planetf1.com

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

rodH wrote:The problem with just “switching to mercedes” is that McLaren probably believes that there is NO way that McLaren will ever get the equal works engine that the factory team gets. I tend to agree, there is no way Merc would allow that, and I am sure there are a lot of games that are played to assure the factory cars get the best spec. That being said, they have to find another route, and this is how Honda enters the equation. As a McLaren and Alonso fan, I am at least glad that they know the fault of the engine and can now work on correcting it and getting it at full power instead of just being cluless about what is wrong (but this is sure is a frustrating situation).

I believe it is possible to win with a customer engine. It has been done in the past. Redbull has won 4 championships doing it, they are currently outclassing the Works Renault team, Mclaren used to outclass Mercedes when they were using their engine in the previous era. This idea that you can't win with a customer engine is bogus and really came from Ron Dennis. He was wrong. Paddy Lowe has also said it recently that winning with a customer is possible. It really boils down to the car, if the car is good enough, you can win with a customer engine. No question about it.

I think there is a question. Paddy Lowe's not the best example. He can hardly say Williams have no hope, can he? As for Red Bull, Renault are in no position to challenge at the moment because basically their chassis isn't great. But if they do end up fighting with Red Bull for points, how much longer will Red Bull get parity of equipment do you think?

Williams admitted last year (or was it 2015?) that they didn't have access to the higher engine modes Mercedes did. I think there's reason to believe Ron

Paddy has been consistent in his stance regarding the engines since last year. If there was no "parity" with the customer and works engines he would say it. The fia dictates that the engines have to be equal. The works teams are not allowed to provide lesser engines to their customers. If williams doesnt have access to engine modes it is likely their fault.

It's a clever swerve by Paddy is all. Only equal Hardware is to be guaranteed to customers, it's the Software,Fuel and lubricants that set the works teams apart and you don't have to provide the best ones to your customer. So Paddy can tell the truth about parity on the hardware side but ask him specifically about mapping and see what he says.

There was a piece by Dieter Rencken over the weekend that suggested McLarens owner Mansour Ojjeh who's quite friendly with Daimler was trying to get "special status" in terms of a customer deal from Mercedes while Eric B tries to convince Sauber to take on Honda. The "special status" is access to some of the best mapping that the other customers don't get.

Of course it's technically possible to win as a customer if the works team is as poor as Renault is currently or does a terrible job with it's car in general but Mercedes are too good right now. You'd have to build a car significantly better than them to overcome the deficit on the Software,Fuels and Lubricant and that's not very likely hence seeking works deals(Plus the bonus of free engines and extra money).

kleefton wrote:

mds wrote:

Seanie wrote:[
It annoys me how people think that switching to Merc will solve their problems. They were with Mercedes in 2013-14 and were already stuck in the mid-field, scrambling around for the single digit points, on a good day.

All that proves is that they could get it wrong too. In 2012 they created a car that íwas every bit as fast as the RBR. The 2011 wasn't exactly a stinker either.
If you're going to use history in order to make a point, then the only point is that it is FAR more likely that in the past three years they could have created a top car, than that they would have continued like in 2013. Because in the 20-something seasons before 2013, they rarely were to be found outside of the top 3 in the WCC. They had a brief stint of fourth places between 1994 and 1997, and in 2004 they were fifth. All the other years they placed top 3.

The problem isn't solely the engine, its the entire package. They may be able to kid their fans the car is fundamentally good, just underpowered... But the reality is, this phase of poor performance pre-dates Honda, and removing them won't necessarily fix the problem, if anything it'll just bring new ones.

It won't necessarily fix the problem: incorrect. It will fix the PU problem and give them at least a chance to compete.
Will it guarantee them a top spot again? No. Nobody is guaranteed that, however, talking about likelihood: see above.

Lastly: the problem is the entire package: there is no way to know that and you can't say that with any degree of certainty. The only thing we know is that the PU is a POS.

To be fair, just studying mclarens performance compared to the even less powerful toro rosso car last year shows mclarens problems werent just engine related. They failed to reach many of their targets last year, even when the power unit was getting better.

This year, yeah...We dont know yet.

You mean the STR Ferrari 2015 unit that turned out to have TJI according to Andy Cowell?. Cowell said Ferrari introduced it late 2015 in the same speech he said Renault introduced in 2016 and Honda didn't have it. When Cowell said this Renault were still publicly denying that they had it on the car and Honda wouldn't confirm either way.

