2016 McLaren F1 Team - Honda

[ALO_Power]

1) McLaren and Honda , massive progress done , given how and when they started (and available data).
2) Honda needs to improve but still good progress if you consider that they joined later and came back to F1 after so long time and now they already made a decent P.U . (also "locked" development)
3) McLaren chassis needs to improve too but the chassis is also compromised by the weak P.U and McLaren is also behind in terms of development if you consider their 2015 on-track time. Also, just a look at the car can convince you that the car is definitely not bad...
4) Monaco not a point of reference. A circuit of its own.
5) We're at the beginning of the season and the moment of truth will be 2017.

End

[Chicane]

Alonso is saying they are loosing 8 tenths on the main straight alone. He says the deficit in power is obvious and they kind of knew what to expect before coming here.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclar ... so-789572/

[Andres125sx]

He also said there was a yellow flag exactly the 10 seconds he should have used DRS, but couldn´t use it because of the yellow flag. Not sure how much time is lost with no DRS, but he said they couldn´t have done better than 11-12th

[DiogoBrand]

Next thing you know they'll say they hit a bug swarm that slowed the car down and kept them from going into Q3.
This habit from McLaren of making excuses for everything just makes them look even worse.

Anyway. As has been said, Honda joined the sport one year after every other supplier, not to mention the development time that the likes of Mercedes have had before 2014, and I honestly wouldn't say they haven't already matched Mercedes' PU from a year ago on performance.
They probably already have a very good idea of what it takes for them to get close to Mercedes, the only reason they haven't achieved this is the token system.
It has already been said by Honda personnel that a complete makeover is possible for next season, and by then I think we can expect all power units to be pretty evenly matched.
When that happens, I hope the people at McLaren can start working a bit more on chassis development, and a bit less on PR BS. If that happens I think we'll see a nice championship position for them at the end of the season.
Edit: With that being said, with even power units I believe we'll see Red Bull dominance part II. I can't see anyone else being able to match them on the chassis side.

[mrluke]

Ill say it again the Honda PU is pretty even with Renault and Ferrari 15.

Then how come they aren't beating Redbull and Toro-Rosso? Everyone knows Mclaren has the best chassis on the grid.

Because Mclaren do not have the best chassis on the grid. They have a mid field chassis and a mid field PU.

http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-o ... rmation-10

Top speed is controlled by BHP and Drag only.

Max speeds at finish line in Qualy today:

1. BOT 366.1
2. VES 354.2
3. ROS 351.2
4. HAR 350.8
5. HAM 350.8
6. GUT 350.7
7. PER 349.4
8. BUT 349.1
9. KVY 348.9
10. PAL 347.8

21. ALO 339.5

Generally theres a group of cars around 350kph and a second group at around 340kph. I would assume that this represents a split in strategy between drag levels but I havent looked into it. What we don't see is the 2 honda powered cars hanging out of the bottom so either Mclaren have a very low drag car (appears unlikely from wing levels) or their PU is in the ballpark.

Now if we look at the speed trap figures (210m after turn 20) we get somewhat different figures

1. ROS 334.8
2. HAM 333.6
3. HAR 333.2
4. BOT 333.2
5. PER 331.8
6. VES 331.1
7. ERI 330.3
8. GUT 327.7
9. RIC 326.6
10. RAI 326.0

20. BUT 322.8
22. ALO 319.3

At this point we really do see both the Honda cars hanging out of the bottom. From watching the onboards its clear that most of the cars were practically hitting vmax today due to the length of the straight. There was very little acceleration between the start finish and T1. So to put into words what the data is clearly telling us...

Mclaren Honda were quite noticeably slower after a series of high speed corners than the vast majority of the field but they were still able to reach pretty much the same Vmax. Potentially Mclaren Honda could be exiting T20 with an extra 10kmh, this might have got them a little bit faster over the start/finish it might not, I couldn't say.

The only way this data could possibly support a view that the Honda PU is the problem is if we could demonstrate that Mclaren are running much less drag / downforce than their rivals. Which from previously shown wing levels looks unlikely.


