2016 McLaren F1 Team - Honda

[Joseki]

I techman it's either clueless or has some kind of agenda against McLaren: I've followed the last 30 laps with GPS, live timing, instant gaps between Alonso and both Massa and Bottas and it was pretty clear that McLaren lacked power compared to the Williams but had a chassis that was miles ahead. Just in the exit of the last chicane Fernando gained about 1.5-2 tenths per lap, same story at the exit of La Source. He also gained about 7-9 tenths to the Williams in S2 alone just to get catched by the Williams going 15 km/h faster before Blanchimont and an 25 km/h faster on Kemmel. Saying that they have a good engine and a bad chassis NOW it's just madness and I highly suspect you are the same guy that infested the Autosport Forum some months ago.

[Jef Patat]

Broken link?

[Moose]

I techman it's either clueless or has some kind of agenda against McLaren: I've followed the last 30 laps with GPS, live timing, instant gaps between Alonso and both Massa and Bottas and it was pretty clear that McLaren lacked power compared to the Williams but had a chassis that was miles ahead. Just in the exit of the last chicane Fernando gained about 1.5-2 tenths per lap, same story at the exit of La Source. He also gained about 7-9 tenths to the Williams in S2 alone just to get catched by the Williams going 15 km/h faster before Blanchimont and an 25 km/h faster on Kemmel. Saying that they have a good engine and a bad chassis NOW it's just madness and I highly suspect you are the same guy that infested the Autosport Forum some months ago.

I mean, that's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. That might just mean that McLaren's optimum downforce level is higher than Williams', so they're choosing to run more downforce and drag than Williams are.

I'm not saying that that's the explanation, but it's certainly not a simple case of "they're slower on the straights, therefore their engine is underpowered".

[SameSame]

I techman it's either clueless or has some kind of agenda against McLaren: I've followed the last 30 laps with GPS, live timing, instant gaps between Alonso and both Massa and Bottas and it was pretty clear that McLaren lacked power compared to the Williams but had a chassis that was miles ahead. Just in the exit of the last chicane Fernando gained about 1.5-2 tenths per lap, same story at the exit of La Source. He also gained about 7-9 tenths to the Williams in S2 alone just to get catched by the Williams going 15 km/h faster before Blanchimont and an 25 km/h faster on Kemmel. Saying that they have a good engine and a bad chassis NOW it's just madness and I highly suspect you are the same guy that infested the Autosport Forum some months ago.

I mean, that's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. That might just mean that McLaren's optimum downforce level is higher than Williams', so they're choosing to run more downforce and drag than Williams are.

I'm not saying that that's the explanation, but it's certainly not a simple case of "they're slower on the straights, therefore their engine is underpowered".

Having Monza and Singapore back to back will be the perfect test to see their relative performance. I highly suspect they will do better in Singapore. They will most definitely run as low downforce as they dare in Monza and as high as they can in Singapore so we should get a good read on what's what. Both sides have improved massively over the course of the year though.

[Moose]

I techman it's either clueless or has some kind of agenda against McLaren: I've followed the last 30 laps with GPS, live timing, instant gaps between Alonso and both Massa and Bottas and it was pretty clear that McLaren lacked power compared to the Williams but had a chassis that was miles ahead. Just in the exit of the last chicane Fernando gained about 1.5-2 tenths per lap, same story at the exit of La Source. He also gained about 7-9 tenths to the Williams in S2 alone just to get catched by the Williams going 15 km/h faster before Blanchimont and an 25 km/h faster on Kemmel. Saying that they have a good engine and a bad chassis NOW it's just madness and I highly suspect you are the same guy that infested the Autosport Forum some months ago.

I mean, that's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. That might just mean that McLaren's optimum downforce level is higher than Williams', so they're choosing to run more downforce and drag than Williams are.

I'm not saying that that's the explanation, but it's certainly not a simple case of "they're slower on the straights, therefore their engine is underpowered".

Having Monza and Singapore back to back will be the perfect test to see their relative performance. I highly suspect they will do better in Singapore. They will most definitely run as low downforce as they dare in Monza and as high as they can in Singapore so we should get a good read on what's what. Both sides have improved massively over the course of the year though.

"As low downforce as they dare" varies from team to team. Every team's package has a different optimal point for L/D per circuit. It could be that McLaren's optimal point is lower than Williams' (in fact, I'd bet on it, since Williams have a history of building low drag, low downforce cars in the past 5 years). The real question is, is the speed differential on the straight mostly explained by aero, or mostly explained by engine.

Personally, I'd bet on a little from column A, a little from column B - a difference of 25km/h at the end of a very long straight can't *solely* be explained by horsepower, unless you're prepared to believe Honda are in the region of 100-125bhp down on Mercedes (roughly 8% slower at the end of the straight, drag squares with speed, so roughly 16% less power). I'd be prepared to believe that they're around 50bhp down, and that their optimal L/D is lower than Williams.

[Moose]

I take all that back. I just went and stared at the speed trap data. Alonso was 2km/h slower than the Williams' during the race at the end of Radillion. That's only 4% less power, which is a "mere" 32bhp. I could completely believe that that's entirely down to engine.