Well Renault admitted finally during the winter tests it was true that they introduced it last year and Honda publicly confirmed they didn't. So unless Cowell happened to be right about everything else except Ferrari introducing it in 2015 then that unit in the STR was significantly more powerful than the Honda unit. Efficiency is power in this formula and a car with lean burn has to be more powerful than one without.

Now Horners comments about STR being so far ahead of RB at the beginning of last year make sense. He knew they had TJI and had to wait for Renault to introduce it in Monaco to get on par.

We also found out over the winter that the Honda unit had a very high CoG which we didn't know and happens to have the same detrimental effect on medium/high speed corners for the car that McLaren struggled with at Suzuka.

If anything, from what we've learned over the winter the McLaren car looks even better than first thought and explains why those rival engineers that spoke to James Allen placed it 3rd.

Rumours in Autobild that Mario Illien is working with McLaren now. http://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/repor ... g-mclaren/

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

rodH wrote:The problem with just “switching to mercedes” is that McLaren probably believes that there is NO way that McLaren will ever get the equal works engine that the factory team gets. I tend to agree, there is no way Merc would allow that, and I am sure there are a lot of games that are played to assure the factory cars get the best spec. That being said, they have to find another route, and this is how Honda enters the equation. As a McLaren and Alonso fan, I am at least glad that they know the fault of the engine and can now work on correcting it and getting it at full power instead of just being cluless about what is wrong (but this is sure is a frustrating situation).

I believe it is possible to win with a customer engine. It has been done in the past. Redbull has won 4 championships doing it, they are currently outclassing the Works Renault team, Mclaren used to outclass Mercedes when they were using their engine in the previous era. This idea that you can't win with a customer engine is bogus and really came from Ron Dennis. He was wrong. Paddy Lowe has also said it recently that winning with a customer is possible. It really boils down to the car, if the car is good enough, you can win with a customer engine. No question about it.

I think there is a question. Paddy Lowe's not the best example. He can hardly say Williams have no hope, can he? As for Red Bull, Renault are in no position to challenge at the moment because basically their chassis isn't great. But if they do end up fighting with Red Bull for points, how much longer will Red Bull get parity of equipment do you think?

Williams admitted last year (or was it 2015?) that they didn't have access to the higher engine modes Mercedes did. I think there's reason to believe Ron

Paddy has been consistent in his stance regarding the engines since last year. If there was no "parity" with the customer and works engines he would say it. The fia dictates that the engines have to be equal. The works teams are not allowed to provide lesser engines to their customers. If williams doesnt have access to engine modes it is likely their fault.

It's a clever swerve by Paddy is all. Only equal Hardware is to be guaranteed to customers, it's the Software,Fuel and lubricants that set the works teams apart and you don't have to provide the best ones to your customer. So Paddy can tell the truth about parity on the hardware side but ask him specifically about mapping and see what he says.

There was a piece by Dieter Rencken over the weekend that suggested McLarens owner Mansour Ojjeh who's quite friendly with Daimler was trying to get "special status" in terms of a customer deal from Mercedes while Eric B tries to convince Sauber to take on Honda. The "special status" is access to some of the best mapping that the other customers don't get.

Of course it's technically possible to win as a customer if the works team is as poor as Renault is currently or does a terrible job with it's car in general but Mercedes are too good right now. You'd have to build a car significantly better than them to overcome the deficit on the Software,Fuels and Lubricant and that's not very likely hence seeking works deals(Plus the bonus of free engines and extra money).

How much power do you think is missing from software, lubricants and fuel? I mean, we are talking engines making around 1000 hp. The difference that 30-50hp makes should not matter a whole lot in terms of performance, as it is a very small percentage of the overall output. That is why I believe these engines are getting close to being maxed out anyway. The aero and chassis are becoming a lot more critical to performance. The problem is that I don't think the Honda is making anywhere close to even 900hp. So they're still what? 100hp+ short? That is going to hurt.

Also, if you or anyone have info on why the other Mercedes customers don't have the engine modes, please share a link. To me it goes against the FIA rules. It is completely fishy to me that they would not have those modes available because Mercedes is blocking it.

