2016 McLaren F1 Team - Honda

[Vasconia]

I support the idea that the chasis is very good and a vast improvement from last year´s one. The good reliability is helpingo to improve it each race which was imposible last season due to the lack of reliabilty.

The "significant" improvement expected for this race should help them to reach the Q3 for both cars and around a top5 for Monaco. Or am I too optimistic?

I think you are too optimistic. Remember that all the teams are preparing improvements for Barcelona, so expect McLaren to keep the same position as now, between 11 and 14 in general.

I´m expecting the big jump when Honda improve their PU, until them... same old...same old.

But those tracks suit much better the current package so they should addapt themselves much better to these tracks, especially Monaco. Last year Jenson was 8th and I think that the current car is clearly better, so why not?

[restless]

Managing tyres will be paramount in Barca.
That and qualifying as high as possible. No idea but maybe 11&12th places will be best possible for the team?
Or if going to Q3 then use medium/hard tyres for setting best lap?

[Vasconia]

Managing tyres will be paramount in Barca.
That and qualifying as high as possible. No idea but maybe 11&12th places will be best possible for the team?
Or if going to Q3 then use medium/hard tyres for setting best lap?

I hope the new packcage can improve this because it could be a great problem. Q3 should be possible.

[diffuser]

what we were .5 out in Russia ? We make that up on Spain just not being a power track. I'm looking for 7th or 8th.

[Andres125sx]

Well, I think after a double point score on a power track, things should go better on a track where chasis is more important than PU, but it´s also true the double score finish was thanks to some retirements, so McHonda should improve in qualifying (Q3 posible at least for one of them) but I don´t think they should expect a better final position than last race as it was a unusual race with many retirements

[Thunder]

Nice Article aboute F1 Aero Development:

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/car/aer ... roUpgrades

“The front wing assembly is very complicated – it’s a mixture of composite structures, non-structural composite parts, and metallic parts. About 200 components in all.

“It’s also a complete bonded assembly, so you can’t just bolt things on and off, except the adjustable flap. In terms of concept to track – it takes between six to eight weeks.

“We’ll make two or three wholesale changes to the front wing during a year. We’ll bring our second front wing iteration of the year to Barcelona.”

[lebesset]

Again, Honda and McLaren (Boullier) have confirmed that the size zero concept is entirely Honda's idea, and that both parties were perfectly happy with that route.
Boullier said (to me, among others) at Barcelona's pre-season test that McLaren did not specify ANY requirements in terms of dimensions to Honda.

The Japanese may have made some design mistakes, but just like everybody else, they are perfectly aware of the advantages that a compact power unit can offer to the entire car.
It should be now be clear to all that Honda are firm believers of their own ideas, and prefer not to copy or rely on anybody else. It was only until they hit the track in 2015 that both parties realised the power unit's problems more much more substantial than just being 'a bit underpowered at the start of their campaign'.

Edit: For completeness, here is Eric's explanation from Feb:
"We have never ever imposed anything on Honda, they do what they want. If they come with an engine like this then we have to accommodate this in our size zero, which would not be a size zero any more. There is absolutely no constraint and if we keep this concept because we are happy with it and we believe in the concept, it will help us catch up quicker faster than any others."

Then can you expain to us whats the meaning of words this same man said 18 months ago in a interview for Autosport?

"Honda actually had to make several attempts and come up with three versions of the power unit because the initial two did not meet the chassis/aero technical specifications. It took them a lot of effort.”

Obviously my english is not good enough to understand what he said back then...

the engine wouldn't fit into a chassis which conformed to the FIA regulations

[PlatinumZealot]

Nice Article aboute F1 Aero Development:

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/car/aer ... roUpgrades

“The front wing assembly is very complicated – it’s a mixture of composite structures, non-structural composite parts, and metallic parts. About 200 components in all.

“It’s also a complete bonded assembly, so you can’t just bolt things on and off, except the adjustable flap. In terms of concept to track – it takes between six to eight weeks.

“We’ll make two or three wholesale changes to the front wing during a year. We’ll bring our second front wing iteration of the year to Barcelona.”

Rumours abound that it will be more Mercedes like.

[GoranF1]

Nice Article aboute F1 Aero Development:

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/car/aer ... roUpgrades

“The front wing assembly is very complicated – it’s a mixture of composite structures, non-structural composite parts, and metallic parts. About 200 components in all.

