Mclaren Honda 2015

[FoxHound]

What's to say you need a token to replace a part that performs well, but is unreliable?
If that's the case, changes cannot be meted out under the reliability clause. That's not the situation here.

Honda started well behind, if we used your methodology universally at Honda, they would finish every race a lap or 2 behind... but finish the race they would.

It's a game they are all playing, and seeing Honda's troubles is not as disconcerting to me as it shows they're pushing like mad.

[Cold Fussion]

As far as I understand, reliability upgrades require a consensus among all the manufactures to be allowed. In any case I doubt whole sale changes under the reliability clause will be allowed.

[GoranF1]

It emerges that the monocoque fitted to the short nose when it finally passed the crash tests was a different version to the one being raced in Austria.

Paddock rumours indicate the 'crash test' monocoque was a special lightweight one that the British team wants to debut at home at Silverstone in a fortnight.

http://www.onestopstrategy.com/dailyf1n ... se%27.html

[FoxHound]

As far as I understand, reliability upgrades require a consensus among all the manufactures to be allowed. In any case I doubt whole sale changes under the reliability clause will be allowed.

All manufacturers have had upgrades this year pertaining to reliability. Brundle made mention of changes Mercedes implemented 2 races previously, and Ferrari in Canada. Renault I don't have information on but when viewed as the top 2 having utilised this avenue when not really requiring it, how would Renault not have done so?

It's open for interpretation, but there is also the avenue of producing a part that is cheaper... if it can be demonstrably cheaper it can be changed. When I've the time I can dig up the articles.

[RicME85]

No manufacturer is going to reject a reliability change of another manufacturer because of the fear when they make a request they will just reject to spite them.
Brundle has said the same thing loads.

[McG]

I wonder how many engine suppliers McLaren approached or were approached by before being landed with Honda. Can't have been their first choice surely. I get the impression that Dennis and Honda knew they were going to be in this position but of course they have to talk themselves up for the media and sponsors and probably drivers.

Personally I have no confidence in Honda for the foreseeable future. The McLaren car looks great though and I'm sure they are going through a great development program with it, maybe even more so than previous years because of the design philosophy change and bigger budget.

Honda just plain have not done a good job and it's pointless discussing upgrades etc. They are years behind and face the toughest competition formula 1 have ever seen. The blame also must lie with whoever signed with Honda.
Very unhappy McLaren fan.

[drunkf1fan]

No manufacturer is going to reject a reliability change of another manufacturer because of the fear when they make a request they will just reject to spite them.
Brundle has said the same thing loads.

I think that is mostly oversimplifying it. Ultimately if a request is completely unreasonable I would expect other teams to deny it. But I'm also under the impression the, whoever it is, FIA I guess also have to approve it. It's not a case of make a new part, submit it, other teams approve and it's on the car. The FIA can reject it as not being for reliability, being too big a change or not proving the part being replaced is actually unreliable to begin with.

I'm under the impression that Honda wanted to change the MGU-H both in position and design using the reliability excuse and were denied permission and then went forward and spent tokens on the change.

[drunkf1fan]

What's to say you need a token to replace a part that performs well, but is unreliable?
If that's the case, changes cannot be meted out under the reliability clause. That's not the situation here.

Honda started well behind, if we used your methodology universally at Honda, they would finish every race a lap or 2 behind... but finish the race they would.

The first part, that isn't what I'm saying. Honda are spending the same tokens either way.

They started the season with the original MGU-H, upgrading it to an unreliable mgu-h that may be faster costing lets say one token, then upgrading that for reliability reasons for free.... means they've spent one token for the season upgrading the mgu-h.

If they design a single mgu-h that is both faster AND reliable and they only design one mgu-h, then it would cost a single token as well, it's one token either way. The former however requires at least two production cycles which means you're taking longer to get to the actual final design you need.

Adding 'performance' parts that aren't reliable provides effectively no help at all. The mgu-h has sent the team backwards and it isn't guaranteed they can upgrade it for free in the future. If finding reliability requires a significant enough change then it's unlikely to get changed without costing tokens. No engineer anywhere purposefully designs something unreliable.

