Mclaren Honda 2015

[Thunder]

Didn't Jonathan Neale say a week ago they could probably fix the PU without even using one more Token? So yes, they can change a lot on reliability basis.

Anyways, of to a hopefully better FP2.

Edit: Sooooo....

Either it was a great FP2 becaus they are so confident in the Car that they don't even run Race Simulations or it was bad because we actualy seem to go backwards on reliability.....

[Vasconia]

According to Marca, only Alonso will use the new aero package.... and will suffer first penalization of the seasson because of a 5th PU

And the new PU has last without problems as much as... 1 lap.

Do you know what part failed?

Who cares, I could say a random one and I wouldn't be far from the truth.

This is embarrassing, yet another problem for Alonso and they have checked Button´s PU in order to see if it can run the race on Sunday. Obviously it can´t.

[Andres125sx]

And the new PU has last without problems as much as... 1 lap.

Do you know what part failed?

Who cares, I could say a random one and I wouldn't be far from the truth.

I do

It was a simple connection, so no, the new PU didn´t last 1 lap, it was an instalation problem

This is embarrassing, yet another problem for Alonso and they have checked Button´s PU in order to see if it can run the race on Sunday. Obviously it can´t.

Obviously it can since it was not a real problem of the PU

btw, I´ve read Button´s problem came from the spark plugs

[mikeerfol]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119574
Button may run the upgrades as well

Austrian GP: McLaren changes more engine parts on both F1 cars
...
Although the upgrade was only scheduled to appear on Alonso's car in Austria, Button believes he could get use of it too.

"There's a chance I might be running with it tomorrow," he said

[a1b2i3r45]

When they change a part of the PU on reliability grounds/development token, does the modified part count as a new one or the count remains the same?

If it counts as a new one, then I suppose more penalties are on the way and also the pu will remain the same at the british gp which would be a shame as it is the home gp for mclaren !!!!

[Cold Fussion]

Deary me, 3 failures so far this weekend.

[drunkf1fan]

We had this talk earlier in the season that Mclaren had a major issue with the MGU-H, which wasn't a surprise to anyone. Supposedly they needed to change the design and move it from where it was in the engine, requested this be done under reliability but were denied. Now we get a new MGU-H with tokens spent and the engine is less freaking reliable.

Going in to Canada we had renault having used 4th ICE/TC/MGU-H on what 3 of the 4 cars and Mclaren on 3rd parts going into Canada. Somehow Button has used 3 ICE and MGU-H(though I think they kept the turbo for FP3?) in less than two full race weekends. That is genuinely insane. They went from way worse than Ferrari/Merc but a little better than Renault reliability to with one 'upgrade' way way way worse than Renault reliability.

I can't even comprehend how they got that much worse by updating their weakest part, that is a level of incompetence I thought almost impossible.

[Bomber_Pilot]

So a brand new gearbox failed?

[iHpled]

We had this talk earlier in the season that Mclaren had a major issue with the MGU-H, which wasn't a surprise to anyone. Supposedly they needed to change the design and move it from where it was in the engine, requested this be done under reliability but were denied. Now we get a new MGU-H with tokens spent and the engine is less freaking reliable.

Going in to Canada we had renault having used 4th ICE/TC/MGU-H on what 3 of the 4 cars and Mclaren on 3rd parts going into Canada. Somehow Button has used 3 ICE and MGU-H(though I think they kept the turbo for FP3?) in less than two full race weekends. That is genuinely insane. They went from way worse than Ferrari/Merc but a little better than Renault reliability to with one 'upgrade' way way way worse than Renault reliability.

I can't even comprehend how they got that much worse by updating their weakest part, that is a level of incompetence I thought almost impossible.

Maybe Honda using the tokens only for the sole purpose of getting performance out of the PU, if it brings negative effects to reliability so be it. There is no limit on reliability upgrades and as this year is thrown away lets maximize those reliability upgrades for this season. Its a long run game.. Lets see how we are performing at the end of the season.

Though if the PU is underperforming significantly by the end of the season, we shouldn't expect much from the Honda PU in 2016 either...

[GoranF1]

only 1 second behind now.....positve!

[drunkf1fan]

Not even positive is it, he was one of the few to get a supersoft lap in and was still a second down. That is going to be 1.5 seconds at least behind and at a very short track, would be 2 seconds at a semi average 1:30-40 second a lap track.

