Phil wrote:
Why is it that Honda here is singled out again and again as the one within the chain that is underperforming? As far as I understand, the size-zero concept is not something that originated from Honda, but from McLaren, because they obviously have certain aero goals they want to achieve. Naturally, it takes two to find the right balance - the aero is only as effective if the engine is not too compromised, but it also takes a certain amount of expertise and confidence to know what can be achieved with the PU within the boundaries that are set.
1.)
McLaren is stubborn in wanting to keep it in order to gain an aero advantage and confident the engine can produce enough within that space they have given it
Even so Honda are the specialists. They need to be the ones to say look here we cannot give you the best engine with the kind of packaging that you want. We make the engines, you dont. We cannot make it like that. What we can do is make it 100mm longer and you get 120 more horsepower which far outweighs any aero gain you may have had it been smaller.
This is why i blame Honda, they didn't have the backbone and cojones to deny Ron. They have the position of power because they didnt have to come into Formula1. Ron was the desperate one so he should have been the one accepting compromises.
2.)
Honda is confident they can achieve whatever performance levels that is required/targeted within those boundaries
Yes, they underestimated the challenge clearly. They were very bullish talking about wining in the later part of the 2015 season.
3.)
as a team, one or the other, they are confident that both elements (aero + engine) working at their full potential is fast enough to be 'competitive' and race winning
I guess.
Having read a lot in this topic and what Wazari has posted, I can see why they are pursuing that design choice, but I do wonder if it is a "winning formula/package". Maybe the struggles that are to be seen from the outside are simply a logical conclusion to a design philosophy that is too hard to achieve or simply not possible? In other words; a design choice leading into a dead-end because it just won't be good enough, no matter how elegant or efficient it ends up being?
And if this is really the case, I do wonder how much of it is Honda's fault. I think I'd look at it more as a failing of both parties, or setting too high goals/targets that are practically unachievable, where a more conservative approach might have yielded better results?
Boy.. based on what i always say about F1 regulations.. there is 1 optimum design theoretically, i think they are going down a dead end. Mercedes is approaching that fabled optimum design. Just my opinion.
Even worse, if this is even half way accurate and the reason for their on-going struggles (if you could call it that), how easily could this be changed? It's not as if you can simply change your design direction - following a different design choice would also mean an entire new car would have to be built, potentially setting them back by another 1 season? Seems to be they're stuck at least to go with the size-zero for this season, regardless how well they can get the package to work
They need to just take the risk and stick the dang compressor out the front of the engine and increase its size and do the same for the turbine and MGUH; Go big or go home. Makes no sense be conservative if they have no wins to their hybrid engine. At lease the other engines have wins to their names.