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

mds wrote:

Seanie wrote:[
It annoys me how people think that switching to Merc will solve their problems. They were with Mercedes in 2013-14 and were already stuck in the mid-field, scrambling around for the single digit points, on a good day.

All that proves is that they could get it wrong too. In 2012 they created a car that íwas every bit as fast as the RBR. The 2011 wasn't exactly a stinker either.
If you're going to use history in order to make a point, then the only point is that it is FAR more likely that in the past three years they could have created a top car, than that they would have continued like in 2013. Because in the 20-something seasons before 2013, they rarely were to be found outside of the top 3 in the WCC. They had a brief stint of fourth places between 1994 and 1997, and in 2004 they were fifth. All the other years they placed top 3.

The problem isn't solely the engine, its the entire package. They may be able to kid their fans the car is fundamentally good, just underpowered... But the reality is, this phase of poor performance pre-dates Honda, and removing them won't necessarily fix the problem, if anything it'll just bring new ones.

It won't necessarily fix the problem: incorrect. It will fix the PU problem and give them at least a chance to compete.
Will it guarantee them a top spot again? No. Nobody is guaranteed that, however, talking about likelihood: see above.

Lastly: the problem is the entire package: there is no way to know that and you can't say that with any degree of certainty. The only thing we know is that the PU is a POS.

To be fair, just studying mclarens performance compared to the even less powerful toro rosso car last year shows mclarens problems werent just engine related. They failed to reach many of their targets last year, even when the power unit was getting better.

This year, yeah...We dont know yet.

You mean the STR Ferrari 2015 unit that turned out to have TJI according to Andy Cowell?. Cowell said Ferrari introduced it late 2015 in the same speech he said Renault introduced in 2016 and Honda didn't have it. When Cowell said this Renault were still publicly denying that they had it on the car and Honda wouldn't confirm either way.

Well Renault admitted finally during the winter tests it was true that they introduced it last year and Honda publicly confirmed they didn't. So unless Cowell happened to be right about everything else except Ferrari introducing it in 2015 then that unit in the STR was significantly more powerful than the Honda unit. Efficiency is power in this formula and a car with lean burn has to be more powerful than one without.

Now Horners comments about STR being so far ahead of RB at the beginning of last year make sense. He knew they had TJI and had to wait for Renault to introduce it in Monaco to get on par.

We also found out over the winter that the Honda unit had a very high CoG which we didn't know and happens to have the same detrimental effect on medium/high speed corners for the car that McLaren struggled with at Suzuka.

If anything, from what we've learned over the winter the McLaren car looks even better than first thought and explains why those rival engineers that spoke to James Allen placed it 3rd.

From what I know Mclaren started last year with an engine inferior to the 2015 Ferrari in the TR, but by the end they were more powerful, even without TJI. Carlos Sainz's comments after the COTA race confirmed that: “You cannot mind. The team and I are evident with how Fernando passed me – it was evidence was the second worst engine overtook us like they were the best one!” Sainz said.
And another proof is that they did beat TR at Monza due to their power advantage, but once it came down to the chassis track TR quickly turned the tables on them.

Also a lot of the Mclaren success last year was due to Alonso, let's not forget that. I think he was more responsible for Mclaren's successes than the car itself. If you put average drivers in that car last year they likely would only be fighting to stay ahead of Sauber and Manor.

kleefton wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:
I believe it is possible to win with a customer engine. It has been done in the past. Redbull has won 4 championships doing it, they are currently outclassing the Works Renault team, Mclaren used to outclass Mercedes when they were using their engine in the previous era. This idea that you can't win with a customer engine is bogus and really came from Ron Dennis. He was wrong. Paddy Lowe has also said it recently that winning with a customer is possible. It really boils down to the car, if the car is good enough, you can win with a customer engine. No question about it.

I think there is a question. Paddy Lowe's not the best example. He can hardly say Williams have no hope, can he? As for Red Bull, Renault are in no position to challenge at the moment because basically their chassis isn't great. But if they do end up fighting with Red Bull for points, how much longer will Red Bull get parity of equipment do you think?

Williams admitted last year (or was it 2015?) that they didn't have access to the higher engine modes Mercedes did. I think there's reason to believe Ron

Paddy has been consistent in his stance regarding the engines since last year. If there was no "parity" with the customer and works engines he would say it. The fia dictates that the engines have to be equal. The works teams are not allowed to provide lesser engines to their customers. If williams doesnt have access to engine modes it is likely their fault.