[Sayeman]

I techman it's either clueless or has some kind of agenda against McLaren: I've followed the last 30 laps with GPS, live timing, instant gaps between Alonso and both Massa and Bottas and it was pretty clear that McLaren lacked power compared to the Williams but had a chassis that was miles ahead. Just in the exit of the last chicane Fernando gained about 1.5-2 tenths per lap, same story at the exit of La Source. He also gained about 7-9 tenths to the Williams in S2 alone just to get catched by the Williams going 15 km/h faster before Blanchimont and an 25 km/h faster on Kemmel. Saying that they have a good engine and a bad chassis NOW it's just madness and I highly suspect you are the same guy that infested the Autosport Forum some months ago.

I mean, that's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. That might just mean that McLaren's optimum downforce level is higher than Williams', so they're choosing to run more downforce and drag than Williams are.

I'm not saying that that's the explanation, but it's certainly not a simple case of "they're slower on the straights, therefore their engine is underpowered".

Having Monza and Singapore back to back will be the perfect test to see their relative performance. I highly suspect they will do better in Singapore. They will most definitely run as low downforce as they dare in Monza and as high as they can in Singapore so we should get a good read on what's what. Both sides have improved massively over the course of the year though.

Problem is Mclaren will try to put the blame on Honda if they are not competitive in Singapore, just like they did in Monaco.
Their explanation was that the poor Honda engine "compromised" the chassis downforce. There was also talk of poor drivability of the Honda engine which didnt have any proff whatsoever

[daren_p]

Problem is Mclaren will try to put the blame on Honda if they are not competitive in Singapore, just like they did in Monaco.
Their explanation was that the poor Honda engine "compromised" the chassis downforce. There was also talk of poor drivability of the Honda engine which didnt have any proff whatsoever

I don't recall reading or hearing anyone at McLaren putting all the blame on Honda, you have any links? From what I recall they put the blame on not being able to get the tires working properly. Believe they had issues with understeering/lack of front grip. They did bring a bigger then normal monkey seat, which they didn't end up running.

[Thunder]

As there was a discussion about wether or not McLaren should have built a Test Mule for the 2017 Tires:
There is an Article stating Pirelli will chose the Tire Specifications for the Flyaway Races in 2017, then from the European Leg on everything will be as it is now with the Teams chosing.

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 83015.html

So that seems to be good.

[FW17]

Not sure what the problem was with McLaren

In the last stint, in comparison to the cars in front they were 2 seconds off the pace

Was it down to engine power or fuel saving?

[SameSame]

"As low downforce as they dare" varies from team to team. Every team's package has a different optimal point for L/D per circuit. It could be that McLaren's optimal point is lower than Williams' (in fact, I'd bet on it, since Williams have a history of building low drag, low downforce cars in the past 5 years). The real question is, is the speed differential on the straight mostly explained by aero, or mostly explained by engine.

Personally, I'd bet on a little from column A, a little from column B - a difference of 25km/h at the end of a very long straight can't *solely* be explained by horsepower, unless you're prepared to believe Honda are in the region of 100-125bhp down on Mercedes (roughly 8% slower at the end of the straight, drag squares with speed, so roughly 16% less power). I'd be prepared to believe that they're around 50bhp down, and that their optimal L/D is lower than Williams.

I would also put that figure at around 50bhp in qualifying trim. However, in race trim they seem to struggle with fuel saving and this is their real achilles heel.

What you are saying is that McLaren do indeed have a good chassis? If Spa was supposed to suit the Williams package optimal operating point and in the case of McLaren it was not entirely suited to theirs, and McLaren still came out on top (with a power deficit)... Williams said before the race that they should perform well at Spa and Monza, tracks that place emphasis on aerodynamic efficiency and not out and out downforce.

So I'm not saying the Honda is a terrible engine (far from it, they have made massive progress), I'm just saying that it is definitely not as good as the other three. McLaren also do not have the best chassis, but they are far from worst and I think they sit fourth behind the top three.

[SameSame]

Problem is Mclaren will try to put the blame on Honda if they are not competitive in Singapore, just like they did in Monaco.
Their explanation was that the poor Honda engine "compromised" the chassis downforce. There was also talk of poor drivability of the Honda engine which didnt have any proff whatsoever

Let's see what happens in Singapore. If the Honda engine could allow them to qualify in the top 10 in Spa then at a track like Singapore McLaren will have nowhere to hide if they do not perform well.

I agree that in Monaco driveability was not an issue

[Andres125sx]

Exactly, you said Boullier said that, source?

link http://www.carscoops.com/2016/05/mclare ... -best.html

Thanks didn´t read it

Anycase you´re still making big assumptions. How do you know how good/bad is their chassis if you don´t know what compromisses they are forced to do to compensate lack of power?

Comparing sector times we can know if it´s a poor chassis or a good one configured like it is, for example is Spa S2 it looked like a good chassis, but we don´t know if its configuration was the ideal to shine in that sector, or if they still have some more margin they´re not using because of the lack of power


Only people inside McLaren team know that

[HPD]

The was no gasoline savings said Alonso

(5:50)
https://www.ivoox.com/fernando-alonso-t ... 009_1.html

[daren_p]

Not sure what the problem was with McLaren

In the last stint, in comparison to the cars in front they were 2 seconds off the pace

Was it down to engine power or fuel saving?

Just a guess, but if additional fuel savings wasn't required (as per some of the posted links), my guess was just trying to save tires if they needed to battle with the cars behind (& making sure they lasted till the end). The cars in front weren't likely catchable, so no point in pushing.