Interestingly the speed trap is before the DRS activation. Now im going to take a decent sized logic leap here and assume that each driver set their best speed trap and best speed across the start finish on the same lap. Which gives us an interesting comparison.

1. BOT +32.9
2. VES +23.1
3. ROS +16.4
4. HAR +17.6
5. HAM +17.2
6. GUT +23.0
7. PER +17.6
8. BUT +26.3
9. KVY +24.0
10. PAL +24.8

21. ALO +20.2

Now we know that BOT got an amazing tow for his top speed however there is a clear split between gaining ~17kmh with DRS or gaining ~24kmh. Again im going to go out on a limb a bit here and suggest that this split differentiates those with a large, high downforce rear wing, and those with a skinny wing. A larger wing when opened for DRS will reduce the overall drag by more than opening DRS on a smaller wing. This appears to suggest that Mclaren are also running a pretty heavy wing level compared to those around them.

I don't think it shows which drivers got a tow as overall their vmax are all very similar and I would expect those with the tow to be grouped at the top.

Taken together this all suggests that Mclaren are running a higher drag package than most of their competitors and that this high drag level is getting them less efficient downforce than those around them. Therefore lower performance in high speed corners and slightly lower top speeds and getting a larger benefit from DRS than most of the field.

[Andres125sx]

Two facts that won't change in the near future.
1 - McLaren's chassis isn't as good as they try to make it seem.
2 - As long as Honda solely supplies McLaren, they'll be blamed for the majority of McLaren's problems.

Facts?

So you know McLaren didn´t do any compromise chasis wise to compensate a weak PU, what means their chasis without compromises is not working as it should, ergo it´s bad, right? What´s your source?


I find amazing how people feel the need to bash someone, if it´s a weak PU let´s bash Honda because they couldn´t ignore the token system and solve their problems, if not then let´s bash McLaren because their chasis isn´t compensating the weak PU so they´re not as good as they say...

I understand we all want to know what´s the weak, or weakest point, but we can´t know because we don´t have enough data.

Even topspeeds are useless, how do you know they are not using all available energy for the straight so top speed is not too bad, but then they´re lacking power the remaining 4km of the track?


Another intersting thing is how people think in Monaco the PU is irrelevant, like if 100hp down would not cause any deficit. In Monaco the PU is not the most important part of the car, but it still is important. Maybe it was irrelevant when difference between best and weakest engine was 30-40hp and behaviour/reactions were similar, but not now when difference is much higher than that and there´s an ERS. Even in Monaco the PU makes a difference. As an example, traction is irrelevant in Monaco? The PU play a huge role traction wise obviously, so you simply cannot ignore PU differences and state the chasis is not as good as they said.

Basically people usually try to oversimplify things, but this is F1, things are always too complicated

[DiogoBrand]

Facts?

So you know McLaren didn´t do any compromise chasis wise to compensate a weak PU, what means their chasis without compromises is not working as it should, ergo it´s bad, right? What´s your source?


I find amazing how people feel the need to bash someone, if it´s a weak PU let´s bash Honda because they couldn´t ignore the token system and solve their problems, if not then let´s bash McLaren because their chasis isn´t compensating the weak PU so they´re not as good as they say...

I understand we all want to know what´s the weak, or weakest point, but we can´t know because we don´t have enough data.

Even topspeeds are useless, how do you know they are not using all available energy for the straight so top speed is not too bad, but then they´re lacking power the remaining 4km of the track?


Another intersting thing is how people think in Monaco the PU is irrelevant, like if 100hp down would not cause any deficit. In Monaco the PU is not the most important part of the car, but it still is important. Maybe it was irrelevant when difference between best and weakest engine was 30-40hp and behaviour/reactions were similar, but not now when difference is much higher than that and there´s an ERS. Even in Monaco the PU makes a difference. As an example, traction is irrelevant in Monaco? The PU play a huge role traction wise obviously, so you simply cannot ignore PU differences and state the chasis is not as good as they said.

Basically people usually try to oversimplify things, but this is F1, things are always too complicated

Well, if you really think that McLaren has the 3rd best chassis on the grid, and the only thing keeping it from performing better is the PU, then I say we agree to disagree. Because that's exactly what I meant with my post.