It's a clever swerve by Paddy is all. Only equal Hardware is to be guaranteed to customers, it's the Software,Fuel and lubricants that set the works teams apart and you don't have to provide the best ones to your customer. So Paddy can tell the truth about parity on the hardware side but ask him specifically about mapping and see what he says.

There was a piece by Dieter Rencken over the weekend that suggested McLarens owner Mansour Ojjeh who's quite friendly with Daimler was trying to get "special status" in terms of a customer deal from Mercedes while Eric B tries to convince Sauber to take on Honda. The "special status" is access to some of the best mapping that the other customers don't get.

Of course it's technically possible to win as a customer if the works team is as poor as Renault is currently or does a terrible job with it's car in general but Mercedes are too good right now. You'd have to build a car significantly better than them to overcome the deficit on the Software,Fuels and Lubricant and that's not very likely hence seeking works deals(Plus the bonus of free engines and extra money).

How much power do you think is missing from software, lubricants and fuel? I mean, we are talking engines making around 1000 hp. The difference that 30-50hp makes should not matter a whole lot in terms of performance, as it is a very small percentage of the overall output. That is why I believe these engines are getting close to being maxed out anyway. The aero and chassis are becoming a lot more critical to performance. The problem is that I don't think the Honda is making anywhere close to even 900hp. So they're still what? 100hp+ short? That is going to hurt.

Also, if you or anyone have info on why the other Mercedes customers don't have the engine modes, please share a link. To me it goes against the FIA rules. It is completely fishy to me that they would not have those modes available because Mercedes is blocking it.

It's impossible for me to put a number on it as mapping effects everything from driveability to the most powerful modes. With the lean burn technology fuels and lubricants are hugely important so using an inferior or basic blend may have small or significant differences.

But it all adds up. That 30-50 difference is roughly what Renault are missing, or at least were last year, to Ferrari and Mercedes. I'd argue they felt that was a pretty big difference.

I can't provide links, the only story about mapping I remember was the Williams one from 2014 or 2015 where they were asking for the new software package Mercedes were using. The truth is how do the customers themselves know Mercedes are holding back on that front so it's not easy for them to moan about it and cause themselves a headache with their supplier.

There's nothing in the rules that says Mercedes have to share their own best software packages and fuel blends from Petronas, same with Ferrari or any other Manufacturers. And every time a "big" independent team talks about getting a supply it's high on the list of concern, getting access to those maps being the big one. Where there's smoke and all that.

LAMO. Is that post known to be from a genuine Honda engineer, or just someone posing as one?

It sounds good, but if someone is retiring, surely they will have more time to post, not less?

Not outright doubting it, just asking if you think the poster is the real thing?

moby wrote:LAMO. Is that post known to be from a genuine Honda engineer, or just someone posing as one?

It sounds good, but if someone is retiring, surely they will have more time to post, not less?

Not outright doubting it, just asking if you think the poster is the real thing?

I was thinking the same. Interesting info if he is legitimate. But how do we know?

Lotus49 wrote:
It's impossible for me to put a number on it as mapping effects everything from driveability to the most powerful modes. With the lean burn technology fuels and lubricants are hugely important so using an inferior or basic blend may have small or significant differences.

But it all adds up. That 30-50 difference is roughly what Renault are missing, or at least were last year, to Ferrari and Mercedes. I'd argue they felt that was a pretty big difference.

I can't provide links, the only story about mapping I remember was the Williams one from 2014 or 2015 where they were asking for the new software package Mercedes were using. The truth is how do the customers themselves know Mercedes are holding back on that front so it's not easy for them to moan about it and cause themselves a headache with their supplier.

There's nothing in the rules that says Mercedes have to share their own best software packages and fuel blends from Petronas, same with Ferrari or any other Manufacturers. And every time a "big" independent team talks about getting a supply it's high on the list of concern, getting access to those maps being the big one. Where there's smoke and all that.

Understood regarding the driveability stuff, but I still don't understand how Merc is blocking access to what is essentially tuning the engine. Isn't Mclaren the ECU manufacturer? If not I'm sure it's a third party. If so it means every team should be able to map their engines the way they want. If not then Merc is breaking the rules. The rules do not specify that it is hardware only that must have parity.

kleefton wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

mds wrote:

Seanie wrote:[
It annoys me how people think that switching to Merc will solve their problems. They were with Mercedes in 2013-14 and were already stuck in the mid-field, scrambling around for the single digit points, on a good day.

