2022 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[Ben1980]

He says it was previously "unique" not currently "unique"

[Ben1980]

I'm honestly astounded how much weight you are putting on a Lando Norris puff piece, where he is basically saying how good he is, because he was able to drive well last season while also driving well a car with new characteristics.

It's basically Lando saying he understands why Daniel isn't as good as him.

Norris said these exact words and yes i put a lot of weight on them as you so eloquently put it.
You are entitled to put zero weight on his words sure. heck you can even claim every word he said is a lie and write your own Norris article. To each his own and more power to you

But you understand about reading between the lines? Not everything said, means exactly what is written or even said. Especially in sportsman interviews.

Surely no one reads and takes everything as 100% gospel factual words.

Again astounded. It's a PR puff piece

[Mclarensenna]

I'm honestly astounded how much weight you are putting on a Lando Norris puff piece, where he is basically saying how good he is, because he was able to drive well last season while also driving well a car with new characteristics.

It's basically Lando saying he understands why Daniel isn't as good as him.

Norris said these exact words and yes i put a lot of weight on them as you so eloquently put it.
You are entitled to put zero weight on his words sure. heck you can even claim every word he said is a lie and write your own Norris article. To each his own and more power to you

But you understand about reading between the lines? Not everything said, means exactly what is written or even said. Especially in sportsman interviews.

Surely no one reads and takes everything as 100% gospel factual words.

Again astounded. It's a PR puff piece

You can "read between the lines" "be astounded", claim its a "PR puff piece." or even conclude that Norris is Santa claus

I will read the actual article word for word pasting facts and quotes directly from Norris.

[JPower]

You stated this to my previous post i will paste your exact quote below

"He didn't call it a "one off" car." <----- Sorry but that is your semantic reply not mine.

Norris and Sainz both clearly did call it a 1 off car as they used the word unique which does mean one off according to the dictionary.

So what is your point?

James Key said Ricciardo's issues this year aren't the same as last year. Lando has said both drivers have had to start from zero and he's had to adapt his driving style to make it perform.

Where is the accountability for Ricciardo in this equation?

He's tenths off because some drivers will never adapt well to certain characteristics. That could happen with any car. We've seen it time and again. Just because the McLaren might need a certain style, doesn't not mean its fundamentals are bad.

[Ben1980]

So what we know then, is the car had characteristics that Lando Norris was able to overcome and score good results and points but Ricciardo was unable to overcome.

But some of those characteristics have gone, and Ricciardo is still not quite got on top of the changes, though seems a bit closer as the car isn't as good in general.

But this year's car is not unique from what I can tell.

[SmallSoldier]

<------ You are downplaying how unique the Mclaren is to drive. Norris and Sainz and Ric have repeatedly said it has unique traits never seen on any race car they have driven before.
This makes it a unicorn when that rare they have never been seen before.
hence the term "unicorn"
You can argue all you like and repeat the same thing over and over again but sorry i will ALWAYS take the word of Norris over posters here who have never driven the Mclaren F1 car.

You keep sending that article. I read when it came out. Doesn't change anything.

Also, no one said specifically said "never seen".

Regardless of these traits its up to the driver to get the most out of the car.

Its obvious Ricciardo hasn't figured out how to do that. That's the main issue for this season and for Ricciardo's career in general.

We also seem to be forgetting that in reality, Norris hasn’t driven any other F1 cars before McLaren, so his reference point is F2 cars which are way different in every aspect to F1 cars.

No one is asking for Daniel to be a Champion with this particular since it is unrealistic… But, there is an expectation to be close to his team mate and why not beat him every once in a while… To add to the team’s point haul, which ultimately means a heft amount of prize money depending on where they finish… With a very high price tag, comes an expectation of performance to match.

[the EDGE]

To add to the team’s point haul, which ultimately means a heft amount of prize money depending on where they finish…

Putting aside the sponsorship money a driver like Daniel brings,

Does that argument still stand in the ‘reduced prize money’ & ‘cost cap/sliding resource scale’ era we are now in

Money can be made, development resource can not

Perhaps finishing 5th this year would be of more benefit to the teams title challenge than finishing 4th

[Big Tea]

To add to the team’s point haul, which ultimately means a heft amount of prize money depending on where they finish…

Putting aside the sponsorship money a driver like Daniel brings,

Does that argument still stand in the ‘reduced prize money’ & ‘cost cap/sliding resource scale’ era we are now in

Money can be made, development resource can not

Perhaps finishing 5th this year would be of more benefit to the teams title challenge than finishing 4th

The higher they finish, the more they can ask of sponsors, and finishing position is what attracts sponsors.
Prize money alone is not the earning point, especially if there are (and I don't know if Mclaren have ) 'bonus' points where an appearance on the podium or other public achievement is involved. There is something to be said for step-by-step progress and consolidation, but it seems to have plateaued this last few races.

