2016 McLaren F1 Team - Honda

[Postmoe]

Why not?

Because nobody else is standing still either. Montreal is a power circuit and according to Mclaren their chassis is the bees knees so their deficit must be down to the PU. Aside from crashes and brain fade/finger trouble Mclaren would not be expected to beat Mercedes, Ferrari or RBR at any track, you'd expect them to be beaten by Williams at most venues and you'd expect them to lose to Force India at tracks like this so as awful as it seems, 11th & 12th are realistic and anything else is a bonus this weekend.

And we should wait to see if TR can peform here, because they have a good car.

So...
2 Mercedes
2 Ferrari
2 RB
2 Williams
2 FI
2 Toro Rosso

13 and 14 for McLaren? and be careful with Haas...

This is one of the main reasons McLaren&Honda management does not relish the prospect of telling the media they will set up upgrades. Technically it is the right moment to do so, but media wise, all this improvement can be worthless if the results are not brilliant (say p5). As P8 would be something to be proud of due to the context, they may try to go low profile and wait for a more fitting track.

Anyway, sooner or later the development escalation will favour Mclaren in its battle with the midfielders.

[Vasconia]

If you want to improve your PU Canada is a good place to check the updates. Firstly they were going to bring an important update for Barcelona, then for Canada, now perhaps for Austria...

[Nuvolari]

Let me explain my thinking behind why McLaren will be reasonably competitive this weekend.

Below is a table I created with the best qualifying laps in dry conditions from 2014 to 2016 so far, normalising it to the length of each circuit/track. So all data below are given per km of the relevant circuit. This helps us to assess the car performance by getting rid of the effect of variable track lengths.



So far this year in all the tracks, McLaren are consistently about 0.4s/km slower than the pole lap. But this is no coincidence. Take Australia for example, McLaren were 0.961s/km behind Mercedes in 2015 (column 3), but show an improvement of 0.999s/km in the 2016 qualifying from their own 2015 qualifying speed (column 8 ). However, Mercedes have improved in 2016 by 0.47s/km (column 6), so the deficit to pole in 2016 was still 0.431s/km (column 4).

If we do the same in the other circuits we have visited so far, this makes sense. For another example, take Monaco. McLaren were 0.598s/km slower than Mercedes in 2015 but improve by 0.595s/km in 2016 qualifying. But, Mercedes improve by 0.392s/km. So, the deficit is 0.394s/km in Monaco for 2016.

The pattern I'm seeing is that McLaren have made huge improvements in 2016 closing the existing gap, but the competitors are one step ahead. So, the best we can hope is McLaren being competitive in tracks where their deficit to Mercedes had been the smallest in 2015. One such track is Canada. May be Japan and Abu Dhabi too.

Mercedes didn't improve a whole lot from 2014 to 2015 when McLaren got slower, so the 0.432s/km deficit can be overcome this year. But if the ultra soft tyres and general improvements by Mercedes are taken in to account, McLaren may still be 0.4s/km down from Mercedes. I'm predicting McLaren to qualify around the 1:13.4 time, similar to RBR.

[Vasconia]

Mercedes didn't improve a whole lot from 2014 to 2015 when McLaren got slower, so the 0.432s/km deficit can be overcome this year. But if the ultra soft tyres and general improvements by Mercedes are taken in to account, McLaren may still be 0.4s/km down from Mercedes. I'm predicting McLaren to qualify around the 1:13.4 time, similar to RBR.

But Rb has improved a lot. I would like to see which results can be presented using the same table but with RB times. RB will be (clearly) ahead of McLaren.

[Nuvolari]

Mercedes didn't improve a whole lot from 2014 to 2015 when McLaren got slower, so the 0.432s/km deficit can be overcome this year. But if the ultra soft tyres and general improvements by Mercedes are taken in to account, McLaren may still be 0.4s/km down from Mercedes. I'm predicting McLaren to qualify around the 1:13.4 time, similar to RBR.

But Rb has improved a lot. I would like to see which results can be presented using the same table but with RB times. RB will be (clearly) ahead of McLaren.