All that proves is that they could get it wrong too. In 2012 they created a car that íwas every bit as fast as the RBR. The 2011 wasn't exactly a stinker either.
If you're going to use history in order to make a point, then the only point is that it is FAR more likely that in the past three years they could have created a top car, than that they would have continued like in 2013. Because in the 20-something seasons before 2013, they rarely were to be found outside of the top 3 in the WCC. They had a brief stint of fourth places between 1994 and 1997, and in 2004 they were fifth. All the other years they placed top 3.

The problem isn't solely the engine, its the entire package. They may be able to kid their fans the car is fundamentally good, just underpowered... But the reality is, this phase of poor performance pre-dates Honda, and removing them won't necessarily fix the problem, if anything it'll just bring new ones.

It won't necessarily fix the problem: incorrect. It will fix the PU problem and give them at least a chance to compete.
Will it guarantee them a top spot again? No. Nobody is guaranteed that, however, talking about likelihood: see above.

Lastly: the problem is the entire package: there is no way to know that and you can't say that with any degree of certainty. The only thing we know is that the PU is a POS.

To be fair, just studying mclarens performance compared to the even less powerful toro rosso car last year shows mclarens problems werent just engine related. They failed to reach many of their targets last year, even when the power unit was getting better.

This year, yeah...We dont know yet.

You mean the STR Ferrari 2015 unit that turned out to have TJI according to Andy Cowell?. Cowell said Ferrari introduced it late 2015 in the same speech he said Renault introduced in 2016 and Honda didn't have it. When Cowell said this Renault were still publicly denying that they had it on the car and Honda wouldn't confirm either way.

Well Renault admitted finally during the winter tests it was true that they introduced it last year and Honda publicly confirmed they didn't. So unless Cowell happened to be right about everything else except Ferrari introducing it in 2015 then that unit in the STR was significantly more powerful than the Honda unit. Efficiency is power in this formula and a car with lean burn has to be more powerful than one without.

Now Horners comments about STR being so far ahead of RB at the beginning of last year make sense. He knew they had TJI and had to wait for Renault to introduce it in Monaco to get on par.

We also found out over the winter that the Honda unit had a very high CoG which we didn't know and happens to have the same detrimental effect on medium/high speed corners for the car that McLaren struggled with at Suzuka.

If anything, from what we've learned over the winter the McLaren car looks even better than first thought and explains why those rival engineers that spoke to James Allen placed it 3rd.

From what I know Mclaren started last year with an engine inferior to the 2015 Ferrari in the TR, but by the end they were more powerful, even without TJI. Carlos Sainz's comments after the COTA race confirmed that. And another proof is that they did beat TR at Monza due to their power advantage, but once it came down to the chassis track TR quickly turned the tables on them.

Also a lot of the Mclaren success last year was due to Alonso, let's not forget that. I think he was more responsible for Mclaren's successes than the car itself. If you put average drivers in that car last year they likely would only be fighting to stay ahead of Sauber and Manor.

Sainz also talked about his concern about the amount of drag STR had with their new aero package, that alone could swing it towards McLaren even at Monza with a less powerful unit.

I too thought Honda had passed the '15 Ferrari at Spa but that comment from Cowell changes everything for me. Honda could easily have had a better ERS which helped close the gap but what you're expecting me to believe is that Honda's year two unit without TJI was more powerful than Ferrari's year two unit with TJI.

How?. What's the point of TJI then if you can match and exceed it's power output and efficiency without it?. It's clear Honda managed to close the gap significantly throughout the year and it's also possible the Ferrari unit was limited in some ways by it's architecture as Ferrari had a fairly significant re-shuffle that winter so it's possible the TJI wasn't as effective as it could have been.

But it was still on it, and in this fuel flow limited formula efficiency is power so how can it be outstripped by a unit that was heavy,had a high CoG,No TJI,too small a turbo and didn't even have a qualy mode for most if the year.

I mean how bad was that Ferrari 2015 unit to get beat by all that despite having lean burn technology giving them far better efficiency?.

