Mclaren Honda 2015

[j.yank]

On month ago:
Part of the reason Alonso is managing to remain upbeat is his apparent belief that McLaren’s actual chassis, the MP4-30, is among the very best on the grid. “I think we do have one of the best chassis on the grid,” he insisted. “The data proves it. “The cornering is the second best after Red Bull. I think we have a serious shortage of power and that is what we need to address,” Alonso added.

Maybe Alonso lies?

Which data proves it?

Alonso is a talented driver, but if the data is one corner of one track then that data is meaningless. Most data we see indicates Mercedes hold advantages through corners with Red Bull and Ferrari a bit further behind and after them Mclaren.

Well, probably the data that Alonso can see, but we don't. I guess that he sees more than anyone from us.

[mrluke]

But I´m not sure who think McLaren chasis is the best, even theirselves stated they´re fourth best after Mercedes, RBR and STR

So better than Ferrari? Williams? Renault? Force India?

I would say their chassis is a match to force India (for the third year in a row). Despite the down voting I got earlier in the thread I don't see any problem in suggesting that teams tend to carry forward their performance into the following year, as a rule teams position in WCC does not change by that much season to season.

Hence why I'd believe that rbr and Ferrari have a fairly strong chassis whereas Mclaren likely do not.

If Mclaren were soo good in the corners they should be all over the gearbox of the other cars up until the end of the straight whereas in reality they hold up the other teams who blast past on the straight.

If Mclaren have traction problems that will show as being overtaken on straights which looks like a lack of power. If Mclaren are slower through corners the same applies. If Mclaren have to brake earlier than the other teams you will still see them being overtaken at the end of the straights and finally if they are less fuel efficient they are going to be doing more lift and coast....

[Andres125sx]

On month ago:
Part of the reason Alonso is managing to remain upbeat is his apparent belief that McLaren’s actual chassis, the MP4-30, is among the very best on the grid. “I think we do have one of the best chassis on the grid,” he insisted. “The data proves it. “The cornering is the second best after Red Bull. I think we have a serious shortage of power and that is what we need to address,” Alonso added.

Maybe Alonso lies?

Or maybe McLaren lies showing biased data to Alonso?


If we start being evil minded...

[Andres125sx]

On month ago:
Part of the reason Alonso is managing to remain upbeat is his apparent belief that McLaren’s actual chassis, the MP4-30, is among the very best on the grid. “I think we do have one of the best chassis on the grid,” he insisted. “The data proves it. “The cornering is the second best after Red Bull. I think we have a serious shortage of power and that is what we need to address,” Alonso added.

Maybe Alonso lies?

Which data proves it?

Alonso is a talented driver, but if the data is one corner of one track then that data is meaningless. Most data we see indicates Mercedes hold advantages ...

Wich data?

If you can see some data, you can bet an arm Alonso is seeing that same data and a lot more you will never see

[Andres125sx]

But I´m not sure who think McLaren chasis is the best, even theirselves stated they´re fourth best after Mercedes, RBR and STR

So better than Ferrari? Williams? Renault? Force India?

I would say their chassis is a match to force India (for the third year in a row). Despite the down voting I got earlier in the thread I don't see any problem in suggesting that teams tend to carry forward their performance into the following year, as a rule teams position in WCC does not change by that much season to season.

Hence why I'd believe that rbr and Ferrari have a fairly strong chassis whereas Mclaren likely do not.

If Mclaren were soo good in the corners they should be all over the gearbox of the other cars up until the end of the straight whereas in reality they hold up the other teams who blast past on the straight.

If Mclaren have traction problems that will show as being overtaken on straights which looks like a lack of power. If Mclaren are slower through corners the same applies. If Mclaren have to brake earlier than the other teams you will still see them being overtaken at the end of the straights and finally if they are less fuel efficient they are going to be doing more lift and coast....

Only that sometimes it´s not that easy

Let´s imagine it´s only the PU and the chasis and aero are very good, but the lack of power force the team to use low DF setups so the car looks slow in fast corners. But they also need to harvest more energy in brakings to compensate the lack of mgu-h harvesting so they brake earlier and the car looks slow in that aspect too. But that´s not all and they also need an agreesive ICE mapping to compensate the lack of power so traction is also compromised and they can´t hit the throttle as soon as they could with a normal mapping. And obviously the PU will also use more fuel than needed so they need to lift and coast more than usual...

Then only a weak PU could mean the chasis and aero looks like rubbish when they´re not

I´m not saying this is real, but if we agree this is not absurd and could be posible, then we agree if we don´t know what compromises the team is assuming because of a weak PU, we can´t know how competitive is each part of the car.

[NL_Fer]

I keep repeating, the chassis is good, because the pu is compromised. The small pu, allowed the size zero cokebottle rear, which increases air blow right into the rear wing. So yes cornering will be pretty good, butt maybe is prevents Honda of building a competative pu.

[FoxHound]

I keep repeating, the chassis is good, because the pu is compromised. The small pu, allowed the size zero cokebottle rear, which increases air blow right into the rear wing. So yes cornering will be pretty good, butt maybe is prevents Honda of building a competative pu.

