Mclaren Honda 2015

[motobaleno]

I suspect it is something lost in translation. They are saying that the car chassis and mech have a lot of potential, but that's of no benefit if the engine is slow. Also they will be less aggressive with aero to compensate for the engine (eg less downforce so they can reduce the drag).

as far as I understood they said more than this. they literally affirmed that if engine cannot push at maximum this implies that aero and chassis works with lower tyres temperatures with respect to project so you don't have the planned balance between grip and downforce and, as a feedback, you don't really know if your drag/downforce balance is optimal and how to fine tune it.
so it' not only a matter of "I don't have enough PU performance even if my aero and chassis are good" but more
"as far as we will not have optimal PU performance we cannot know know if aero and chassis are good and most of all we are not able to know the right direction to develop them"

[zeph]

That is how I understand it as well.

[AxialTurbine]

I think Honda must have had a good idea of the merc pu performance. So they know the target. Perhaps they know already their pu has the performance of the merc but they can't unlock it because of reliability, so they homologated a very strong but unreliable pu which they can't exploit the potential of yet. I think though they can bring reliability updates which unlock the performance.

Hope this is the case else they are in for a tough year.

[FW17]

Worried

Looking back at the 2007 and 2008 seasons, the Honda had some serious power and drivability which they never could get on top of.

Could things have changed.............

Or will the demanding driver and team principal make them change?

[KeiKo403]

I think Honda must have had a good idea of the merc pu performance. So they know the target. Perhaps they know already their pu has the performance of the merc but they can't unlock it because of reliability, so they homologated a very strong but unreliable pu which they can't exploit the potential of yet. I think though they can bring reliability updates which unlock the performance.

Hope this is the case else they are in for a tough year.

To make changes to the PU outside of the token allowance for reliability purposes I believe they need to go to the FIA & other PU manufactures with what I'm essentially going to call blueprints of their PU so it can be evidenved that they are only going to bring reliability and not performance.

I don't think Honda would want to do that. They've been saying for a while that the PU is 'extreme' so I doubt they'll want to give away idea's to the likes of Renault.

[kaepernickus]

To make changes to the PU outside of the token allowance for reliability purposes I believe they need to go to the FIA & other PU manufactures with what I'm essentially going to call blueprints of their PU so it can be evidenved that they are only going to bring reliability and not performance.

I don't think Honda would want to do that. They've been saying for a while that the PU is 'extreme' so I doubt they'll want to give away idea's to the likes of Renault.

For what I've heard about this, it's not THAT much what they've to show to their competitors for these changes.

[FW17]

I don't think Ferrari and Merc had problem in updating their engine on reliability account numerous times during the 2007 and 2008 seasons

[AxialTurbine]

To make changes to the PU outside of the token allowance for reliability purposes I believe they need to go to the FIA & other PU manufactures with what I'm essentially going to call blueprints of their PU so it can be evidenved that they are only going to bring reliability and not performance.

I don't think Honda would want to do that. They've been saying for a while that the PU is 'extreme' so I doubt they'll want to give away idea's to the likes of Renault.

I thought I had read elsewhere on this forum that making reliability improvements was not such a big deal, yes they may have to give away minor details like 'we are replacing seal a made from x with seal b made from y' ..maybe they have to give a lot away in some cases ...but even so other teams would have to decide if copying was even worthwhile it might be almost impossible for Renault to copy Honda or anyone else in some respects as it would mean complete pu redesign.

I'm hoping so anyway, as they either have got it badly wrong and they are stuck for a season or two or they are going to make changes as reliability or tokens.

[RicME85]

It was Facts Only in the MP4-30 thread that said it was more a formality rather than a full on exposé of the engine design

[Vasconia]

I think Honda must have had a good idea of the merc pu performance. So they know the target. Perhaps they know already their pu has the performance of the merc but they can't unlock it because of reliability, so they homologated a very strong but unreliable pu which they can't exploit the potential of yet. I think though they can bring reliability updates which unlock the performance.

Hope this is the case else they are in for a tough year.

I have the same idea. They have been very ambitious and they tried to develop an engine with the same power as Mercedes engine. But now we must wait if they can make this engine reliable.

[Thunder]

Good signs for the Car Performance?
https://twitter.com/F1/status/579978719336534017 http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... ering.html

" the cornering data from Australia suggests the MP4-30, while uncompetitive overall, is not actually surrendering too much speed in the corners relative to other drivers - which hints at it having an inherently good level of downforce"

[Miguel]

Good signs for the Car Performance?

https://twitter.com/F1/status/579978719336534017
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... ering.html

" the cornering data from Australia suggests the MP4-30, while uncompetitive overall, is not actually surrendering too much speed in the corners relative to other drivers - which hints at it having an inherently good level of downforce"

Thanks for the link!

While those numbers may be a sign for optimism, the analysis seems too simple. For example, we've always assumed that williams is fast with bad downforce, and this year's ferrari has a worse engine than Mercedes, but better aero than williams. According to F1.com, thogh, there we have Massa with the highest "cornering index" and Vettel well under him, or Hamilton, or Rosberg, or Button.

Paint me confused...

[acosmichippo]

I would say preseason testing speculation should take a back seat to real race data.

That said, without knowing the method they used to get these numbers, I remain skeptical.

[ParkerArt]

I would say preseason testing speculation should take a back seat to real race data.

That said, without knowing the method they used to get these numbers, I remain skeptical.

From what I have seen, the driver with the highest g-loading in the corners over the whole lap gets a 10 and the driver with the lowest average gets a 1. Everyone gets a mark in the middle.

Cornering

Cornering ratings are calculated by averaging the latitudinal (side-to-side) g-forces acting on a car in each and every corner across a Grand Prix. The reason g-force data is used to assess cornering performance is because the faster a car negotiates a bend, the higher the g-force acting upon it. Therefore a higher score in this category suggests a driver is cornering harder.

As with the other categories, the raw telemetry figures for each car are compared and then each driver is ranked on a scale of 1-10. In this instance, the driver whose car produces the highest g-force readings will receive a score of 10.

[acosmichippo]

interesting. can anyone think of reasons why that may be misleading? Only thing I can think of is that it doesn't take into account cars that DNF'ed.