- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).techman wrote:[Post28 Jul 2016, 09:04
Renault's engine is closer to Mercedes than it is to Honda/quote]
Can I know which team u r comparing to mclaren . Its definitely redbull , isn't it, but do you realise that redbull chassis is the most aero efficient chassis in F1 today .that redbull is an evolution from its predecessors while mclaren size zero is a still to mature concept.its needs more time to reap it full potential. Why are u not comparing Renault team to mclaren , it's their works team and as u can see even the top speeds of mclaren are better than that of Renault team and recenttimes.
As far as someone mentioned mclaren low drag philosophy, it's s joke mclaren ran , a double monkey wing in Monaco because it does hurt to add downforce because it's not a power circuit yet mclaren struggle for pace. Even William techincal director mention mention prior to Monaco they will run extreme down five whoever they still struggle with a Mercedes engine , it's show that power is not as important in Monaco like compared to monza . A good balannce chassis . With good efficient downforce and mechanical grip is vital in Monaco but neither William nor mclaren had it. Anyway next year we will find out which engine are the strongest when are tested ? So it will be clear where the blame game will be directed. Personally Honda and Renault are equal in performance , it's the redbull efficiency chassis that make the difference
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.trinidefender wrote: The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).
It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.
So true. Things are improving but they should stop blaming other factors. They make it sound like a battle between them versus Honda of who is the weakest link.mrluke wrote:And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.trinidefender wrote: The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).
It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.
Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.
In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.
That would be true if Mclaren wasn't quoted as running the same low drag setup they run everywhere else. Unfortunately for your statement, they did that very thing. I don't know about you, but when a package is developed to mask a power deficit.at tracks such as Bahrain,Austria,Canada etc. ,I don't expect it to work great at Monaco, yet Alonso finished 5th.mrluke wrote:And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.trinidefender wrote: The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).
It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.
Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.
In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.
Maybe if it pass it's mileage test on the rig.Honda will have CVCC again!
They aren't though.Pierce89 wrote:That would be true if Mclaren wasn't quoted as running the same low drag setup they run everywhere else. Unfortunately for your statement, they did that very thing. I don't know about you, but when a package is developed to mask a power deficit.at tracks such as Bahrain,Austria,Canada etc. ,I don't expect it to work great at Monaco, yet Alonso finished 5th.mrluke wrote:And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.trinidefender wrote: The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).
It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.
Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.
In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.