2017 Mclaren F1 Team - Honda

[GoranF1]

He had a title contender in 2010 and in 2012 also. I don't believe this bullshit of the miracles in the car. He is a very good driver but this cars were also good enough to win titles. If they werent't, Alsonso would not have been so close. I believe there is no black and white. It's partly Alonso leaving and partly that Ferrari didn't care enough because they got Vettel.

Biggest bulshit i heard in years....what about difference in points between Massa and Webber?
How quick do people forget the burning bodywork from exhaust in 2012.....car was about 1 to 1.6 slower than RB that year....yes it was a pure miracle da it came in titls shoot in the last race....Alonso's inbrilliant talent nothing else.....in 2010 Mclaren was on avg a faster car than Ferrari and in 2012 on Many cases(not always) both Mclaren and Mercedes were as well.

[mrluke]

I think you misunderstand the point, its the logic behind the argument that makes no sense. "Look, they must have a poor chassis in 2017 because with a Mercedes PU in 2014 they still couldn't do well...".

My logic is they had much publicised correlation problems in 2012, resulting in a middling to average chassis in 2013, 2014 and 2015. 2016 they had a big problem with mechanical traction and tyre usage and all the signs shows this is still a large weakness in 2017.

No doubt you will argue they have the best chassis in 2017 and their 2015 and 2016 were actually really good despite the evidence to the contrary. Therefore I referenced 2014 as you cannot dispute that they had the best PU on the grid by some distance.

My overriding point to all of that however was that each year Mclaren do a much celebrated big change expecting to find a magic bullet when what they need to do is just settle down and work through it.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Contracts can easily be torn up, and the McLaren Honda contract almost certainly will. Sauber will run the Honda engines next year to keep them in the sport, McLaren are almost certainly going to switch back to Mercedes. Honda may have a contract with McLaren, but what's the point in continuing if the other party doesn't want to anymore? Sauber will be more than happy with the cheap engine supply, and Honda can continue to develop their engine without the constant public criticism.

It was a gamble, it could have paid off, at which point everyone would be lauding McLaren as geniuses for making the move to Honda. However, it hasn't worked and McLaren can't afford to wait any longer, they've already lost sponsorship and prize money and they look set to lose their star driver.

There was a strange line in the contract requested from Sauber that McLaren would be required to produce the Transmission EVEN if they changed PUs. So McLaren are under contract to supply the transmissions to Sauber for the Honda Pu. Just throwing that out there cause it's just another expense they'd have to incur. Designing and producing 2 different transmissions.

McLaren Applied Technologies can handle that, it doesn't have to be the race team, who knows, they might even be able to sell them in the future.

[f1316]

So I guess those who don't like the F1 livery this year would have loved this:



http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/193 ... y-revealed

[Alonso Fan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7_YeF6MFxg

[Sonador]

Love it! And as a bonus i get to see JB back in action.

It is a good year to be a racing fan!

[dans79]

The live feed from the official Indy car channel. make sure you hide chat, its full of complete loosers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXh9uxthFnk

[dans79]

duplicate

[adrianjordan]

I think you misunderstand the point, its the logic behind the argument that makes no sense. "Look, they must have a poor chassis in 2017 because with a Mercedes PU in 2014 they still couldn't do well...".

My logic is they had much publicised correlation problems in 2012, resulting in a middling to average chassis in 2013, 2014 and 2015. 2016 they had a big problem with mechanical traction and tyre usage and all the signs shows this is still a large weakness in 2017.

No doubt you will argue they have the best chassis in 2017 and their 2015 and 2016 were actually really good despite the evidence to the contrary. Therefore I referenced 2014 as you cannot dispute that they had the best PU on the grid by some distance.

My overriding point to all of that however was that each year Mclaren do a much celebrated big change expecting to find a magic bullet when what they need to do is just settle down and work through it.

So what was this year's magic bullet? Or last year's? You're still talking about an approach that they haven't used for at least 2 years...

[SameSame]

I think you misunderstand the point, its the logic behind the argument that makes no sense. "Look, they must have a poor chassis in 2017 because with a Mercedes PU in 2014 they still couldn't do well...".

My logic is they had much publicised correlation problems in 2012, resulting in a middling to average chassis in 2013, 2014 and 2015. 2016 they had a big problem with mechanical traction and tyre usage and all the signs shows this is still a large weakness in 2017.