Ok, McLaren's improvement in Australia may be bumping up the error rate in my calcs. But on average RB improved around 0.587s/km so far this year. They were only 0.27s faster than McLaren last year in Montreal qualifying. My adjusted formula is predicting McLaren to be around 1:13.6 and RB in 1:13.4. Ferrari and Merc will be way faster than that.

RB will have better race pace than McLaren, for sure.

[Andres125sx]

Let me explain my thinking behind why McLaren will be reasonably competitive this weekend.

Below is a table I created with the best qualifying laps in dry conditions from 2014 to 2016 so far, normalising it to the length of each circuit/track. So all data below are given per km of the relevant circuit. This helps us to assess the car performance by getting rid of the effect of variable track lengths.

http://thumbsnap.com/i/1Tlx9j3e.png

So far this year in all the tracks, McLaren are consistently about 0.4s/km slower than the pole lap. But this is no coincidence. Take Australia for example, McLaren were 0.961s/km behind Mercedes in 2015 (column 3), but show an improvement of 0.999s/km in the 2016 qualifying from their own 2015 qualifying speed (column 8 ). However, Mercedes have improved in 2016 by 0.47s/km (column 6), so the deficit to pole in 2016 was still 0.431s/km (column 4).

If we do the same in the other circuits we have visited so far, this makes sense. For another example, take Monaco. McLaren were 0.598s/km slower than Mercedes in 2015 but improve by 0.595s/km in 2016 qualifying. But, Mercedes improve by 0.392s/km. So, the deficit is 0.394s/km in Monaco for 2016.

The pattern I'm seeing is that McLaren have made huge improvements in 2016 closing the existing gap, but the competitors are one step ahead. So, the best we can hope is McLaren being competitive in tracks where their deficit to Mercedes had been the smallest in 2015. One such track is Canada. May be Japan and Abu Dhabi too.

Mercedes didn't improve a whole lot from 2014 to 2015 when McLaren got slower, so the 0.432s/km deficit can be overcome this year. But if the ultra soft tyres and general improvements by Mercedes are taken in to account, McLaren may still be 0.4s/km down from Mercedes. I'm predicting McLaren to qualify around the 1:13.4 time, similar to RBR.

I love this sort of analysis, thank you for the effort!

[Jolle]

Let me explain my thinking behind why McLaren will be reasonably competitive this weekend.

Below is a table I created with the best qualifying laps in dry conditions from 2014 to 2016 so far, normalising it to the length of each circuit/track. So all data below are given per km of the relevant circuit. This helps us to assess the car performance by getting rid of the effect of variable track lengths.

http://thumbsnap.com/i/1Tlx9j3e.png

So far this year in all the tracks, McLaren are consistently about 0.4s/km slower than the pole lap. But this is no coincidence. Take Australia for example, McLaren were 0.961s/km behind Mercedes in 2015 (column 3), but show an improvement of 0.999s/km in the 2016 qualifying from their own 2015 qualifying speed (column 8 ). However, Mercedes have improved in 2016 by 0.47s/km (column 6), so the deficit to pole in 2016 was still 0.431s/km (column 4).

If we do the same in the other circuits we have visited so far, this makes sense. For another example, take Monaco. McLaren were 0.598s/km slower than Mercedes in 2015 but improve by 0.595s/km in 2016 qualifying. But, Mercedes improve by 0.392s/km. So, the deficit is 0.394s/km in Monaco for 2016.

The pattern I'm seeing is that McLaren have made huge improvements in 2016 closing the existing gap, but the competitors are one step ahead. So, the best we can hope is McLaren being competitive in tracks where their deficit to Mercedes had been the smallest in 2015. One such track is Canada. May be Japan and Abu Dhabi too.

Mercedes didn't improve a whole lot from 2014 to 2015 when McLaren got slower, so the 0.432s/km deficit can be overcome this year. But if the ultra soft tyres and general improvements by Mercedes are taken in to account, McLaren may still be 0.4s/km down from Mercedes. I'm predicting McLaren to qualify around the 1:13.4 time, similar to RBR.

Wonderful list!

The improvement between 15-16 got to do a lot with tires I think, at most GP they qualify on a softer compound.
The other general observation is that .4 per km is a lot, although the general reletive improvement of .2 is not good, it's more a case from very bad to just bad. The last few tenths are the hardest (and most expensive)
Another conclusion is that they are consistently .4 behind, even on Monaco, so it's much more then just the PU.

