2017 Mclaren F1 Team - Honda

[Redragon]

I did say few pages back that it looked like a mindgame from Zack, so Honda accelerate the implamantation of spec 3 or spec 3.5 as Zack job is to find a main sponsor this year that's what he has been contracted to do. Boullier has always have more calm speech because the only one who is in danger to loose his job is not Honda, is not Alonso and is not Boullier so that leave Zack on a thin line.

[Avocado]

On Gazzetta dello Sport, an italian newspaper, they wrote that McLaren talked to Ferrari about the possibility to have their PU.

http://www.gazzetta.it/Formula-1/11-07- ... 9989.shtml

So incredibly stupid article it's not even funny.

[godlameroso]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIV46rKefUs

Going by the speeds on the second straight, the difference is enormous between the Honda and the Mercedes engine. Vandoorne's Vmax is 292kph while Bottas is doing 312 while Vettel does a 302. Considering how close Vettel and Bottas were in their qualifying it tells me that the Ferrari is carrying quite a bit more downforce, because it's hard to have such a small gap with a 10kph difference at EOS. Then again Vandoorne probably could have shaved .3 to .4 seconds off his best lap as he went wide in turns 4 & 7 and didn't do too hot on the braking for turn 3. This is especially obvious if you compare Alonso's lap, which is just sublime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkiQBvM-oRk

The 20kph difference at EOS after turn 1 shows there's a clear difference in both engine and chassis performance. The chassis and power unit are both lacking, if the McLaren really had a monster chassis, they would not be 1.4 seconds back, they'd be closer to a second behind. Even if Honda matched Mercedes straight line speed with the same McLaren chassis they have now, they'd still be behind by at least .6 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbDsFBsiW1Q

Here you see the downforce advantage Ferrari is carrying.

In short, both McLaren and Honda still have quite a ways to go to get on the pace.

For reference Verstappen did 300kph at EOS after turn 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0EJNdSaODA

[adrianjordan]

I'm confused how straight line speed reflects on the chassis??

[Jef Patat]

Being friendly to Honda last weekend and now this. This whole engine sage is certainly unpredictable.I don't think another year with only one team is advisable.

"Sauber Honda engine deal off, claim sources"
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/saub ... ff-929575/

Edit: I certainly do not wish to contribute to more speculation. Maybe someone should make a 'Silly engine' thread.

[Vegetabill]

I'm confused how straight line speed reflects on the chassis??

I am thinking the same. The Redbull championship cars were always around the bottom of the speed trap charts. I don't think anyone attributed this to poorly designed chassis.

[adrianjordan]

I'm confused how straight line speed reflects on the chassis??

I am thinking the same. The Redbull championship cars were always around the bottom of the speed trap charts. I don't think anyone attributed this to poorly designed chassis.

Godlameroso did just before my post....

[mrluke]

The biggest impact on top speed bar in F1 by far and away is drag level.

Bearing in mind how far teams have gone with flexible aero dynamics and targeted stalling of aero devices above certain speeds. It is perfectly reasonable for one team to have higher downforce and higher drag at say 140mph but much less drag than another team at 200mph.

It is quite simply impossible to evaluate PU power from top speed figures between two different teams. Believe me I have tried.

The cars are traction limited up to around 4th gear, that means the biggest influence on acceleration is not power, it is available traction all the way up to and including 4th gear.

So we can't use acceleration or top speed to evaluate power.

What can we use?

I have done numerous speed traces based on acoustic analysis which I think hold quite a lot of merit but they take a long time to produce.

[RS200E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIV46rKefUs

Going by the speeds on the second straight, the difference is enormous between the Honda and the Mercedes engine. Vandoorne's Vmax is 292kph while Bottas is doing 312 while Vettel does a 302. Considering how close Vettel and Bottas were in their qualifying it tells me that the Ferrari is carrying quite a bit more downforce, because it's hard to have such a small gap with a 10kph difference at EOS. Then again Vandoorne probably could have shaved .3 to .4 seconds off his best lap as he went wide in turns 4 & 7 and didn't do too hot on the braking for turn 3. This is especially obvious if you compare Alonso's lap, which is just sublime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkiQBvM-oRk

The 20kph difference at EOS after turn 1 shows there's a clear difference in both engine and chassis performance. The chassis and power unit are both lacking, if the McLaren really had a monster chassis, they would not be 1.4 seconds back, they'd be closer to a second behind. Even if Honda matched Mercedes straight line speed with the same McLaren chassis they have now, they'd still be behind by at least .6 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbDsFBsiW1Q

Here you see the downforce advantage Ferrari is carrying.

