2016 McLaren F1 Team - Honda

[techman]

i think the chassis is not that good, monaco pace is the indication for this, mclaren struggle for pace, but lucky with rain and good pitstop that got them some results

[gianluca.mateo]

i think the chassis is not that good, monaco pace is the indication for this, mclaren struggle for pace, but lucky with rain and good pitstop that got them some results

Honda has said that they are still not on par with the rest considering the whole engine. Monaco problems were partly down to philosophy focus on efficient downforce vs. absolute downforce due to underperforming engine

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[techman]

honda said they were only behind mercedes, and ferrari, we have many times redbull with an renault engine in 2014 bashed by marko to over 100bhp down on mercedes, yet looked strong in monaco. mclaren chassis is still need improvments, monaco , hungary and singapore that circuit that favour chassis than engine power. if they cant even perform in monaco, its show how weak the chassis is.

[lebesset]

I'm a McL fan, but I take what Eric says with a truck full of salt

Sorry for the OT, but your variation of that common expression made me wonder where did that came from, I mean, the original "take that with a pinch of salt"

Anyone knows?

Superstition. You used to throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder to ward off a demon.

more or less....back in the day when salt was very expensive [ some countries used to have government salt monopolies eg italy until 1976 when the eec stopped it ] so it was regarded as bad luck to spill some ....to avoid the bad luck you threw a pinch of the spilt salt over your left shoulder

[CjC]

"Honda believes its new F1 ERS is on Mercedes' level"
"The energy recovery has already doubled from last year and is achieving at the top level.

"I can't tell if it is better than others, but it's reasonable to say it's a very even area.

"It is incredible we have achieved that in two to three years, where others have taken seven to eight years."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... edes-level

Ok so the ICE is extremely heavy in juice then?

[SameSame]

i think the chassis is not that good, monaco pace is the indication for this, mclaren struggle for pace, but lucky with rain and good pitstop that got them some results

Honda has said that they are still not on par with the rest considering the whole engine. Monaco problems were partly down to philosophy focus on efficient downforce vs. absolute downforce due to underperforming engine

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

When Alonso set the third fastest sector 3 time in Barcelona qualifying McLaren claimed they now had "proof" as to how good their chassis is and how well they would perform in Monaco because of how representitive that sector is of slow speed corner performance. Then along comes Monaco and all of a sudden the tune changes and they now have "efficient" downforce?

McLaren Honda should start talking on track with results. If the engine is the weak link they should do relatively better at slow tracks (ie Monaco which they never, and the drivibilty of the PU was confirmed to be good) and if the chassis is weak they should be relatively better off at power sensitive tracks (ie Baku which they werent).

The PU isnt up their with the best but when your chassis is lacking by so much you cant let Honda take all of the blame. The chassis may be well balanced but that doesnt mean anything in terms of how quick it is.

Didnt Alonso say they would have the best chassis by Europe? Seems like they are brilliant in conning their drivers about how good the car is. (Remember Ron Dennis saying that the Honda would out perform the Merc based on the dyno figures)

[BeardedAce]

I'm exited to see what ICE updates Honda brings next but pretty sure it won't be a huge leap. For that we will have to wait till 2017.
According to Alison the importance of Driver: Engine: Chassis is 20:40:40 this year, the importance will shift to the driver and aero from next year so maybe even a slightly slow engine won't be a huge issue like the Redbull dominance days.

I think the ERS is adequate at the moment, the ICE needs to be looked at. Wondering which areas Renault improved with 3 tokens, wondering if Honda can do the same.

[godlameroso]

Everything has to work together, combustion drives recovery, the turbo drives combustion, the turbo is driven by the ERS. Better aero gives you better braking = more energy recovered under breaking. When you improve one aspect of the unit, you inevitably alter other aspects, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The whole package is mediocre, otherwise they wouldn't be having mediocre results, it's improving; unfortunately, so is everyone else so relative progress seems non-existent. Not to mention lead times on power unit upgrades take at least 3-4 months to implement, vs the 2 months that chassis upgrades are introduced. Then you have to consider that it takes time to optimize a new package.