[Nuvolari]

Wonderful list!

The improvement between 15-16 got to do a lot with tires I think, at most GP they qualify on a softer compound.
The other general observation is that .4 per km is a lot, although the general reletive improvement of .2 is not good, it's more a case from very bad to just bad. The last few tenths are the hardest (and most expensive)
Another conclusion is that they are consistently .4 behind, even on Monaco, so it's much more then just the PU.

Thanks.

Agreed on all points. It's hard to judge how much improvement was the car and how much was the tyres...except Russia which was a 0.35s/km improvement over 2015. However, it is hard to generalise Russia to other tracks but it gives us an indication.

Even with a boat anchor of a PU, I was surprised to find the MP4/30 was quicker than the MP4/29 around Monaco. This was the only track the MP4/30 was quicker than MP4/29 and it shows that the MP4/30 had good potential for a chassis in its 1st year of development. But as you say, it is clear that the deficit in 2016 is due to more than just the PU, at least in qualifying.

[1lifeliveit]

Good Work Nuvolari,

Appreciate your efforts. I'm sure this will surprise a few naysayers in this forum!

[Webber2011]

Unbelievable people are giving you a +1 for not saying anything. Quotes from your 'san'boys have shown to be as reliable as those from 'political' Boullier.

And childish, disrespectful comments like this that make you sound like nothing more than an up vote/attention seeker yourself, and are the best way to drive people that do have any inside information from the Forum.

Wazari has been quite free with information, up until the point He was recalled to Honda.

If you expect Him to break any disclosure agreements He might be bound too, just to in some way prove His legitimacy to you, then you have even less idea than Boullier.

[Chene_Mostert]

Unbelievable people are giving you a +1 for not saying anything. Quotes from your 'san'boys have shown to be as reliable as those from 'political' Boullier.

And childish, disrespectful comments like this that make you sound like nothing more than an up vote/attention seeker yourself, and are the best way to drive people that do have any inside information from the Forum.

Wazari has been quite free with information, up until the point He was recalled to Honda.

If you expect Him to break any disclosure agreements He might be bound too, just to in some way prove His legitimacy to you, then you have even less idea than Boullier.

Wazari was never "quite free" with information. Just stating the obvious and making populist comments like
"My nephew informed me that every one is working very hard to overcome the problem" really? Who would have guessed.

He never worked for Honda during the 80's and was not recalled.
What benefit would that serve? The technology is miles apart?

[tok-tokkie]

Even with a boat anchor of a PU, I was surprised to find the MP4/30 was quicker than the MP4/29 around Monaco. This was the only track the MP4/30 was quicker than MP4/29 and it shows that the MP4/30 had good potential for a chassis in its 1st year of development. But as you say, it is clear that the deficit in 2016 is due to more than just the PU, at least in qualifying.

Thanks for the table and the explanation. The table only shows he delta relative to something else. We do not see the actual time per km so where you state that in Monaco the MP4/30 was quicker than the MP4/29 we can't see that. I would like to see the actual times per km as well. Could you post that?

[Andres125sx]

He never worked for Honda during the 80's and was not recalled.

What are the facts you know to make this sort of accusations?

[Andres125sx]

We do not see the actual time per km so where you state that in Monaco the MP4/30 was quicker than the MP4/29 we can't see that.

There´s a column, 2014-2015 improvement, so yes, we can see that

And that´s the main data. Total time is useless, it´s how fast compared to his rivals what matters, and how much improvement there have been when compared to its predecesor if you want to evaluate development.

He included the important data

[Matt_Pag]

In my opinion McLaren are hardly going to make it into the top ten, Montreal is a pretty fast track, so all the times are "closer" to each other than on different tracks.. It remains a circuit that rewards engine power, so unfortunately I can't see why the gap to the other teams should decrease, in a relative way. (With this I mean that McLaren might get closer in term of absolute gap, for example tenths instead of seconds, just to throw a rough figure, but everyone Is going to be so, resulting in a top ten qualifying position pretty hard to get)

Inviato dal mio LG-D802 utilizzando Tapatalk