Mclaren Chassis Vs Honda Power Unit

[henry]

It's actually the opposite. It's one of the more power dependant circuits at 66% full throttle.

l

I measured 52% for the 2015 pole lap and 55% for 2016.

I took data from here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informati ... uit-japan/

I may be wrong but I think some, if not all, of f1fanatic percentages are from v8s. The v6 turbos have much less full throttle.

I prefer to do my own timing off the pole lap video.

[Juzh]

l

I measured 52% for the 2015 pole lap and 55% for 2016.

I took data from here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informati ... uit-japan/

I may be wrong but I think some, if not all, of f1fanatic percentages are from v8s. The v6 turbos have much less full throttle.

I prefer to do my own timing off the pole lap video.

Yes, they have less full throttle because they have more power, but it goes the same for all tracks, therefore data is still relevant.

[henry]

I took data from here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informati ... uit-japan/

I may be wrong but I think some, if not all, of f1fanatic percentages are from v8s. The v6 turbos have much less full throttle.
I prefer to do my own timing off the pole lap video.

Yes, they have less full throttle because they have more power,but it goes the same for all tracks, therefore data is still relevant.

That's an interesting theory.

I think it possible that because the full throttle percentages are lower the influence of power differences at all circuits is less than it was in the v8 era.

[mrluke]

I took data from here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-informati ... uit-japan/

I may be wrong but I think some, if not all, of f1fanatic percentages are from v8s. The v6 turbos have much less full throttle.

I prefer to do my own timing off the pole lap video.

Yes, they have less full throttle because they have more power, but it goes the same for all tracks, therefore data is still relevant.

I am not sure that I can agree.

As the power has increased and the downforce levels have decreased, this changes the balance between whether a track is mostly PU or mostly Aero.

If you imagine 2 bends, both can be taken flat in the old V8, due to a mixture of lower power and higher downforce. Now with the new PUs one bend can still be taken flat but the other requires a lift. The exit speed of the 2nd bend will be more dependent upon the downforce levels than the PU. Therefore I dont think it as simple as saying that the power:aero balance will be equally impacted on all circuits.

Then on the other hand, if the cars were able to be full throttle for the full lap, the fastest car would still be the one with the most aero grip as opposed to the best engine.

I am not sure what the answer is for Japan in particular.

[Juzh]

I may be wrong but I think some, if not all, of f1fanatic percentages are from v8s. The v6 turbos have much less full throttle.

I prefer to do my own timing off the pole lap video.

Yes, they have less full throttle because they have more power, but it goes the same for all tracks, therefore data is still relevant.

I am not sure that I can agree.

As the power has increased and the downforce levels have decreased, this changes the balance between whether a track is mostly PU or mostly Aero.

If you imagine 2 bends, both can be taken flat in the old V8, due to a mixture of lower power and higher downforce. Now with the new PUs one bend can still be taken flat but the other requires a lift. The exit speed of the 2nd bend will be more dependent upon the downforce levels than the PU. Therefore I dont think it as simple as saying that the power:aero balance will be equally impacted on all circuits.

Then on the other hand, if the cars were able to be full throttle for the full lap, the fastest car would still be the one with the most aero grip as opposed to the best engine.

I am not sure what the answer is for Japan in particular.

People have explained it nicely on the current page of mclaren honda team thread why suzuka is a power track. It's a known fact this. I'm not getting drawn too much into this argument.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... start=2550

[mrluke]

I don't think that thread demonstrates it as an agreed fact either, you have posted in there that it is but there is disagreement.

From the evidence in this thread, Mclaren have performed the same at suzuka in 2014,15 and 2016. Their power output has varied considerably but their competitiveness has not. For Mclaren it is immediately apparent that their competitiveness at this track is not really affected by their pu performance.

Whether that is because it is an "agreed fact" that suzuka is a low down force track or not is pretty irrelevant, there is something about Mclaren's car that has a bigger impact than its bhp for this circuit.

[Pierce89]

I don't think that thread demonstrates it as an agreed fact either, you have posted in there that it is but there is disagreement.

From the evidence in this thread, Mclaren have performed the same at suzuka in 2014,15 and 2016. Their power output has varied considerably but their competitiveness has not. For Mclaren it is immediately apparent that their competitiveness at this track is not really affected by their pu performance.