I'm sorry but if Cowell is right then either Honda built the best year two unit of this era(And that includes Mercedes) or STR had a PU advantage the entire year.

moby wrote:LAMO. Is that post known to be from a genuine Honda engineer, or just someone posing as one?

It sounds good, but if someone is retiring, surely they will have more time to post, not less?

Not outright doubting it, just asking if you think the poster is the real thing?

He's not legit. He got busted pinching a translated article from a Japanese interview that was posted on AS and re-arranging it and trying to pass it off as an official statement he had been given. When he got outed now he's leaving.

He also claimed he had worked 75% of the time at Honda working on combustion but told everyone McLaren would be using BP branded Mobil this year.

Turns out they're using Castrol branded BP and Castrol fuel and lubricants.

kleefton wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
It's impossible for me to put a number on it as mapping effects everything from driveability to the most powerful modes. With the lean burn technology fuels and lubricants are hugely important so using an inferior or basic blend may have small or significant differences.

But it all adds up. That 30-50 difference is roughly what Renault are missing, or at least were last year, to Ferrari and Mercedes. I'd argue they felt that was a pretty big difference.

I can't provide links, the only story about mapping I remember was the Williams one from 2014 or 2015 where they were asking for the new software package Mercedes were using. The truth is how do the customers themselves know Mercedes are holding back on that front so it's not easy for them to moan about it and cause themselves a headache with their supplier.

There's nothing in the rules that says Mercedes have to share their own best software packages and fuel blends from Petronas, same with Ferrari or any other Manufacturers. And every time a "big" independent team talks about getting a supply it's high on the list of concern, getting access to those maps being the big one. Where there's smoke and all that.

Understood regarding the driveability stuff, but I still don't understand how Merc is blocking access to what is essentially tuning the engine. Isn't Mclaren the ECU manufacturer? If not I'm sure it's a third party. If so it means every team should be able to map their engines the way they want. If not then Merc is breaking the rules. The rules do not specify that it is hardware only that must have parity.

It's not really blocking it, they just don't have to pass on everything they use. Yeah the ECU is standard and I'm pretty sure the teams can map them too, I remember the fuss about McLaren not getting any help with that from Mercedes in 2014 so that would suggest they can do it themselves.

The rules don't stipulate that it includes software either and I think the fact whenever we hear about Red Bull or McLaren and potential supply from Mercedes they talk about those kind of things being included shows there's some smoke there.

I'll try to find the Rencken piece, he's not usually the type to chat BS to be honest and he mentioned this special status.

Apparently he posted a lot since 2015 on that forum and on occasions released hints or small details that turned out to be true. It seems he is definitely connected to Honda but then again it is the internet so who knows. Apparently he has shown picture evidence to some respected long term members in private emails too.

lamo wrote:Apparently he posted a lot since 2015 on that forum and on occasions released hints or small details that turned out to be true. It seems he is definitely connected to Honda but then again it is the internet so who knows. Apparently he has shown picture evidence to some respected long term members in private emails too.

Thanks for it, and the tip, interesting anyway. I just went for a look on that site and will probably take to it. Still come here though

Looks like McLaren wouldn't be too different with Renault!

ReservoirDog wrote:Looks like McLaren wouldn't be too different with Renault!

You think they'll be 9th in WCC?

ReservoirDog wrote:Looks like McLaren wouldn't be too different with Renault!

Reliability problems in testing != second slowest car on the grid. I'll fully admit that clearly some of the reliability woes were Maccas fault, but that doesn't mean everything will be just as bad - and I don't think it will be.

Lotus49 wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:Looks like McLaren wouldn't be too different with Renault!

You think they'll be 9th in WCC?

Well if you ain't first, you're last. But I think they won't be in the top 5.

ReservoirDog wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:Looks like McLaren wouldn't be too different with Renault!

You think they'll be 9th in WCC?

Well if you ain't first, you're last. But I think they won't be in the top 5.

Top 5 will be Mercedes, Ferrari and the 3 Renault teams.

McLaren's chassis was very good last year. Catalunya is a high downforce track where the engine isn't important but people keep attributing their success there purely to Alonso.

Oh well, it's Alonso's home GP so he'll usually do good there but much of it was the car.

However, it would not be strange at all for the chassis to allow good lap times yet not allow the engine to breathe properly either, causing breakdowns.