It is what it is, unless McLaren has been developing their 2017 chassis since last year, I don't think they'll make a step towards the front end of the grid, especially if they're still languishing at the bottom of the top 10 by the end of the season. I hope I'm wrong, they spend an awful lot of money for such mediocrity and it's a little embarrassing. But as the old adage goes, "if you fail to prepare, prepare to fail"

[Far]

What can do Jos Capito to the team to improve the McLaren racing team? why Ron want this guy? any one.
He is the Nikki Lauda of McLaren?
Thanks.

[ALO_Power]

i think the chassis is not that good, monaco pace is the indication for this, mclaren struggle for pace, but lucky with rain and good pitstop that got them some results

Honda has said that they are still not on par with the rest considering the whole engine. Monaco problems were partly down to philosophy focus on efficient downforce vs. absolute downforce due to underperforming engine

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

When Alonso set the third fastest sector 3 time in Barcelona qualifying McLaren claimed they now had "proof" as to how good their chassis is and how well they would perform in Monaco because of how representitive that sector is of slow speed corner performance. Then along comes Monaco and all of a sudden the tune changes and they now have "efficient" downforce?

McLaren Honda should start talking on track with results. If the engine is the weak link they should do relatively better at slow tracks (ie Monaco which they never, and the drivibilty of the PU was confirmed to be good) and if the chassis is weak they should be relatively better off at power sensitive tracks (ie Baku which they werent).

The PU isnt up their with the best but when your chassis is lacking by so much you cant let Honda take all of the blame. The chassis may be well balanced but that doesnt mean anything in terms of how quick it is.

Didnt Alonso say they would have the best chassis by Europe? Seems like they are brilliant in conning their drivers about how good the car is. (Remember Ron Dennis saying that the Honda would out perform the Merc based on the dyno figures)

I think that Monaco is not a track to make conclusions. Everybody says that, it's a track of its own. However, I believe that in Monaco, mechanical grip and P.U driveability (and torque) play the biggest role and not aero that much. And it's all about the confidence of the driver to attack. MP4-31 didn't give them confidence at all with its understeering issues. Of course, mechanical grip is a chassis related thing and they seemed to lack on it but don't forget something important. There is a case with tyre pressures going on this year and it's getting obvious. Some teams have found tricks to start with the FIA approved pressures and then decrease them during the session. Tyre pressures can make a huge impact in mechanical grip circuits like Monaco. So, if McLaren don't have this trick then the initial high pressures could had played a huge role there.

Concluding, both chassis and P.U have a huge room for improvement but I believe everything goes to the right direction judging how limited P.U and chassis development was, thanks to their last year pains. I'm very interested in seeing their level at the end of the season and definitely interested in 2017 .

[SameSame]

I think that Monaco is not a track to make conclusions. Everybody says that, it's a track of its own.

I'm curious as to why that is? RBR has always had a strong chassis in the past few years and consequently they have always been strong in Monaco. Even the Mercedes of 2013, which had amazing mechanical grip, was able to shine because of the nature of the track.

However, I believe that in Monaco, mechanical grip and P.U driveability (and torque) play the biggest role and not aero that much. And it's all about the confidence of the driver to attack. MP4-31 didn't give them confidence at all with its understeering issues. Of course, mechanical grip is a chassis related thing and they seemed to lack on it but don't forget something important. There is a case with tyre pressures going on this year and it's getting obvious. Some teams have found tricks to start with the FIA approved pressures and then decrease them during the session. Tyre pressures can make a huge impact in mechanical grip circuits like Monaco. So, if McLaren don't have this trick then the initial high pressures could had played a huge role there.

I agree that aero is not too important in Monaco and mechanical grip, which tyres are a massive part of, plays the biggest role.

In Monaco Q3 Alonso did a 1:15.363 to Vettel's 1:14.552. That's a massive gap of 8 tenths around such a short and slow lap. Given McLaren could have had tyre issues, but so did Ferrari. I just feel like whenever McLaren perform poorly in a sector where they should do well its because they have to run a "compromised" setup because of Honda, and the one track where they then should have done well on they never. A whole host of reasons came along justifying why the never did well, just as was the case in all the other times.

Concluding, both chassis and P.U have a huge room for improvement but I believe everything goes to the right direction judging how limited P.U and chassis development was, thanks to their last year pains. I'm very interested in seeing their level at the end of the season and definitely interested in 2017 .

