://www.eurosport.co.uk/formula-1/r ... tory.shtml

Has he now said they are on par has he? Good to know the Honda is as predictable as ever...

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.

Of course they put pressure on Honda - this is big business we are talking about. None of this exempts Honda from only committing to what they could deliver. I note you didn't answer my questions?

The part about Honda allowing themselves to be dictated to by their partners, I guess they should have done a Renault when they told Red Bull to do one, not part of Japanese culture I guess?
Why is the only option to tell their partner to "do one?" No room for discussion and compromise?

How do you know that McLaren were prepared to compromise, they seemed to be all about building the best car they possibly could and then telling anyone that wanted to know, I feel that Honda just bowed to McLaren's greater experience about what it takes to build a race winning car.


BIB- We know for a fact they were because we know for a fact they compromised several times. They took a massive cog hit for 2016 when Honda increased the size by 30mm,they allowed a complete concept switch for 2017 and then they changed PU suppliers which again forced compromise with the rear suspension. Just some examples, I'm sure there were more.

Were they prepared to offer Honda complete carte-blanche as STR have done? Of course not, they were a works outfit trying to win and needed the engine packaging to reflect that.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
We'll see after quali, but I have to admit that right now it looks as though you're right.

Of course, it's really impossible to say (just like it was between 2015 and 2017) how much of that is Toro Rosso and how much is the Honda PU.

Now were not going to say that the STR is the best car in F1 but it just needs a decent engine? ;)

Best car? No. But they've started the season with a very good car before, such as in 2015 when it began as probably the 4th-fastest car and actually ahead of the Red Bulls.

The only thing that mitigates the car being that good is the competitive top speed of the Honda engine, poor top speed was the metric to show how bad the Honda engine was inside the McLaren.


No it wasn't. It was ICE bhp deficit,ers deployment deficit and over all peak power deficit that the drivers/team screamed about.

The speed traps and top speed aren't dyno numbers, they are car influenced as evident by widely different numbers even with the same PU.

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3242
Lotus49 wrote:

Speed trap data is inherently flawed because of chassis influence. Look at how often Manor crushed Mercedes, and Sauber with a year old engine crushed Ferrari in the traps last year. McLaren also self admittedly stopped stripping the car of d/f in 2017 and focused on overall lap time and tyre performance over straightline speed. That would hurt Honda on the traps last year.

They didn't suffer any reliability issues post Monza though and did over 300 laps in two days of testing in November at Abu Dhabi.

All with McLaren. STR used 3 PU's in week one of the test and suffered an undisclosed issue on the last day of week two with Hartley.


I honestly respect your knowledge of this stuff but you can’t have it both ways.
Last year Honda was at the bottom of trap speeds consistently but everyone was saying it’s due to the power unit.
Now TR is posting some impressive traps and we are saying it’s due to the chassis. I mean come on.
Trap speeds are not the sole indicator of engine power. I think we can all agree on that. But it is certainly a sign. Because more often than not it’s a Mercedes powered car at the top.

Yes once in a while you get a car that has zero downforce like the Manor of years ago post some super high traps but they did have Merc power also. You are comparing that to a James Key car, a baby RedBull car, a car that has decent levels of downforce.

And the Honda failure you mentioned at Barcelona testing I read was simply a precautionary stop, so not really a failure,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Speed trap data is inherently flawed because of chassis influence. Look at how often Manor crushed Mercedes, and Sauber with a year old engine crushed Ferrari in the traps last year. McLaren also self admittedly stopped stripping the car of d/f in 2017 and focused on overall lap time and tyre performance over straightline speed. That would hurt Honda on the traps last year.

They didn't suffer any reliability issues post Monza though and did over 300 laps in two days of testing in November at Abu Dhabi.

All with McLaren. STR used 3 PU's in week one of the test and suffered an undisclosed issue on the last day of week two with Hartley.


I honestly respect your knowledge of this stuff but you can’t have it both ways.
Last year Honda was at the bottom of trap speeds consistently but everyone was saying it’s due to the power unit.
Now TR is posting some impressive traps and we are saying it’s due to the chassis. I mean come on.
Trap speeds are not the sole indicator of engine power. I think we can all agree on that. But it is certainly a sign. Because more often than not it’s a Mercedes powered car at the top.

Yes once in a while you get a car that has zero downforce like the Manor of years ago post some super high traps but they did have Merc power also. You are comparing that to a James Key car, a baby RedBull car, a car that has decent levels of downforce.