Oh Lordy!

1.8 seconds slower than Red Bull with the same engine

KingVoid wrote:1.8 seconds slower than Red Bull with the same engine

At this track, yeah. It wasn't that much in Melbourne.

We'll see where they are at season's end, but I'll be the first to admit that today was a major fail by the Woking squad.

Gasly in the Toro Rosso "best of the rest", even Hartley faster...

Exediron wrote:

KingVoid wrote:1.8 seconds slower than Red Bull with the same engine

At this track, yeah. It wasn't that much in Melbourne.

We'll see where they are at season's end, but I'll be the first to admit that today was a major fail by the Woking squad.

But it was still over a second. McLaren may indeed have grand plans for development but, as of now, they are not in the mix at all. I'd say they are much more solidly in the midfield and they have at least escaped the reliability issues of the Honda years but they aren't in the same league as the top three and I see no reason to assume they will be prior to 2021.

Me neither. Not unless they buy a full chassis dyno.

The gap to the top 3 is just too big.

Exediron wrote:

KingVoid wrote:1.8 seconds slower than Red Bull with the same engine

At this track, yeah. It wasn't that much in Melbourne.

We'll see where they are at season's end, but I'll be the first to admit that today was a major fail by the Woking squad.

Bahrain is very hot. Bad for the engine.

Seems McLaren's clothes are indeed falling off...

What will it take for the general public to accept that McLaren is no longer a top team?

They won their last race in 2012, Williams and Renault also won their last race in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

AFAIK, McLaren do not have the same budget as Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull. They can’t match the spending power of those teams.

McLaren have a great history of winning things in the past, but so do Williams, and they aren’t considered a top team anymore.

Employing a top driver (Alonso) is the only thing that is keeping McLaren’s reputation afloat. Once they lose him, it will be very difficult to escape the midfield.

KingVoid wrote:What will it take for the general public to accept that McLaren is no longer a top team?

They won their last race in 2012, Williams and Renault also won their last race in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

AFAIK, McLaren do not have the same budget as Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull. They can’t match the spending power of those teams.

McLaren have a great history of winning things in the past, but so do Williams, and they aren’t considered a top team anymore.

Employing a top driver (Alonso) is the only thing that is keeping McLaren’s reputation afloat. Once they lose him, it will be very difficult to escape the midfield.

yes, it is starting to look like McLaren is a shadow of their former self, sadly. I have to admit I'm finding it hard to process as they have always been one of the giants of the sport ever since I started watching. Seeing them like this is like a bereavement!

The updates they brought here, that Alonso was so confident about, don't appear to have worked at all (where have I heard that before). I know that performance may fluctuate wildly in F1 (just look at Merc last week and this weekend), but it's somewhat disheartening to see them like this

KingVoid wrote:What will it take for the general public to accept that McLaren is no longer a top team?

They won their last race in 2012, Williams and Renault also won their last race in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

AFAIK, McLaren do not have the same budget as Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull. They can’t match the spending power of those teams.

McLaren have a great history of winning things in the past, but so do Williams, and they aren’t considered a top team anymore.

Employing a top driver (Alonso) is the only thing that is keeping McLaren’s reputation afloat. Once they lose him, it will be very difficult to escape the midfield.

It's certainly hard to argue they are. Not just based on performance either but resources and equipment now as well is behind the Top 3 as you say.

It's a shame but if they can become 4th and try to get within a respectable amount of those 3 and the new rules are favourable post 2021 then I think it doesn't have to be terminal. They've got a helluva talent to come in, a British one at that, which always seems to give McLaren a boost exposure wise and fan base wise and with a cap for instance they'd be pretty well placed I feel if they avoid the brain drain which I think they will.

I fear that the years before 2021 is gonna sting though but obviously I hope I'm wrong.

KingVoid wrote:What will it take for the general public to accept that McLaren is no longer a top team?

Qualifying behind both Toro Rosso Hondas.

It's done it for me anyway. McLaren have sadly gone the way of Williams.

The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

Bobafett wrote:The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

When has Alonso ever been good at planning his future and helping the team move in the direction of success? Ferrari for example only went backwards with him as the leading driver.

This is why I think Schumacher is the greatest of all drivers. He brought Ferrari from zero to hero. Can't say the same of Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Kimi, Senna...