[SameSame]

Taken together this all suggests that Mclaren are running a higher drag package than most of their competitors and that this high drag level is getting them less efficient downforce than those around them. Therefore lower performance in high speed corners and slightly lower top speeds and getting a larger benefit from DRS than most of the field.

This is the strategy I struggle to follow. If this is the case it will kill their fuel consumption in the race, maybe they are banking on a few safety cars.

It's difficult to distinguish if their slow speed performance is due to a poor chassis or bad PU drivability. And bad slow speed performance will also make their speed trap figures look worse as most straights follow slow speed corners. Hopefully after Silverstone a firm conclusion can be made about the aero, even though it is still a power sensitive track, as the PU shouldn't play too much a role in high speed corner performance.

[Andres125sx]

Did I say that? No, so please, do not make such assumptions. I only said we can´t know what´s weakest, if the PU or chasis, because neither of us have enough data to know. But we all know for sure Honda PU is not great exactly, so you cannot assume anything about the chasis. Maybe the PU is not that weak and there are no compromises so the chasis is quite poor, or maybe the PU really is a dog and there are several compromises chasis wise wich make them look poor when it´s a great chasis. How can you know?


Another example, some people is claiming McHonda top speed was great... but they don´t say a word about the little wing they´re using. If they can only match their top speed with some noticeable drag less, then the PU is a dog.

And you only need to look at sector times, McHonda is 20th and 22th on sector 3, wich is compound by 1 slow corner and most main straight, around 1 second down Mercedes on a 24 seconds sector, with less wing!

Basically they´re sacrifizing s1 and s2 to make up the difference in s3, and even so they´re still missing 1 full second in s3. Sorry but with such a poor PU I can´t dare to say a word about the chasis

[SameSame]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... en-tactics

Alonso says McLaren are losing 6-7 tenths on the main straight.

[ALO_Power]

Next thing you know they'll say they hit a bug swarm that slowed the car down and kept them from going into Q3.
This habit from McLaren of making excuses for everything just makes them look even worse.

Anyway. As has been said, Honda joined the sport one year after every other supplier, not to mention the development time that the likes of Mercedes have had before 2014, and I honestly wouldn't say they haven't already matched Mercedes' PU from a year ago on performance.
They probably already have a very good idea of what it takes for them to get close to Mercedes, the only reason they haven't achieved this is the token system.
It has already been said by Honda personnel that a complete makeover is possible for next season, and by then I think we can expect all power units to be pretty evenly matched.
When that happens, I hope the people at McLaren can start working a bit more on chassis development, and a bit less on PR BS. If that happens I think we'll see a nice championship position for them at the end of the season.
Edit: With that being said, with even power units I believe we'll see Red Bull dominance part II. I can't see anyone else being able to match them on the chassis side.

Agreed, on that. In the end of the season I believe both P.U and chassis will be in a much better position and definitely 2017 is gonna be really interesting. The thing is (as you mentioned) that Red Bull seem to be quite a big threat for the future. But, you never know, this is F1 and it's very hard to predict. Sometimes we expect something and the opposite happens so, game on.

[CjC]

Sorry for the repeated kicking but look at the Sauber keeping up with the Mclarens.
And we know that Sauber chassis is poo.
?

Edit- it looks like the major problem in fuel efficiency. Looking at Buttons last Laps in the race they are fairly decent. Faster than Massa.
We see it s lot st the end of the races for the Mclaren lads

[McG]

Don't be so quick to post. It was because Alonso had problems. Button finished well ahead of both Saubers.

Sorry for the repeated kicking but look at the Sauber keeping up with the Mclarens.
And we know that Sauber chassis is poo.
?

Edit- it looks like the major problem in fuel efficiency. Looking at Buttons last Laps in the race they are fairly decent. Faster than Massa.
We see it s lot st the end of the races for the Mclaren lads

[CjC]

So was Alonso holding Button up all race and backing him into the Sauber?

[Sayeman]

In a race where the mighty Redbull with their newly upgraded power units finish 7th and 9th, what hope do Mclarens have?