THe real issue is that Honda designed, manufactured and tested this mgu-h and clearly believed it would help out on track. This is the fundamental issue we've seen with Honda, they thought they were bringing a good engine and didn't, they think they are going to use a better mgu-h but it actually made things worse.

It's the same as aero where some teams manage to get good new aero, where design/testing away from the track translates to good on track performance. Other teams struggle and think they've made a good part but it doesn't work on track. Merc/Ferrari are managing to make good engines, test them believe they are fast/reliable then they get to the track and are fast and reliable. Honda believe they are making good parts then get to track testing and find out, well, they aren't. There is no reason to spend tokens on an upgrade that is anything other than what they believe will be an upgrade. Something faster but so unreliable you can't finish a race isn't an upgrade.

[Cold Fussion]

As far as I understand, reliability upgrades require a consensus among all the manufactures to be allowed. In any case I doubt whole sale changes under the reliability clause will be allowed.

All manufacturers have had upgrades this year pertaining to reliability. Brundle made mention of changes Mercedes implemented 2 races previously, and Ferrari in Canada. Renault I don't have information on but when viewed as the top 2 having utilised this avenue when not really requiring it, how would Renault not have done so?

It's open for interpretation, but there is also the avenue of producing a part that is cheaper... if it can be demonstrably cheaper it can be changed. When I've the time I can dig up the articles.

If you had a problematic ICE, mgu-h and mgu-k, do you think you will be allowed to change the block, head, pistons, crank, mgu-h, mgu-k etc all under the pretext of reliability? There is quite obviously a limit to what can be changed and wholesale changes to the engine are not going to be allowed by the FIA.

[damager21]

I think that is mostly oversimplifying it. Ultimately if a request is completely unreasonable I would expect other teams to deny it. But I'm also under the impression the, whoever it is, FIA I guess also have to approve it. It's not a case of make a new part, submit it, other teams approve and it's on the car. The FIA can reject it as not being for reliability, being too big a change or not proving the part being replaced is actually unreliable to begin with.

I'm under the impression that Honda wanted to change the MGU-H both in position and design using the reliability excuse and were denied permission and then went forward and spent tokens on the change.

Lets not forget that last month FIA released new norms for engine manufacturers who face tougher scrutiny over changes to their engines made on reliability grounds.

A Technical Directive from F1 race director Charlie Whiting that was sent to teams in Monaco said: “All requests for changes to the homologated power unit for the purpose of improving reliability should be made to me in writing with copies to the FIA F1 Engine distribution group.

“All such requests, with supporting data where necessary, should be made at least eight days before the modified power unit is first used at an Event and must include:

1. A complete explanation of the failure, this should not only include clear photographic evidence but also when and where the failure(s) occurred.
2. Part number references for both old and new parts.
3. Full drawings of any new or modified components. Any pictorial or CAD views should be represented with the same zoom and angle.
4. Test and investigation results supporting the request where applicable.
5. Any relevant supporting information from external suppliers.”

This was also implemented to avoid last minute change requests.

[Andres125sx]

Another point to consider is before doing a reliability upgrade you must share info about your PU with the rest of the teams (I guess to aprove or reject the petition the rest of the teams must receive same info as FIA), so if Honda PU uses some innovative concepts, they probably will hate to share any info with them

So I think they will not ask for reliability upgrades as if they are free, they probably will try to avoid it as much as possible

[Goran2812]

wow... just wow... no words for this...

[Thunder]

So, it actually CAN get worse than Canada.....

[damager21]

I think Alonso clipped Kimi's rear so if not engine penalty, I expect Alonso to serve penalty for causing that collision. Another race with double DNF and No data collected.

Hope Jenson's retirement is not engine related, with limited running today it would be like running a new engine at Silverstone for both McLaren's.

McLaren Honda not just needs more horsepower but some luck as well. What a shame.

[CjC]

Won't they please bring back testing? I mean real testing.
If the midfield can't afford it then tough poo. We don't test because force India can't afford it but it not like they are challenging for the wins anyway without testing.
No testing = merc wins, no challenge especially from FI.
Testing= merc wins, very good chance Ferrari, Renault and honda can challenge, no challenge from FI.

Surely, surely we need to bring testing back for the good of the sport.
Ps I know this isn't the testing tread.