Pole2Win wrote:

Bobafett wrote:The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

When has Alonso ever been good at planning his future and helping the team move in the direction of success? Ferrari for example only went backwards with him as the leading driver.

This is why I think Schumacher is the greatest of all drivers. He brought Ferrari from zero to hero. Can't say the same of Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Kimi, Senna...

Ferrari finished 4th in the last season without Alonso and 4th in the last season with Alonso. They didn't go backwards.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Pole2Win wrote:

Bobafett wrote:The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

When has Alonso ever been good at planning his future and helping the team move in the direction of success? Ferrari for example only went backwards with him as the leading driver.

This is why I think Schumacher is the greatest of all drivers. He brought Ferrari from zero to hero. Can't say the same of Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Kimi, Senna...

Ferrari finished 4th in the last season without Alonso and 4th in the last season with Alonso. They didn't go backwards.

Some time back I actually looked into Alonso's presence statistically and came up with the following conclusions:

When looking at the WCC, Minardi was better off before Alonso joined them. They were also better off after he left them.
McLaren were better off before Alonso joined them. They were also better off after he left them.
Renault (stint 1) were the same before Alonso joined them, but worse after he left them.
Renault (stint 2) were better off before Alonso joined them. They were also better off after he left them.
Ferrari were better off after Alonso joined them, but also better off after he left them.
McLaren were better off before Alonso joined them.

In 8/11 cases Alonso's presence had a negative influence
2/11 positive influence.
1/11 neutral influence.

Bobafett wrote:The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

You have to feel for McLaren, really. It can't have been an easy decision to make but they were saddled with a dog of an engine for three years and it would be cruel for them if it finally started to come good after they finally ran out of patience

Pole2Win wrote:

Bobafett wrote:The thing is if the Honda engine has truly gotten its act together McLaren will look stupid, giving up works team status and yes the Renault engine is good but its not a works deal is it? And they partly did it to keep Alonso happy, a driver whom is reaching retirement age and whose mind is already looking to other pursuits

When has Alonso ever been good at planning his future and helping the team move in the direction of success? Ferrari for example only went backwards with him as the leading driver.

This is why I think Schumacher is the greatest of all drivers. He brought Ferrari from zero to hero. Can't say the same of Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Kimi, Senna...

No way man. Hamilton arrived at McLaren the year after they failed to win a single race after the switch to V8 engines. They won 8 races his first year as a team and then he took the WDC the following season. In 6 years with the team, they won races every single season and never finished below third in the WCC standings (Other than the DQ in 2007). Since leaving the team, they haven't won a single race...He arrived at Mercedes at a time when they had won just 1 race in their 3 year existence. Since getting there, they've won 66 races and 4 straight WCCs. Meanwhile Schumacher was the guy he replaced and they didn't escape the midfield the whole time Michael was racing for them.

Vettel? Same thing. He arrived at Torro Rosso and actually won a race for them! No other driver in that team's history has even finished on the podium. 2008 was easily their best ever year. Then, after moving to Red Bull in 2009, the team that had yet to win a single race in its history managed to win 6 that first year with him onboard. They then won 4 consecutive WCCs and 41 races over the next 4 years. Then he moved to a Ferrari team that had just had an abysmal first year under the new regulations. Replacing Alonso, he won 3 races and led them to 2nd in the WCC; a feat he repeated last year as well and this year, they seem poised to make their best title run since 2010.

Kimi won the WDC for Ferrari in his first year with the team and gave Lotus their only wins during this last iteration of the team.

And Senna!? Really!? You want to suggest that Senna didn't have a positive impact on his teams? This despite McLaren having perhaps the most dominant season in F1 history the moment he arrived at the team? This despite Mclaren winning 4 straight WCCs from the moment he arrived?

Alonso is the one guy who I think you can accurately criticize for this but the rest is absurd.

KingVoid wrote:1.8 seconds slower than Red Bull with the same engine

It seems McLaren was also slower than Renault in Bahrain.

dizlexik wrote:

KingVoid wrote:1.8 seconds slower than Red Bull with the same engine

It seems McLaren was also slower than Renault in Bahrain.

Really, that's the impression you got? Alonso was glued to Hulk practically the whole race, and made multiple attempts to overtake him. If he'd been in front, he would have built a gap easily.

McLaren was slower than Renault in qualifying, but not in the race.