2016 McLaren F1 Team - Honda

[techman]

As an example Redbull trimming out or running less rear wing may still be the same overall drag/DF as MCH higher DF package. As a casual observer, you won't know this.

Again, not an expert but Mercedes lower DF spa package probably still produced more DF & drag then the "higher DF" package MCH ran.

well in that case the mclaren has a long way to go to catch up to the aero efficiency of that of a redbull and mercedes, most of the donwforce both redbull & mercedes get is through the floor section and it is a more efficient way to produce the good downforce without creating too much drag, this enable them to run a skinny rear wing. a good example is the work renault team, this car both straight line speed compared to redbull is slower and were runnnig a bigger rear wing and also still the redbull provide more efficienct donwforce and handling compared to renault. the chassis alone can provide so much efficiency. unfortunately people are told to think the mclaren is the top 3 chassis by eric B. but how do we know if there is no comparison with a benchmark chassis? If renault was not supplying redbull, people would have thought honda is a more powerfull engine because the only comparision is renault works team. this debate about how much power each manufacture will hopefully end when all the engine get tested next year with engine equalization plan by FIA. well for me if a chassis can run skinny rear wing and also create good handling in corner like the redbull, that show how good of a chassis and efficient of a chassis it is. both redbull and mercedes can do this, showing the overall efficiency of that car is simply amazing

[Andres125sx]

well in that case the mclaren has a long way to go to catch up to the aero efficiency of that of a redbull and mercedes

[...]

unfortunately people are told to think the mclaren is the top 3 chassis by eric B.

I´m the only one seeing a contradiction here?

You say McLaren has along way to catch up with RBR and Mercedes chassis, but also say people shouldn´t think they´re third best chassis...

First, they never said they have 3rd best chassis, they only said at the beginning of the season they were expecting to have third best chassis in last part of the seasson, but people like you keep repeating they´ve claimed to have third best chassis. No they never said that.

But even if true, that does not contradict the theory of McLaren needing higher angle of attack on their wings than RBR and Mercedes to achieve same DF levels, RBR and Mercedes have the best chassis in the grid, McLaren may be third best chassis and still need more wings than the two top teams

[mrluke]

The rear wing is typically seen as one of the draggiest / least efficient elements on the car, the decision to run a higher rear wing angle is usually indicative of an overall higher drag/downforce setup.

I think what you see on RBR is that they get so much more downforce from their floor and other efficient areas that they can reduce their rear wing down to a minimum thereby reducing their drag but still running quite a high downforce setup. This is the area that I am suggesting Mclaren are lacking in, they are not yet able to get as much downforce as the top teams from the really efficient areas and so to keep a competitive downforce level they are running a rear wing slightly larger than their competitors. If they reduce that rear wing to get a bit less drag they are then running at a downforce deficit making them uncompetitive. Unfortunately running the higher drag setup hurts them on the straights (which is being blamed on Honda).

I previously shared the data which showed that Mclarens overall drag / power level was almost identical to RBR in this race, but they did not have the same level as downforce as they were unable to carry as much speed through Eau Rouge. If you watch the onboards from qualy, all of the teams are flat through Eau Rouge but the act of cornering scrubs speed as the tyres slip, Mclaren lost~5kmh here more than anybody else.

[Alonso Fan]

'but they did not have the same level as downforce as they were unable to carry as much speed through Eau Rouge'

Has already been explained in this thread a couple of pages back. But I'll go through it again

Drag doesn't change up steep hills, nor does downforce. How is it that they were 1 second per lap faster than Williams in s2 but were slower through eau rouge? Doesn't make sense does it? Eau rouge is a steep hill. The lack of speed at the top of eau rouge is mostly down to lack of power, not drag or inadequate levels of downforce, but engine power, which is the most contributing factor when driving up steep hills. McLaren was flat through eau rouge like everyone else. That implies that they have more than sufficient downforce for eau rouge (at the speed their engine allowed them to go through there)

[techman]

You say McLaren has along way to catch up with RBR and Mercedes chassis, but also say people shouldn´t think they´re third best chassis...

please dont misquote me i said eric B tell us that mclaren have 3rd best chassis and not me. i dont blame him he trying to blame honda for all problems just to save his job. but the reality is the i dont think mclaren is the 3rd best chassis. if they are to run a bigger rear wing in spa it show their chassis is still not as effcient as the mercedes , redbull or ferraris ,even TR is pretty decent too. iam hoping things are better cant wait to see them in podiums maybe not this year but hopefully nexy year

[techman]

The lack of speed at the top of eau rouge is mostly down to lack of power, not drag or inadequate levels of downforce, but engine power, which is the most contributing factor when driving up steep hills.

maybe that explain why william struggled to overtake mclaren in the end of the straight not only that they got overtaken by other easily and remember william has a mercedes enigine in the back,both mclaren and william went for high DF bigger rear wing setting, wrong move in hindsight

[Alonso Fan]

How many times do we have to explain this to you techman? Williams problem was sector 2. Williams have a useless chassis. If they are 1 second slower is s2, how do you think they'll be close enough to pass on the straights in s1 and s3?

[techman]

s3 and s1 have long straight and are quick for william according to YOU then why couldnt william overtake alonso in the straight in s1 , s2 is the mid section .both william and mclaren need to improve it aero efficiency so they can run skinny wings like redbull and mercedes.
and since you said its the power that requires you to be quick in s1 then why did william got overtaken by other a lot. lets face the truth, william and mclaren need to improve its aero efficiency so that other cars will not overtake them in the straight. its not only an engine power issue.