“It’s also a complete bonded assembly, so you can’t just bolt things on and off, except the adjustable flap. In terms of concept to track – it takes between six to eight weeks.

“We’ll make two or three wholesale changes to the front wing during a year. We’ll bring our second front wing iteration of the year to Barcelona.”

Rumours abound that it will be more Mercedes like.

Where did you hear this?

[godlameroso]

In testing the Mclaren never really did any race simulations, their stint started in the 31's which would have been competitive last year however this year Mercedes was starting their stint in the 30's and ending the race sim in the high 27's. Mclaren isn't matching that, not with the Honda power unit, and not with that chassis. They may be able to dip into the 29's at the end of the race, if they get into the 28's I'll be very surprised. The biggest problem is the first two stints, Mclaren always seems to lose more time there, but that's when the car is heavy so power makes a bigger difference, once the cars get lighter the chassis has a bigger role to play than the power unit because by then the teams are dialing it back power wise. The Mclaren chassis is hard on it's tires, and at the same time the engine is thirsty so it has less flexibility in the race, they're forced to run a compromised pace up until the final stint. At which point it actually can compete with Williams and Red Bull, even with the relatively weaker engine. Developing these power units isn't easy, and the lead times are long but I have a feeling McLaren and Honda are on the verge of taking a nice step forward.

[flickerf1]

In testing the Mclaren never really did any race simulations, their stint started in the 31's which would have been competitive last year however this year Mercedes was starting their stint in the 30's and ending the race sim in the high 27's. Mclaren isn't matching that, not with the Honda power unit, and not with that chassis. They may be able to dip into the 29's at the end of the race, if they get into the 28's I'll be very surprised. The biggest problem is the first two stints, Mclaren always seems to lose more time there, but that's when the car is heavy so power makes a bigger difference, once the cars get lighter the chassis has a bigger role to play than the power unit because by then the teams are dialing it back power wise. The Mclaren chassis is hard on it's tires, and at the same time the engine is thirsty so it has less flexibility in the race, they're forced to run a compromised pace up until the final stint. At which point it actually can compete with Williams and Red Bull, even with the relatively weaker engine. Developing these power units isn't easy, and the lead times are long but I have a feeling McLaren and Honda are on the verge of taking a nice step forward.

IMO, I think saying McHonda competing with Red Bull-TAG is a bit of stretch. A) The Renault PU is better than the Honda's. B) IMO, The RB's chassis is on par with the Merc, which is the class leading chassis. So, competing with Williams might be possible, but Williams will have updates as well.

[Vasconia]

Well, I think after a double point score on a power track, things should go better on a track where chasis is more important than PU, but it´s also true the double score finish was thanks to some retirements, so McHonda should improve in qualifying (Q3 posible at least for one of them) but I don´t think they should expect a better final position than last race as it was a unusual race with many retirements

No so important, if they can have a good tyre management and pace it could be enough to qualify between 11-14 positions.

[godlameroso]

They were a few tenths behind in Sochi from making Q3, realistically I think they can find about .3 seconds from the chassis, only everyone else will have improved by roughly the same margin. So they'll be agonizingly closer but not quite yet from making it to Q3 on merit. They do have better race pace so I think they can finish in the points.

[Sonador]

They were a few tenths behind in Sochi from making Q3, realistically I think they can find about .3 seconds from the chassis, only everyone else will have improved by roughly the same margin. So they'll be agonizingly closer but not quite yet from making it to Q3 on merit. They do have better race pace so I think they can finish in the points.

But Soschi is a power track, as were Barcelona is less so.
Maybe because of that, they could reach Q3?

Would be nice to see Mclaren back in the top10 on merrit [-o<

[godlameroso]

Barcelona is more of a power track than you think. Most teams run very high downforce which also means lots of drag, plus let's take a look at the turns.

Approaching turn one is all engine grunt coming down the main straight, turn 3 is practically flat, and you need a lot of power to come out of 4, then the run up the hill up to turn 9 you're going up hill, not to mention you have to break more for 8 than you used to placing more emphasis on power since you're going up hill, then the straight on the exit of 9 requires power, then coming out of 10 you need power because again you're going uphill, then coming out of 11, and finally 16 you need a lot of power.