And the Honda failure you mentioned at Barcelona testing I read was simply a precautionary stop, so not really a failure,


I think if anyone was pointing solely at the speed trap to criticise Honda last year they were doing so wrongly. That could be innocent enough if it was before McLaren said they weren't stripping the car of d/f because in 2015/16 they were stripping it and still they were bottom, or it could be just to stick the boot in granted which is unfair.

We also learned they could drop the car on the straights so even with that trick if they are still at the bottom it won't look good to people but you always need more information before we can have a good idea of what's going on. Plus we have to remember the Honda engine improved dramatically during the season too so the picture is always changing.

But if you look at sector times along with the speed trap from this weekend you get a better idea. For example STR are matching McLaren here in S1 (power) but losing 5/6ths in S3 (chassis). STR are also complaining about the tyres giving up before the end of the lap, (a classic sign of not enough d/f and the tyres being overworked).

All of that is what gives the impression STR are running less d/f, not just the speed trap alone and me trying to have it both ways or anything. Without the other things I'd be happy to say they've made a huge jump rather than just a good one, (which I do think they have done).

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4640
I got the sector info from here. http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20900 ... ii/page-30

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY-UejIU8AAuGqG.jpg

_________________
"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: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:25 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?

Just highlighted the important bit in bold for you ;)

I guess you didn't read the article about the extra room they found available under the STR engine cover that was designed around the Renault engine enabled Honda to find another 10KW, they've not been restricted by the kind of size zero aero concepts they had at McLaren.
Again, this is something they should have insisted on themselves. If they needed more room to produce a PU that both had extra power and didn't break down every 5 minutes then they should have insisted on it

Well it seems to me that McLaren controlled the design parameters from day 1, I heard Honda initially designed 3 engines because McLaren kept saying that the engines were too big.

And you base your reasoning on this? Did you stop to think that maybe the engines were simply too big? No, the fault must have been McLaren's for asking them to hit a target size :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:33 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.
I agree they should have held on to Honda. But having said that, it's easy with hindsight. They had no way of knowing last year whether or not Honda would have produced another dud

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the engine came good this year. It's maintaining that works team situation that should have taken precedent. Honda brought a lot of resources to the table that Mclaren now have to do without. They also brought the possibility of becoming champions again some day. For a customer team to win titles in this era or the next would be all but impossible. Maybe Red Bull could pull it off but I'd say the odds are against even them and they have a vastly superior chassis.

I do agree and I argued as much on here when the decision was being made. But at the same time, I can understand why patience ran out after three years of waiting. It's not as though Honda weren't quite there yet: they failed quite spectacularly. There was always a risk that Honda would turn the corner after the divorce but there again the risk that they wouldn't actually improve was probably far greater at the time. They were woeful. It's not that long ago that McLaren were seen as one of the giants in the sport. Now, judging by many of the comments, many appear to have forgotten about their legacy at all

McLaren were already on a downward path before Honda linked up with them, they have not won a race since 2012.

I think you're being a bit creative here. They did produce a dud in 2013, but in 2014 nobody won a race apart from Mercedes and Red Bull. After that, McLaren were with Honda, which scuppered any further chances of producing a race winner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7998
There was a short 'throw away line' by Patric Headd on Sky this morning after qualli when they were doing the chat thing in the studio.

The Honds engine was mentioned and he said (paraphrased in my words as I did not record it) when the Honda engine arrived at Williams first, it was in more or less in kit form. There ware boxes they had to be put together and it took Williams a while to sort it out.

This was as opposed to having a set footprint, which is what is claimed with Mclaren.

Nothing conclusive, or pro -anti honda, he just said it, but lots to think about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 740
Location: India
As expected there is a huge gap to RBR 1sec gap which is their benchmark. I do not remember but they blamed Honda for some 1.5sec gap and claimed to have best chassis. Now they have the same engine so they can 't BS anymore :nod: From P7-P12 I think driver can make a difference. Mclaren should have been in Q3 today

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4870
Mercedes-Benz wrote:
As expected there is a huge gap to RBR 1sec gap which is their benchmark. I do not remember but they blamed Honda for some 1.5sec gap and claimed to have best chassis. Now they have the same engine so they can 't BS anymore :nod: From P7-P12 I think driver can make a difference. Mclaren should have been in Q3 today

McLaren are not only behind Red Bull; they are behind the works team as well. In other words, they are the weakest Renault-powered team.

We'll see how Honda does this year but one thing is for certain; McLaren have been exposed as being all talk. The chassis is nowhere near the best on the grid. It is a midfield chassis.


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: Jenson's Understeer, mds, Paolo_Lasardi, SteveW, Zoue 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