I really hope that things improve and that they can start winning titles again, but normally a team is up close to the front before that happens. Unless some loophole is exploited, a team doesn't jump from the midfield to the top of the pack. But who knows, maybe next year they can pull off the impossible [-o<

[Andres125sx]

Is people still ignoring the chassis compromise McLaren did in Monaco to compensate the weak PU?

They said it theirselves, they went for efficient downforce instead of just using all available downforce as all teams do in Monaco, and that was a mistake. Add to that some understeer problems they had, and a weak PU wich also play a role in Monaco, and you get 8 tenths difference easily

Baku proved the PU is still far from any other PU, but they´re scoring points more or less regularily, so the chassis cannot be that bad. BTW, nobody said the chasis IS great, people complain about PR from the team, but then evaluate their perfomance according to those PR.

Please learn to differ between hopes and assertions, Alonso saying they expect to have the best chasis in Europe, assuming he said that, is just a hope

[SameSame]

Is people still ignoring the chassis compromise McLaren did in Monaco to compensate the weak PU?

Lets take RBR in 2014 as an example. They also had to run a compromised setup through out the year due to their terrible Renault PU, yet they still did well at Monaco. Ricciardo and Vettel qualified third and fourth and Ricciardo finished third in the race.

They said it theirselves, they went for efficient downforce instead of just using all available downforce as all teams do in Monaco, and that was a mistake. Add to that some understeer problems they had, and a weak PU wich also play a role in Monaco, and you get 8 tenths difference easily

Monaco is mostly about mechanical grip, so efficient downforce or not, it really shouldn't have meant they were that far off the pace. Power counts for little and the drivers confirmed the drivability of the PU was good. Being able to set the car up is a characteristic of a good chassis. For example, Verstappen learnt that he could play around much more with the aero balance of the Red Bull than the Torro Rosso, because the Torro Rosso did not respond to front wing angle changes well.

Baku proved the PU is still far from any other PU, but they´re scoring points more or less regularily, so the chassis cannot be that bad. BTW, nobody said the chasis IS great, people complain about PR from the team, but then evaluate their perfomance according to those PR.

Their chassis being not that bad is a relative term. If being behind Merc, RBR, Torro Rosso, Ferrari and possibly FI, then yes, it isn't that bad.

I want to beleive McLaren has a good chassis but I just can't seem to find any proof of it. RBR has clearly demonstrated that they have a great chassis by doing well at less power sensitive tracks, where as McLaren have not.

Please learn to differ between hopes and assertions, Alonso saying they expect to have the best chasis in Europe, assuming he said that, is just a hope

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3359 ... by-europe/

Boullier asserted that they have a better chassis than Ferrari, did he not?

I know it sounds like I'm bashing McLaren but thats really not my intention. Just like you, I really wish Alonso can clinch another title (I'm a massive Alonso fan ). But reality is sometimes a tough pill to swallow

On the upside, I think that their aero has improved since Monaco because of the package they brought to Canada (new floor part of it?) and hopefully with another update or two they can be regular points contenders on merit.

[Jef Patat]

Is people still ignoring the chassis compromise McLaren did in Monaco to compensate the weak PU?

They said it theirselves, they went for efficient downforce instead of just using all available downforce as all teams do in Monaco, and that was a mistake. Add to that some understeer problems they had...

And because of the compromise and the understeer they admitted they didn't get the tires to work. But still, for some, it remains evidence in the engine vs chassis blame game.

[techman]

Is people still ignoring the chassis compromise McLaren did in Monaco to compensate the weak PU?

Well did you see that mclaren for the first time went a double monkey wing in monaco, no other team went for this they did went for extreme donwforce, because in monaco , it does not hurt to run more downforce, because it is really a circuit that favours a good handling car.

Not only that, you say the downforce was compensated, which is totally wrong as i mentioned above, and also mclaren tested their high downforce setting in the barcelona test prior to the race.
If you say that mclaren compensated because of weak pu, which i proved is totally wrong, then can you explain why williams running the most powerfull engine mercedes struggled for pace in monaco, and please dont say they were running low downforce, they obviously can run high downforce according to your arguments because they had the mercedes, yet they struggled. like i said, william pace was horrible, because they suffered the same issues as mclaren , understeering problems, and that is down to mainly chassis, suspension setting and aero, tyres