Mclaren Honda 2015

[Facts Only]

Well, this is one of such cases were you are talking to someone who actually knows pretty well what's inside the competition, let's leave it at that .

I don't think FO tried to insinuate what's inside those designs, nor does he try to make any point of that. We can assume however there's no silver bullet, no golden ticket out there to propel Honda from their current position to the front of the grid. It's perfectly reasonable these 2 designs both will tackle their current issues, but Mercedes, Ferrari and even Renault will develop too. They are shooting at a moving target, and I share the opinion of FO that they are not going to compete for victories next season. A breakthrough for their issues, sure, but not suddenly turning the power deficit into a surplus.

FO is right about the timescale: by now they have to know what's the best design route. If they are still trying to figure that out, then they'll be rushing the actual design yet again with a high chance for new or old issues. This is of course an "if". As I saw reported here, these 2 engines designs have variations, but essentially follow the same concepts. Let's simply hope Honda knows what generally the best approach is, and is otherwise just searching for the best power to drag ratio.

Maybe, but the comments he made didn't live up to his reputation.
Condemning Honda for making 2 designs solutions for 1 or more possible PU issues and comparing it to 10 designs they made for some nose over a decade ago was in MY opinion weak. So, I called him out on it.

Well yes and no. Lets take the quote:

It was the same when I saw that article on the Honda RA09 development and there was a picture of a about 10 different nose design concepts, everyone in the industry I know who saw it thought it was laughable how they were just taking a scatter gun approach to design.


It is a fact that when myself and my colleagues saw those pictures we thought it was laughable, So I was reporting a fact there, but the original thought was an opinion IE that there design process is laughable.

Perhaps I was to quick to condemn but I fully stand by my thoughts that if with only 6 months to go before 2016 they havent worked out what to do then they are in deep trouble.

From what I have seen from the current design process and heard first hand from people working with them in the 00's the Honda 'trial and error' way of working is not condusive to winning in F1, its slow, wasteful and expensive. Results on the track show that and that is all that matters in F1.

[diffuser]

Well yes and no. Lets take the quote:

It was the same when I saw that article on the Honda RA09 development and there was a picture of a about 10 different nose design concepts, everyone in the industry I know who saw it thought it was laughable how they were just taking a scatter gun approach to design.


It is a fact that when myself and my colleagues saw those pictures we thought it was laughable, So I was reporting a fact there, but the original thought was an opinion IE that there design process is laughable.

Perhaps I was to quick to condemn but I fully stand by my thoughts that if with only 6 months to go before 2016 they havent worked out what to do then they are in deep trouble.

From what I have seen from the current design process and heard first hand from people working with them in the 00's the Honda 'trial and error' way of working is not condusive to winning in F1, its slow, wasteful and expensive. Results on the track show that and that is all that matters in F1.

Well, I hope they get lucky. If like you say, their process is slow, time is something they don't have in this new formula.

[PlatinumZealot]

Well, this is one of such cases were you are talking to someone who actually knows pretty well what's inside the competition, let's leave it at that .

I don't think FO tried to insinuate what's inside those designs, nor does he try to make any point of that. We can assume however there's no silver bullet, no golden ticket out there to propel Honda from their current position to the front of the grid. It's perfectly reasonable these 2 designs both will tackle their current issues, but Mercedes, Ferrari and even Renault will develop too. They are shooting at a moving target, and I share the opinion of FO that they are not going to compete for victories next season. A breakthrough for their issues, sure, but not suddenly turning the power deficit into a surplus.

FO is right about the timescale: by now they have to know what's the best design route. If they are still trying to figure that out, then they'll be rushing the actual design yet again with a high chance for new or old issues. This is of course an "if". As I saw reported here, these 2 engines designs have variations, but essentially follow the same concepts. Let's simply hope Honda knows what generally the best approach is, and is otherwise just searching for the best power to drag ratio.

Maybe, but the comments he made didn't live up to his reputation.
Condemning Honda for making 2 designs solutions for 1 or more possible PU issues and comparing it to 10 designs they made for some nose over a decade ago was in MY opinion weak. So, I called him out on it.

Well yes and no. Lets take the quote:

It was the same when I saw that article on the Honda RA09 development and there was a picture of a about 10 different nose design concepts, everyone in the industry I know who saw it thought it was laughable how they were just taking a scatter gun approach to design.


It is a fact that when myself and my colleagues saw those pictures we thought it was laughable, So I was reporting a fact there, but the original thought was an opinion IE that there design process is laughable.

Perhaps I was to quick to condemn but I fully stand by my thoughts that if with only 6 months to go before 2016 they havent worked out what to do then they are in deep trouble.