In short, both McLaren and Honda still have quite a ways to go to get on the pace.

For reference Verstappen did 300kph at EOS after turn 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0EJNdSaODA

The difference is that Ferrari can run with more downforce. McLaren have to run less especially at this circuit. And as someone else said a lower top speed isn't representative of a bad chassis, sometimes it's how fast you get to that top speed.

You've overanalyzed and got it very wrong.

Why are you still looking to find reasons to say McLaren have a bad chassis? Very sad.

[godlameroso]

Because it's true, their chassis is not as good as the Ferrari or the Red Bull, but probably better than all the midfield runners. You are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to be as sad as you want.

[etusch]

Honda's power deficit is obvious and no one denies it. Mclaren has built good chassis compared last years. This also obvious and encouraging. But to compare it with top three teams is not true. It maybe forth and I believe in some areas it is worse than Toro Rosso.

[kaepernickus]

Not saying it's right or wrong that the McLaren chassis is worse than Red Bull and Ferrari, but your post doesn't prove anything.
It's just a few videos and numbers thrown together and then you've drawn a conclusion pretty much out of thin air (top speed on straight).


Also when comparing laps of Vandoorne and Alonso (or all the others, as they're all Q3), at least take the best lap of Vandoorne as well as his Q2 lap was 0.575s faster than the one in Q1.

When comparing Vandoorne Q1 lap to Alonso's Q2 lap the gap is 0.714s
Vandoorne was 0.158s behind Alonso in Q1 and 0.139s behind him in Q2.

[Chicane]

Ferrari and Mercedes always prefer to skew little higher on the downforce side even at the cost of a slightly lower downforce to drag ratio because you make up maximum time in corners and not on straights however you need straight-line performance to pass people and defend positions from people behind. Since they have such strong power units they prefer to throw the kitchen sink at it while adding downforce and not all downforce comes via running higher rear wing levels. So looking at rear wing levels is a highly simplistic way of looking at downforce levels.

As Eric Boullier mentioned adding downforce is not easy but adding downforce with minimum drag penalty is a herculean task. Mclaren have taken a middle path as far as aero efficiency is concerned. So in the downforce vs drag graph they lie somewhere in between. This approach enables them to be competitive on majority of the tracks if powered by a competitive power unit. Mclaren have not made the same mistake like last year where in search of aero efficiency they lost their way.

As soon as Honda reach a respectable level the real qualities of the chassis starts coming to the fore as it will be run at a downforce level optimum enough to bring out it's best qualities. Setup in F1 plays a a huge role and is always compromise even with the best of power units, so you can imagine the length to which Mclaren must be going to set the car up.

Easy to say they have to low downforce but it will take a huge toll on tire wear and lap time not to mention the handling balance. They are banking on Honda to turn the corner unlike last year when these chose to design the chassis around the limitations of the Honda power unit.

Coming to the top speed debate, the two biggest factors above 300kph are engine grunt and aerodynamic drag. So yes Mclaren do not have the slipperiest car on the grid but one can safely safely say it is somewhere mid way and not at the extremes as pointed out by some. Mercedes and Ferrari have the highest aero numbers and one of the reasons for that in addition to the work put in by their aero teams is the leeway they have on account of running of powerful engines.

Saying a chassis is good or bad is oversimplification as there are so many factors at play. Not all cars get a 9/10 in all types of corners. Compromises are made based on the nature of the majority the tracks at play. With such variety of factors from low speed chicanes, mid speed corners, high speed corners, sequence of corners requiring quick changes of direction, stability under braking, tyre warm up, tyre wear etc etc it is oversimplistic to say one chassis is good or bad especially when it is being run in a compromised state due to an underpowered engine. Real test for Mclaren would be if they had an engine powerful enough to run all the bells and whistles that they have at their disposal but sadly they do not have the luxury.

[mrluke]

A considered post but there is not enough data available to demonstrate the Honda engine even has a deficit to the Renault PU powering the competitive Red Bull.

We cant just assume that it is because the team's PR statements say it is. But it looks like Mclaren have now signed up with Honda for next year and blocked supply of Sauber. Presumably because this would show Mclaren's claims to be false. Honda need more cars running their power units especially as the Mclaren is so fragile. If Honda get more testing / development / mileagfe then Mclaren will get a better PU.

The continued insistence on exclusivity is shooting themselves in the foot, repeatedly.

[diffuser]

There are strong hints that McLaren's chassis is better than all the middle. In my opinion the power is too far down to compare with the top 3. Just too many Setup changes you can take advantages of with more power to judge.


Van looks to me like he's on a Sunday drive going round that first corner.