[SmallSoldier]

To add to the team’s point haul, which ultimately means a heft amount of prize money depending on where they finish…

Putting aside the sponsorship money a driver like Daniel brings,

Does that argument still stand in the ‘reduced prize money’ & ‘cost cap/sliding resource scale’ era we are now in

Money can be made, development resource can not

Perhaps finishing 5th this year would be of more benefit to the teams title challenge than finishing 4th

It would be a part of an interesting analysis that should probably be done by focusing in 3 aspects:

A) Effect of prize money in the Budget Cap era
B) Sponsorship impact due to WDC position and market image
C) Team motivation driven by WDC position

I believe that for most of us fans it would be impossible to make a fair / correct assessment on any of those aspects… Yes, the Budget Cap does help financially, but McLaren wasn’t running at a Profit before the Budget Cap… Furthermore, the fact that the Cap doesn’t consider the Drivers, Top Executives, Marketing and a few other areas means that McLaren might as well be running at the same overall budget (potentially even higher) than they did before the Cap was put in place… Ultimately, there is a reason why McLaren has struggled in the past financially and they still have important amounts of debt that need to be kept under control… McLaren seems to be in a way better place from a financial stand point, but by no means can it scuff at several millions based on their finishing position.

Their ultimate position also affects their power to negotiate better deals with Sponsors (aside from Sponsor bonuses that sometimes are part of the deal) and attract new and better sponsors… There is a reason why the MCL33 was almost “naked” in terms of sponsors and it was driven by what was very forgettable seasons before that… As McLaren started improving their performance and position in the championship, more sponsors and of better quality were attracted to the Team.

Finally, there is also a piece of the Team’s motivation and I’m not necessarily talking about the Drivers and on-track staff… There are several hundreds of employees at the factory and in the overall organization that will have their individual performances affected by the Team’s performance in the WDC… Purposely hindering your position for the possibility (because it wouldn’t be a guarantee) that you may have better performance in the following seasons most probably would have a negative effect, potentially canceling out (or even have a weighted negative effect) on future car’s performances.

I guess the question becomes which are the core factors that prevent the Team from moving upwards on the field… Is it the CFD / Wind Tunnel time are their disposal? (Williams and Haas had the biggest amounts of both for this season and they aren’t necessarily leading the midfield… Alpine had more time than McLaren for this season and their performance is on par with McLaren)… Is it the Tools and Infrastructure at their disposal? Is it a matter of Talent (new hires? Key positions replaced?)… Once you determine the above, which one has more impact and with solutions that are faster to implement?

Hard to know from so far away… But I would venture to say that their strategy to start with the infrastructure factor is probably the correct one since it is probably the one that will have the largest impact:

A) A better Wind Tunnel, that not only allows for a faster process / transportation time from Design to Tunnel to Data from the WT (which I believe is the lowest positive factor)… A new WT really helps with processing more information, in better detail and with more factors considered than the one they have today… A better WT probably compensates for the percentage of Wind Tunnel Time loss based on their WCC position… At the end, you have to use less wind tunnel time to get better quality, quantity and detail from the data.

B) Bringing in new talent (hopefully Talen that adds strength to the bench) would be inefficient if the Tools are not at their disposal… What’s the point of bringing someone from Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull if they will find that they don’t have the same tools / resources to perform their job as well as they did somewhere else… Also, there is a misconception that you can just plug someone in (specially in key positions) and that they will have the same effect as they did somewhere else… There is no one single individual responsible for the success of a Team, ultimately those Functional Leaders are the ones in the limelight, the ones that we discuss in forums like this, but the ones that come with the ideas, solutions and concepts are the anonymous team members that report to them… Long gone are the days of cars been designed in a sheet of paper (even when Marketing Materials show us these designers with pencil, rulers and paper doing so).

Ended up been a long post… I apologize… Just wanted to finish saying that we are also overreacting a bit this season, which is very unique in itself… A completely different concept of cars that doesn’t build on previous learned lessons, with changes to how performance is extracted, not only from an Aero perspective, but from a Mechanical perspective also (new suspension rules)… It was expected that some teams would get it right, some will get it wrong and some would come with concepts that even though aren’t performing today, may have more potential than the others in the long term… We saw up to 4 very different concepts this season, from Red Bulls undercut and wide sidepods, Ferrari’s no undercut, wide sidepods and tub, Mercedes’ no sidepod concept to McLaren’s mix of small sidepod, with no undercut and a very unique approach to the floor entrance… Which one has more development potential? Which one is the best to follow? Results indicate that Red Bull and Ferrari have found something that works, it won’t be surprising for Teams to start converging towards that path… Let’s see what happens next season, with clear benchmarks, indication of which concepts work better and hopefully better tools… I don’t expect McLaren to fight at the front, but I would expect them to considerably close the gap

[mwillems]

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I think that's the longest reply I've seen on this thread.