From what I have seen from the current design process and heard first hand from people working with them in the 00's the Honda 'trial and error' way of working is not condusive to winning in F1, its slow, wasteful and expensive. Results on the track show that and that is all that matters in F1.

Mr. Facts, you were not adressing me I know, but with 6 months to go don't you think the scatter-gun approach is still a good one? I don't think it is slow though. Remember Porsche used a scatter gun approach in designing the 919 engine and that worked out well. Just keep the faith I say.

[GoranF1]

The team have been working hard on the new car in Woking and in Japan since April. The basic concept is there, so is the carbon-fibre monocoque.

http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/formu ... pent-force

[Edax]

Mr. Facts, you were not adressing me I know, but with 6 months to go don't you think the scatter-gun approach is still a good one? I don't think it is slow though. Remember Porsche used a scatter gun approach in designing the 919 engine and that worked out well. Just keep the faith I say.

PZ, this is unfortunaly not WEC. WEC has relative open development regulations concerning the engine/power unit. Furthermore, 10 open private tests and 10 closed private tests are allowed, with new entrants having an additional 10 days to their disposal. Porsche had 30 test days and open engine development to their disposal when they entered WEC. Best of all: Porsche could choose whenever they wanted to use those test days.

Honda does not have that luxury. It had 3 weeks testing during winter and after that not a single oppertunity to test out different engine configurations. Scatter shot implies you can experiment and test out at leasure, which simply is not an option in F1: either you get it right at the beginning of the season, or you don't and you are at the very least stuck until the next season, which also features only 2 weeks of testing to add insult to injury.

I don't want to drag this further down the pit, because this is a car thread, but F1 is entry-unfriendly. Besides the large costs, you also don't have any room for improvement. F1 has alienated itself in that regard, so for Honda to enter this kind of sport is a huge act of courage on it self.

There is another reason why scatter gun, trial and error or DOE type experimentation doesn't work. These kind of tests work when you have functional separation. If you don't you don't the number of variables (tests and testing parts) quickly escalate.

As I see it the engine is highly integrated in the design. The engine is not only the powertrain, but also a structural component, it determines to a certain extend the airo, COG etc. The level of functional intermixing in an F1 car seems astounding. More extreme than in any other performance series.

If that is the case you have to work by first time right principles. Testing is still important, but mainly to get the correlation between your design tools and reality.

[Juzh]

So mclaren is faster than RB in ALL speed traps, yet is somewhere in the region of 1.5s slower per lap.

http://i.imgur.com/NEfTHvc.jpg

In monza blame could definitely be put onto honda's shoulders, in singapore however not so much.

[proteus]

The question is how much wing have they used to achieve this speed. There should be taken a close look at the angle of the wings of both cars. And still, the Hondas engine is still weaker than Renault is and weak in constant power distribution (electric power)

[proteus]

+ Honda is unintentionally blame for weaker aero as well, as the car was not able to pick up the miles, due to the breakdowns (well i dont want to blame Honda completely for that, because Mclaren had its size zero demands which clearly backfired)

[mrluke]

So regardless of whether the lap time deficit is due to the engine or the chassis or the aero, it is always Honda's fault? Which part of the car are mclaren responsible for exactly?

[diffuser]

So regardless of whether the lap time deficit is due to the engine or the chassis or the aero, it is always Honda's fault? Which part of the car are mclaren responsible for exactly?

I think the Chassis is good the aero is good but they both need work. The PU isn't helping.

Personally, I had no illusions that McLaren's Chassis/aero was as RB's, Merc's or Ferrari's level. I was hopping they be even to TR but they're not.

Remember, Prodromou started in September last year.

[ME4ME]

Any quotes from Alonso today at all?
I wonder what he thinks of the situtation. He didn't look happy.

[Cuky]

He actually said that this is the best weekend for McLaren in this season
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24184/ ... 015-so-far

[GoranF1]

Alonso has recorded indentical time in Q as he did whit 2014 Ferrari. 1,46.328
Ferrari drivers are 2,5 sec faster than they were in 2014 Singapoure Q.
Says who Mclaren Honda and Renault cant bring the fight to Merc&Ferrari in 2015???

[Morteza]

He also posted this on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/alo_oficial/status/ ... 6057490432

[max_speed]

He also posted this on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/alo_oficial/status/ ... 6057490432

after this qualifying i have lost all hopes of having a better year ,in 2016. they are too far. effect is compounded engine is too weak to be fixed in span of 6 months and all the chassis talks was false.i guess Arai would be smiling a bit as his predictions did come true, button was claiming to be fighting for 5th/6th in singapore. i have started to feel that Alonso made a wrong move. ferrari yesterday was in a league and final lap was a scorcher.i think 2017 would be realistic target for them to think about podiums.