Bingo!

[turbof1]

I keep repeating, the chassis is good, because the pu is compromised. The small pu, allowed the size zero cokebottle rear, which increases air blow right into the rear wing. So yes cornering will be pretty good, butt maybe is prevents Honda of building a competative pu.

A rear wing they run quite flat due lack of a competitive PU, which means you aren't going to get much benefit from the better airflow there. Btw, the size zero cokebottle is more important for airflow over the top of the diffuser, not so much for the rear wing.

I'm not convinced it is a good chassis. On one hand we have zero proof for it, on the other hand we have a close source (yes Wazari, that'll be you) telling us it is decent but not great. Yes Alonso made that comment, but I feel his opinion is skewed. He tries to remain upbeat, too much I think. "One of the best" is quite subjective. Which chassis is currently the best on the grid? Mercedes because they are winning all year? Ferrari because they beat Mercedes heavily on a circuit putting heavy emphasis on chassis? Red Bull because of their reputation? The latter was even acclaimed by Newey to be behind Ferrari and Mercedes, so following up on that comment made by Alonso that the mclaren chassis is second best to red bull, it is by standard also behind ferrari and mercedes? Is this stretching too much the comments like we all do?

Where I am especially doubting this, is that the current car was not designed by Peter Prodromou since he arrived too late at Mclaren to make an impact. So it was designed by the same team that put mclaren the last 3 seasons into a dark age. He did evolve the car however, which is shown by the numerous aerodynamic tweaks. And I think that's the key: their rate of development. They'll probably will have a lot of potentional hidden in the car, but have not been able to fully extract that yet, but have been able to dig further to it. No other team with the same resources has made so many substantial changes to its car. Mercedes and Ferrari have shown only small developments because they are very, very deep into the diminishing returns, meaning they extract more or less every bit of performance out of their chassis, while mclaren has not yet been able to reach the bottom of the barrel.

[zeph]

I previously read McLaren believed its car to be fourth best, after Merc, RBR and Ferrari?

No way to assess that, until the PU has been sorted out.

[AnthonyG]

4th best is P7, P8, I don't think that's unrealistic.

[trinidefender]

McLaren has been running a compromised aero setup all year in an effort to reduce drag. This is evidenced by the fact that they tested a few monkey seat designs a few times but never actually raced with it. There are various other factors that have been mentioned by previous posters. Aggressive MGU-K harvesting causing worse braking stability. Aggressive power maps to make up for the lack of power meaning the car is less drivable.

Lastly and this is one that isn't ignored but I don't think has enough emphasis placed on is tyre temperature. There are 3 main ways that tyres gain temperature: brake heat, friction between the ground and tyre during cornering and finally heat generated through tyre flexing.
1. Tyre temperature from brake heat is the most long term. I.e. It takes the longest to heat up and the longest to cool down as the rim has to be heated which then heats the airmass in the tyre and the tyre sidewall which then heats the tread.
2. Temperature from tyre flexing is the middle ground where the tyre sidewall and treat gets heated up directly which then heats up the airmass inside and the rim. This will still hold temperature for a while but as less mass is heated up I.e. Predominantly the sidewall and tread then it loses this heat quicker.
3. The temperature created in turns heats up just the outer tread layer predominantly. As this is even less mass holding heat it gets shed more quickly once the turn is over.
Let's recap. Brakes heat, tyre flexing heat and finally surface friction heat. McLaren shouldn't have a problem with 1 and 3 however they may have a problem with No. 2. As they consistently are slower on the straights there is less energy built up in the whole carcass of the tyre. This has multiple effects, largely initial braking performance before the tyre surface can come up to temperature under sustained braking from a high speed zone.

They have been complaining all year of not enough heat in the tyres. It is my belief that the extra straight line speed may help quite a fair bit when it comes to tyre temp and ultimately grip.

[Abarth]

Less downforce means also less flexing work for the tyres.

[Abarth]

I keep repeating, the chassis is good, because the pu is compromised. The small pu, allowed the size zero cokebottle rear, which increases air blow right into the rear wing. So yes cornering will be pretty good, butt maybe is prevents Honda of building a competative pu.

That size zero story is way overerstimated. Honda won't need 2 inches more on each engine side to get a more performant ERS.

[Thunder18]

I appreciate F1 is a complex "sport", but the talk of having a better chassis than others is pointless as any good driver, and Mchonda have two very talented drivers, can overcome chassis failings to a certain degree. Put JB or FA into a TR and watch MV and CSjr become stale by comparison.

When the PU get's up to scratch then we will see if the chassis progress is also on par as they undoubtedly will progress further up the field.

[diffuser]

I keep repeating, the chassis is good, because the pu is compromised. The small pu, allowed the size zero cokebottle rear, which increases air blow right into the rear wing. So yes cornering will be pretty good, butt maybe is prevents Honda of building a competative pu.

That size zero story is way overerstimated. Honda won't need 2 inches more on each engine side to get a more performant ERS.

I agree and as proof you can see that moving the oil cooler has made the package shrink in overall size. So I foresee that they move things around a bit (as Ferrari did) to make the new larger parts fit in the same space.