No doubt you will argue they have the best chassis in 2017 and their 2015 and 2016 were actually really good despite the evidence to the contrary. Therefore I referenced 2014 as you cannot dispute that they had the best PU on the grid by some distance.

My overriding point to all of that however was that each year Mclaren do a much celebrated big change expecting to find a magic bullet when what they need to do is just settle down and work through it.

I never claimed that they have or ever had the best chassis in the last few years. I claim to not know whether that was the case or not.

I don't think they have searched for a magic bullet over the last few years. In 2013 they claimed that the 2012 chassis had reached it's development potential after being arguably the fastest car throughout the season. They had no reason to try and find a magic bullet in 2013.

In 2014 the chassis regs were changed, but I believe they continued their 2013 peak downforce philosophy. Towards the end of 2014 they did improve; and at the end of 2014 they completely reshuffled their aero department and Prodromou came in.

2016 was a continuation of the 2015 aero philosophy, and 2017 seems as if they are still using the concepts that were understood in 2017.

The PU is such an integral part of the car that I think it's difficult to isolate the chassis from it. Without another team using the Honda PU; it's tough to get a baseline for how good the chassis is.

We should be able to draw better conclusions next year when Sauber starts using the Honda PU.

[Sonador]

The live feed from the official Indy car channel. make sure you hide chat, its full of complete loosers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXh9uxthFnk

Dans79 i love your snarky comments, in the beginning they needed to simmer in my mind for a while to fully understand them.
Thanx for the link.

[RS200E]

mrluke you are very misguided in your logic.

First of all it's accepted that McLaren has made a couple of bad decisions resulting in a "bad chassis" in 2013 and 2014. But that has nothing to do with 2015 - 2017.

2015 - 2017 chassis has been "pretty good" considering the nightmare that is the Honda PU. How bad this PU has actually been and will continue to be for uears should not be underestimated.

I don't dislike Honda for doing a bad job, but I dislike the decision by McLaren for choosing Honda as a long term partner. As soon as they realised that Honda didn't have a test mule involved to run at Suzuka they should have be out of there.

[Sonador]

I believe when Alonso says he likes the chassis, and that he thinks it is a good one.
But i dont know if it is because he whoops Vandoorne's ass at the moment, or that it isgenuinely good.
With his comments you dont now or sure.

I dont think they are able to really push the chassis at the moment. I think sector 3 in Spain wil be a indicator?


Regarding chassis from 2013 to 2014 i see it as this:

2012 there was a decision to develop a complete new chassis(philosophy), instead of developing the current (2012) one.
The 2013 one was bad, also on the suspension side of things (Ferrari style front suspenion right?)
The 2014 one was just because of the Merc engine, and Mercedes wanted to have minimal info to Honda or the next year.

[GhostF1]

mrluke you are very misguided in your logic.

First of all it's accepted that McLaren has made a couple of bad decisions resulting in a "bad chassis" in 2013 and 2014. But that has nothing to do with 2015 - 2017.

2015 - 2017 chassis has been "pretty good" considering the nightmare that is the Honda PU. How bad this PU has actually been and will continue to be for uears should not be underestimated.

I don't dislike Honda for doing a bad job, but I dislike the decision by McLaren for choosing Honda as a long term partner. As soon as they realised that Honda didn't have a test mule involved to run at Suzuka they should have be out of there.

Really? At best the 2015 chassis was midpack on a great day and the 2016 chassis had a fundamentally flawed rear end which they confirmed in Suzuka and publicly admitted. Matt Morris has subsequently stated that this year's chassis is a great improvement over last year and that they expect some good gains with development, especially with a big upgrade due at Barcelona. The Honda engine has been unreliable and they've basically been playing whack a mole with issues as they pop up, but it actually showed to have decent chops in the latter half of 2016, hence it exposed the chassis' weaknesses.
Honestly, it's a fools game to swap engine partners every couple of seasons because you're chucking a tanty they haven't become world leaders in 3 years... They surely knew it was a long game they were playing when they joined forces.
This pipedream of McLaren dropping Honda won't happen and they'll likely overcompensate now and become a force. What their recovery is like over the next few GP's will dictate a lot of things.

[ethbluth]

Have there been any releases by Mclaren @ whether the 2 chassis (ALO/VAN) are consistently running identical hardware & setups?


Here is the article I'm referring to, which was March 29 regarding ALO v VAN: differences to the front wing, bargeboards, sidepod vortex generators, and floor.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tech ... ng-887320/