[Alonso Fan]

I'll say it again... the Williams cars weren't close enough to pass. Williams has a bad chassis. The time they lost in s2 they just about gain back in s1 and 3 due to their superior engine

[mrluke]

'but they did not have the same level as downforce as they were unable to carry as much speed through Eau Rouge'

Has already been explained in this thread a couple of pages back. But I'll go through it again

Drag doesn't change up steep hills, nor does downforce. How is it that they were 1 second per lap faster than Williams in s2 but were slower through eau rouge? Doesn't make sense does it? Eau rouge is a steep hill. The lack of speed at the top of eau rouge is mostly down to lack of power, not drag or inadequate levels of downforce, but engine power, which is the most contributing factor when driving up steep hills. McLaren was flat through eau rouge like everyone else. That implies that they have more than sufficient downforce for eau rouge (at the speed their engine allowed them to go through there)

Drag is far more significant than power at speeds of 300kph.

Although Mclaren were flat they scrubbed off more speed than the other teams through this corner, it isnt the gradient that is slowing them down, its the fact that its a corner.

This is a 100% repeat of the final sequence of corners at Baku where Mclaren scrubbed more speed than the other teams, entering the final straight at a lower speed but still reaching the same top speed by the end of the straight. Its the same again.

[Mad]

Sainz was suggesting that they will be more on-par with Mclaren in more slower downforce dominant circuits. i don't think he agrees with Boulier about the efficiency of the chassis.

[Sayeman]

Mclaren clocked 343k/h last year at Monza...Lets see how much they clock this year.
Hope it will be close to 400

[Alonso Fan]

'but they did not have the same level as downforce as they were unable to carry as much speed through Eau Rouge'

Has already been explained in this thread a couple of pages back. But I'll go through it again

Drag doesn't change up steep hills, nor does downforce. How is it that they were 1 second per lap faster than Williams in s2 but were slower through eau rouge? Doesn't make sense does it? Eau rouge is a steep hill. The lack of speed at the top of eau rouge is mostly down to lack of power, not drag or inadequate levels of downforce, but engine power, which is the most contributing factor when driving up steep hills. McLaren was flat through eau rouge like everyone else. That implies that they have more than sufficient downforce for eau rouge (at the speed their engine allowed them to go through there)

Drag is far more significant than power at speeds of 300kph.

Although Mclaren were flat they scrubbed off more speed than the other teams through this corner, it isnt the gradient that is slowing them down, its the fact that its a corner.

This is a 100% repeat of the final sequence of corners at Baku where Mclaren scrubbed more speed than the other teams, entering the final straight at a lower speed but still reaching the same top speed by the end of the straight. Its the same again.

If its all down to drag through eau rouge, then how do you explain them reaching the same speeds as red bull at the end of the straight, the red bull with the skinny wings? Drag should increase if speed increases, and they're going faster down the straight than they are through eau rouge. So, explain please

It seems to me that both times, (in Baku and spa) that the engine is the culprit. It is underpowered, so the car reaches its top speed later than its rivals. Hence it enters the straight going slower but reaches the same speed by the end. I'm not saying the Honda engine is way underpowered like last year, but I'm saying there is still a noticeable power deficit to the Renault engine, which in turn has a 40 hp ish power deficit to merc

[techman]

but I'm saying there is still a noticeable power deficit to the Renault engine, which in turn has a 40 hp ish power deficit to merc

well renault works team is lacking not only straight line speed but also cornering speed and behind mclaren , renault are lucky they have redbull to make them look good in F1. honda very unfortuanete they dont have a benchmark chassis to check the true performance of their engine.redbull chassis efficiency is second to none making renault shine.

[daren_p]

As an example Redbull trimming out or running less rear wing may still be the same overall drag/DF as MCH higher DF package. As a casual observer, you won't know this.

Again, not an expert but Mercedes lower DF spa package probably still produced more DF & drag then the "higher DF" package MCH ran.

well in that case the mclaren has a long way to go to catch up to the aero efficiency of that of a redbull and mercedes, most of the donwforce both redbull & mercedes get is through the floor section and it is a more efficient way to produce the good downforce without creating too much drag, this enable them to run a skinny rear wing.

Yes, as far as I know the floor & rear diffuser are good ways to make efficient down force but what makes you think Mercedes is a team that makes good use of efficient downforce? Mercedes has such a power advantage that they don't have to concentrate on making the most efficient down force . Look at how hard some of their area's are working the airflow (such as their bardge boards), not an aerodynamicist but I wouldn't think these are very aero efficient.

You speak about the floor being efficient & yes Redbull do typically run the most rake & probably take the most advantage from this but since when does Mercedes run a lot of rake? From what I've seen MCH run more rake then Mercedes. I would say Redbull runs the most, then you have teams like MCH & Force India, then Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.

While I don't doubt Mercedes & Redbull run the most downforce, I doubt Mercedes is in the group of most efficient/least amount of drag for the amount of downforce produced.

Honda is still the weak link in the McLaren partnership. Yes it is getting better (& yes McLaren themselves still have work to do) but even Honda don't claim to yet be on par with Ferrari or even Renault.