Whether that is because it is an "agreed fact" that suzuka is a low down force track or not is pretty irrelevant, there is something about Mclaren's car that has a bigger impact than its bhp for this circuit.

So, according to you finishing roughly the same in 2014 shows the chassis as the same, even though in 2014 they had a Merc PU? You don't think that having the worst PU would then require a better chassis to equal that finish? You and techman know more than an all the actual engineers on this forum, all the media, and all of Mclarens technical department, so obviously you will be the next 2 Adrian Neweys. Why are you wasting your time here, when you should be leading Ferrari back to glory?

[mrluke]

Unfortunately Mclaren's poor performance has continued to Austin, it has surprised me that their deficit is actually greater than it was at Suzuka but the grid is more spread out at Austin. Nothing I am doing here really takes account of grid position, its purely focused on time deficit as a % of the pole lap.



Again this is a track where Mclaren have lost significant time vs RBR, its actually their biggest deficit to RBR this year except for Monaco.



USA 2015 was very very wet but despite this the data point does not stand out as being exceptional.



The points appear to suggest that USA is again more of a chassis track than a power track for Mclaren i.e. very consistent performance over time despite big changes in power output. However this is potentially distorted by 2015.

[Pierce89]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rmat=image

Unfortunately Mclaren's poor performance has continued to Austin, it has surprised me that their deficit is actually greater than it was at Suzuka but the grid is more spread out at Austin. Nothing I am doing here really takes account of grid position, its purely focused on time deficit as a % of the pole lap.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rmat=image

Again this is a track where Mclaren have lost significant time vs RBR, its actually their biggest deficit to RBR this year except for Monaco.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rmat=image

USA 2015 was very very wet but despite this the data point does not stand out as being exceptional.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rmat=image

The points appear to suggest that USA is again more of a chassis track than a power track for Mclaren i.e. very consistent performance over time despite big changes in power output. However this is potentially distorted by 2015.

What surprises me is looking at your first graph, the Macca and Red Bull trends match each other so well that one might conclude that the chassis are very similar and the gap is just.power.

[mrluke]

The points appear to suggest that USA is again more of a chassis track than a power track for Mclaren i.e. very consistent performance over time despite big changes in power output. However this is potentially distorted by 2015.

What surprises me is looking at your first graph, the Macca and Red Bull trends match each other so well that one might conclude that the chassis are very similar and the gap is just.power.

It appears that way on first glance but it is a bit misleading as the gap between the 2 lines is nowhere close to consistent.

The below graph overlays the two traces, it shows how RBR are performing against pole and it shows how Mclaren compare to RBR.

It is a little bit open to interpretation but I would say for the majority of the graph you can see the traces moving in opposite directions meaning that Mclaren's best performances tie up with RBR's worst and vice versa.

[Andres125sx]

What surprises me is looking at your first graph, the Macca and Red Bull trends match each other so well that one might conclude that the chassis are very similar and the gap is just.power.

The trends match on the increasing/decreasing difference with Mercedes relative to the track, but it´s some lines above RBR, so I´d say yes, their weak and strong points are similar, but they also have a chassis deficit as RBR is constantly below them on that graph


Anycase I´m wondering if we´re expecting stupid things. What would be the point of developing 2016 chassis when it will change dramatically next season and they have no chances at all to do anything interesting this one?

It would be way more reasonable to take 2016 as a developing process for 2017 (I mean since january), that would explain the numerous aero iterations they´ve been testing the whole season to not produce significant improvement, but I´m far from an aero guy and have no idea if current chassis can be used as a test mule for next season solutions...

[Andres125sx]

The points appear to suggest that USA is again more of a chassis track than a power track for Mclaren i.e. very consistent performance over time despite big changes in power output. However this is potentially distorted by 2015.

What surprises me is looking at your first graph, the Macca and Red Bull trends match each other so well that one might conclude that the chassis are very similar and the gap is just.power.

It appears that way on first glance but it is a bit misleading as the gap between the 2 lines is nowhere close to consistent.

The below graph overlays the two traces, it shows how RBR are performing against pole and it shows how Mclaren compare to RBR.