[SmallSoldier]

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I think that's the longest reply I've seen on this thread.

Lmao… Was in a boring meeting

[Big Tea]

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I think that's the longest reply I've seen on this thread.

TL:dr.. lol worth reading though.

[mwillems]

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I think that's the longest reply I've seen on this thread.

Lmao… Was in a boring meeting

lol Fair play, I usually play Words with Friends on my phone, but each to their own!

Thought I'd reply here rather against the megapost as two of those would fill the whole page!

Pretty much agree with what you are saying, the only point I'd be pedantic about is the idea that you'd pick a "improvement workflow" or the idea that Mclaren aren't already trying to improve their workforce or "borrow" headhunt staff, as you say, we'd only hear about it usually if it is the folks in the limelight.

The right approach is the approach they are almost certainly already making, which is to tackle every area that needs improvement with a clear plan for each workflow.

It wouldn't then matter if they don't yet have the best infrastructure, because the staff being brought in would be aware of the project to bring in that infrastructure and have the chance to have a voice in the shape of that infrastructure or usage of that infrastructure.

I suspect that everything in terms of change probably is happening in the right way already and for my part in starting this madness, the points I'd been raising for the past 2 races is just that people need to stop looking at two parts of the infrastructure (Sim and Tunnel) as being the golden bullets. I simplified it by saying that the people are also culpable, but what I didn't elaborate on is that it isn't just design talent but management decisions too - We have more to improve up than buying a couple of tools. Processes may be inefficient, do we have supply chain delays, are we overpaying, are lead times being managed effectively?

(incidentally another benefit of the wind tunnel is reduced costs in shipping people and parts to cologne which must cost several hundreds of thousands of pounds a year)

But I feel it is important to recognise that the team has not been great since the middle of last year up until recently and that we can't just "blame it on the tools", but also recognise that prior to that they have given us what we needed, including a race winning car that could have won more races than it did - aka and honest and balanced conversation about the state of our team.

[SmallSoldier]

Pretty much agree with what you are saying, the only point I'd be pedantic about is the idea that you'd pick a "improvement workflow" or the idea that Mclaren aren't already trying to improve their workforce or "borrow" headhunt staff, as you say, we'd only hear about it usually if it is the folks in the limelight.

The right approach is the approach they are almost certainly already making, which is to tackle every area that needs improvement with a clear plan for each workflow.

Didn’t mean that they shouldn’t be constantly be looking for and hiring talent… Nor that it’s a pre-requisite to have the Infrastructure in place before you acquire such talent… But, it is also a matter of focus and allocation of resources or priorities.

Whenever I have had a Team or Individual that isn’t performing, I’ve always made a point of asking myself if we are providing them with the resources they need to be successful and maximize results… If the answer is yes, well a change is coming… If the answer is No, we need to do everything possible to give them what they need (whether that is tangible things like Infrastructure or intangibles like guidance / direction / coaching).

I believe I’ve said this before… I agree with you 100% that the Wind Tunnel and the Simulator aren’t golden bullets, nor the only factor to help bring the team back to the front… But on the same token, I don’t think that we can underestimate the impact of them in the car’s performance and Team’s results.

Just to clarify, when I mean Infrastructure… I include from the Wind Tunnel and Simulator, to the computers, software, CNC equipment, 3D printers, etc… Formula 1 is very unique due to the speed of development that it requires and the amount of technology involved, the right tools can increase the rate of development, from concept to design to prototyping to testing to production for on track testing… If one can shorten those times, you are gaining a competitive advantage that in an sport measured in thousands of a second, can have a huge impact.

I read a couple of years ago, shortly after Seidl joined on how some of the infrastructure in place was pretty dated, probably at the pinnacle of the sport by 2010, but that unluckily wasn’t updated at the pace that technology was moving forward and that some of their adversaries were investing in their own equipment and facilities (this is the build in advantage that the top 3 have against the rest… A gap that wasn’t created in a season or two and that won’t be close that fast either).

[Mclarensenna]

You stated this to my previous post i will paste your exact quote below

"He didn't call it a "one off" car." <----- Sorry but that is your semantic reply not mine.

Norris and Sainz both clearly did call it a 1 off car as they used the word unique which does mean one off according to the dictionary.

So what is your point?

James Key said Ricciardo's issues this year aren't the same as last year. Lando has said both drivers have had to start from zero and he's had to adapt his driving style to make it perform.

Where is the accountability for Ricciardo in this equation?

He's tenths off because some drivers will never adapt well to certain characteristics. That could happen with any car. We've seen it time and again. Just because the McLaren might need a certain style, doesn't not mean its fundamentals are bad.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/norri ... 0our%20car
The point was Norris said it in the article above and you replied to me repeatedly claiming he did not.