Stats can be a powerful thing. And you can shape them to mean just about anything, unfortunately. If we look at the last 3 races, that same trend line is showing up. Of course, it's more complex than that, because comparing to the pole lap time also means you are comparing it to a moving target.GoranF1 wrote:https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/stat ... 5909083750
Also, taking that progression line, one could deduct that McLaren might actually hit the pole time in.... 5 years?
I think the most important progression McLaren has shown is that their reliability seems to be in order, so they are able to put the components under more strain and load without it disintegrating. I am also hopeful that they have identified where their shortcomings are and what they need to do in order to solve it in regards to 2016. I also hope that McLaren and Honda can work together as a singular entity in order to find the right compromise - a compromise between any size-zero concept, aero and performance. In fact, looking at how complex it is to evolve the PU through limitations of tokens etc, I think Ferrari have it right; They've upped the power and now their goal is to shrink down the size (for aero gains) while not losing performance. McLaren-Honda seemed to have gone the other way this year - size-zero for aero gains but lacking the performance as a result.
I think adequate power delivery should be their focus, then once you've achieved that, either work around it with the chassis to improve as much as you can, while the engine can then be developed into something more tightly packaged. If they try to do everything at the same time, like they probably did this year - it's going to be extremely hard to hit all the targets at the same time. Then you have precisely what happens; You fight reliability, as a result of lack of reliability you have lack of performance, and the aero doesn't work either because again, you are sacrificing pretty much everything in order to complete the race.