Was under the impression mgu-k reliability was a bit better than the rest for them, largely because Alonso had used 3 ice/mgu-h/turbo but only 2 mgu-k. Button for FP3 took a 5th Ice and mgu-k and a 6th Turbo and MGU-H.

I did think Mclaren and RBR would be attempted tactical penalties like opening up a new engine here, running it all in FP1, then going back to a previous engine. That way you get the penalties here where they will suck, then have a fresh engine for Silverstone or maybe Hungary where they might be a bit better. But they can't even do that because the engines are failing ludicrously quickly. They are using 2 engines a weekend almost.

[FoxHound]

Maybe Honda using the tokens only for the sole purpose of getting performance out of the PU, if it brings negative effects to reliability so be it. There is no limit on reliability upgrades and as this year is thrown away lets maximize those reliability upgrades for this season. Its a long run game.. Lets see how we are performing at the end of the season.

Though if the PU is underperforming significantly by the end of the season, we shouldn't expect much from the Honda PU in 2016 either...

Precisely how I believe it should be done. The reliability clause is there to be used, so tokens should only be for performance.

[drunkf1fan]

I have no idea why people think it's a good plan to not focus on reliability but performance only when using tokens. It's a silly argument that frankly has been being used as an excuse all over the place. Firstly we're told the design is fast and can be fixed in reliability to be awesome even though there is no evidence of it at all.

There is zero advantage to spending tokens on a new 'performance' part of an engine if it's unreliable, because it still means it needs to be redesigned again. Not focusing on reliability has been a smoke screen used to excuse the Honda engine all year. It's basically everyone pretending the engine is super fast but can't be used yet... with no proof at all it's actually fast.

If you can increase reliability without spending tokens that is great, but that isn't what is being talked about here. This is spending tokens for a design that doesn't work, in the hope you can redesign it a second time for no token cost? You end up at the same hopefully reliable design either way and either way it has cost you tokens. Even worse than that is if the reliable version is deemed too big a change you could end up spending tokens again to provide a reliable design. There is literally zero advantage to spending tokens to introduce a unreliable part.

[iHpled]

I have no idea why people think it's a good plan to not focus on reliability but performance only when using tokens. It's a silly argument that frankly has been being used as an excuse all over the place. Firstly we're told the design is fast and can be fixed in reliability to be awesome even though there is no evidence of it at all.

There is zero advantage to spending tokens on a new 'performance' part of an engine if it's unreliable, because it still means it needs to be redesigned again. Not focusing on reliability has been a smoke screen used to excuse the Honda engine all year. It's basically everyone pretending the engine is super fast but can't be used yet... with no proof at all it's actually fast.

If you can increase reliability without spending tokens that is great, but that isn't what is being talked about here. This is spending tokens for a design that doesn't work, in the hope you can redesign it a second time for no token cost? You end up at the same hopefully reliable design either way and either way it has cost you tokens. Even worse than that is if the reliable version is deemed too big a change you could end up spending tokens again to provide a reliable design. There is literally zero advantage to spending tokens to introduce a unreliable part.

I think you are missing the point here. Nobody here thinks that the Honda PU is fast, we can see that clearly. However as reliability upgrades are unlimited to use the logic approach is to use the tokens for performance only. Thereby performance upgrades are time and quantity limited because of how the token system is PU. So performance first, and reliability later. Atlas that how FoxHound and I think is the best approach developing the underpowered and unreliable Honda PU.

[drunkf1fan]

How does designing a 'performance' MGU-H that cost a token, that needs to be replaced by a performance + reliability MGU-H later that costs no tokens make sense?

You realise the performance + reliability version would either be a free upgrade if you have first make a performance only version, or cost a token if you didn't waste time on the performance version.

Lets say for arguments sake that the performance MGU-H not focused on reliability takes 4 weeks to design, 6 weeks to produce and 6 weeks to test. Then you install that, then you spend another 16 weeks to make a new version that is reliable for a total of 32 weeks. Why would you not make a performance + reliability version that takes 6-8 weeks to design, 6 weeks to produce and 6 weeks to test. There is no advantage in spending time and money making an upgrade... that you will intentionally replace with a more reliable version. There is no advantage but a massive disadvantage, it takes up time for a part that has no benefit.

Designing a part that ignores reliability when you HAVE to make something that is reliable in the end has no advantage at all. It's completely redundant. In Honda's situation their now 'new' MGU-H needs to be replaced with a new design, why not make that final design in the first place?