It is a little bit open to interpretation but I would say for the majority of the graph you can see the traces moving in opposite directions meaning that Mclaren's best performances tie up with RBR's worst and vice versa.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... rmat=image

Disagree, that graph is comparing apples to oranges. If RBR improve compared to Mercedes the RBRvsMB line will decrease, while if McLaren keep same difference with MB difference with RBR will be increased, so those lines will cross and look opposite, when they´re not, one improved and the other remained constant, they´re not opposite but they look opposite.

To compare you must compare apples to apples, if you´re analysing RBR vs MB and want to include McLaren for reference, it must be McLaren vs MB too so the comparison is real, both are compared to same reference

[mrluke]

Disagree, that graph is comparing apples to oranges. If RBR improve compared to Mercedes the RBRvsMB line will decrease, while if McLaren keep same difference with MB difference with RBR will be increased, so those lines will cross and look opposite, when they´re not, one improved and the other remained constant, they´re not opposite but they look opposite.

To compare you must compare apples to apples, if you´re analysing RBR vs MB and want to include McLaren for reference, it must be McLaren vs MB too so the comparison is real, both are compared to same reference

Thats exactly the point.

If RBR gain ground on Mercedes that suggests that the track is a "chassis" track and that RBRs chassis is overcoming their power deficit to Mercedes. The same should also be true for Mclaren.

If however as you say RBR catch up Mercedes because it is a "chassis" track and Mclaren don't catchup at all then it suggests that Mclarens chassis is not able to overcome any power deficit.

Again I refer back to the opening post where I clearly set out that I believe the deficit is almost equally split between chassis and PU. I think they have a fairly average PU with a fairly average chassis. My evidence for this being that they tend to be closer to Mercedes on power tracks than they are on chassis tracks.

The most interesting evaluation is that Mclaren are closer to RBR on power circuits than they are on chassis circuits.

[diffuser]

You'd get a more accurate account if you compared sectors of tracks instead of the track as a whole. You could then isolate some of the straights from the track and get a better analysis.

The truth is that you could narrow down to 10 items what chassis needs to do well. Maybe McLaren does 3 of those really well,3 above average and 4 below average. So depending on the "chassis track", which of 10 items the track exposes and to what degree that those items are exposed will give you you track time. Not all "Chassis tracks" are equal. The PU is part of the Chassis. There might be 5 things it needs to do well and since the Honda PU does all those things below average, it takes the PU away as a tool to overcome some of the weaknesses. It actually does the opposite, the Chassis need to compensate for the PU weakness.

[Andres125sx]

Disagree, that graph is comparing apples to oranges. If RBR improve compared to Mercedes the RBRvsMB line will decrease, while if McLaren keep same difference with MB difference with RBR will be increased, so those lines will cross and look opposite, when they´re not, one improved and the other remained constant, they´re not opposite but they look opposite.

To compare you must compare apples to apples, if you´re analysing RBR vs MB and want to include McLaren for reference, it must be McLaren vs MB too so the comparison is real, both are compared to same reference

Thats exactly the point.

If RBR gain ground on Mercedes that suggests that the track is a "chassis" track and that RBRs chassis is overcoming their power deficit to Mercedes. The same should also be true for Mclaren.

If however as you say RBR catch up Mercedes because it is a "chassis" track and Mclaren don't catchup at all then it suggests that Mclarens chassis is not able to overcome any power deficit.

Again I refer back to the opening post where I clearly set out that I believe the deficit is almost equally split between chassis and PU. I think they have a fairly average PU with a fairly average chassis. My evidence for this being that they tend to be closer to Mercedes on power tracks than they are on chassis tracks.

The most interesting evaluation is that Mclaren are closer to RBR on power circuits than they are on chassis circuits.

But that´s oversimplifying things, as on any track both chassis and PU play a role. Even in Monza chassis is important, or Manor would have beaten McLaren. Same on chassis tracks like Monaco or Hungaroring.

What I mean is everything counts. Even on chassis tracks the PU play a role so maybe PU deficit between Renault and Mercedes is not too big so RBR chassis can make up the difference, but difference between Honda and Mercedes PUs is so big that not even a good chassis can compensate that difference.

In other words, maybe Mclaren chassis is better than Mercedes but the PU difference is so big even on chassis tracks they struggle to reduce that difference