planetf1.com

GingerFurball wrote:I think it's 22 retirements whilst driving for McLaren Honda vs 21 retirements in the 10 seasons between 2004 and 2013.

There are those that say they were not all mechanical though.

Out of the points is hardly worth the effort of carrying on though if you are not enjoying it.

moby wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:I think it's 22 retirements whilst driving for McLaren Honda vs 21 retirements in the 10 seasons between 2004 and 2013.

There are those that say they were not all mechanical though.

Out of the points is hardly worth the effort of carrying on though if you are not enjoying it.

As long as those people aren't Honda it doesn't matter really.

They only doubted one, Spa 2017, and a week later at Monza they admitted they had to change a prop in the same unit.

Lotus49 wrote:

moby wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:I think it's 22 retirements whilst driving for McLaren Honda vs 21 retirements in the 10 seasons between 2004 and 2013.

There are those that say they were not all mechanical though.

Out of the points is hardly worth the effort of carrying on though if you are not enjoying it.

As long as those people aren't Honda it doesn't matter really.

They only doubted one, Spa 2017, and a week later at Monza they admitted they had to change a prop in the same unit.

I thought honda said there was nothing wrong with that one, and they used it next race?

moby wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

moby wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:I think it's 22 retirements whilst driving for McLaren Honda vs 21 retirements in the 10 seasons between 2004 and 2013.

There are those that say they were not all mechanical though.

Out of the points is hardly worth the effort of carrying on though if you are not enjoying it.

As long as those people aren't Honda it doesn't matter really.

They only doubted one, Spa 2017, and a week later at Monza they admitted they had to change a prop in the same unit.

I thought honda said there was nothing wrong with that one, and they used it next race?

They said there was nothing obvious in the data but when they used it for Monza they admitted they had to change a prop.

FF1: "About Alonso's abandonment at Spa, do you think it was deliberate on his part or was there some kind of problem really? Yusuke Hasegawa: " Although the engine showed no obvious signs of problems in Spa's telemetry , it is true that in the Monza frees there was a setback with the same propeller that required intervention on our part."

https://www.formulaf...aren-ano-viene/

Lotus49 wrote:

moby wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

moby wrote:

GingerFurball wrote:I think it's 22 retirements whilst driving for McLaren Honda vs 21 retirements in the 10 seasons between 2004 and 2013.

There are those that say they were not all mechanical though.

Out of the points is hardly worth the effort of carrying on though if you are not enjoying it.

As long as those people aren't Honda it doesn't matter really.

They only doubted one, Spa 2017, and a week later at Monza they admitted they had to change a prop in the same unit.

I thought honda said there was nothing wrong with that one, and they used it next race?

They said there was nothing obvious in the data but when they used it for Monza they admitted they had to change a prop.

FF1: "About Alonso's abandonment at Spa, do you think it was deliberate on his part or was there some kind of problem really? Yusuke Hasegawa: " Although the engine showed no obvious signs of problems in Spa's telemetry , it is true that in the Monza frees there was a setback with the same propeller that required intervention on our part."

https://www.formulaf...aren-ano-viene/

They are using the word propeller as thing that propels, or engine (I think)

moby wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

moby wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

moby wrote:
There are those that say they were not all mechanical though.

Out of the points is hardly worth the effort of carrying on though if you are not enjoying it.

As long as those people aren't Honda it doesn't matter really.

They only doubted one, Spa 2017, and a week later at Monza they admitted they had to change a prop in the same unit.

I thought honda said there was nothing wrong with that one, and they used it next race?

They said there was nothing obvious in the data but when they used it for Monza they admitted they had to change a prop.

FF1: "About Alonso's abandonment at Spa, do you think it was deliberate on his part or was there some kind of problem really? Yusuke Hasegawa: " Although the engine showed no obvious signs of problems in Spa's telemetry , it is true that in the Monza frees there was a setback with the same propeller that required intervention on our part."

https://www.formulaf...aren-ano-viene/

They are using the word propeller as thing that propels, or engine (I think)

Fair enough, I don't know why they'd use engine in one sentence and propeller in the next, I assumed they were talking about one of the troublesome MGU shafts again and google translate did the rest but either way it was a dud.

Twice Alonso beat their sensors that weekend.

Yeh, well they have their best brains preparing the Brazil and AbuDhabi engines so they can go out on a win

moby wrote:Yeh, well they have their best brains preparing the Brazil and AbuDhabi engines so they can go out on a win

I'd love a lucky win or podium for them to end their partnership, a mad race in Brazil sounds good.

I see in the Personnel press conference Zack Brown calling for a budget cap. This is the first time I have heard McLaren favour one. For me it comes as a sad sign for that team

I was assured they weren't worried about money but it appears they are

Fingers crossed they can regain their pomp and position in the sport

jiminwatford wrote:I see in the Personnel press conference Zack Brown calling for a budget cap. This is the first time I have heard McLaren favour one. For me it comes as a sad sign for that team

I was assured they weren't worried about money but it appears they are

Fingers crossed they can regain their pomp and position in the sport

Don't see any way a 'budget cap' can be enforced. Works well in stick and ball sports as the on field talent is what is being paid for. The only similarity in F1 would be to restrict driver pay - and what does that accomplish as about half the drivers buy their rides (one way or another) already.

Engineering and design talent are what drive F1. There is no way to restrict their employment - especially when you have road car manufacturers involved. Engineer A 'works' for the road car but his 'ideas' end up on the race car????? The road car does wind tunnel testing with a configuration that benefits the race car, etc. etc. etc.

The old adage about racing is any team will spend at least 10% more than they can actually get their hands on.

jiminwatford wrote:I see in the Personnel press conference Zack Brown calling for a budget cap. This is the first time I have heard McLaren favour one. For me it comes as a sad sign for that team

I was assured they weren't worried about money but it appears they are

Fingers crossed they can regain their pomp and position in the sport

You are incorrect. Zak Brown stated very clearly that McLaren have the finances to weather any and all situations, including the exodus of Honda from the team.

There are other reasons to be in favor of a budget cap, such as the long term success or security of the whole sport.

I hope you are right about their finances

Teams don't really care about the sport unless they are struggling in some way

Mclaren need another $100,000,000 for next year and Zack specifically tasked himself with finding sponsors

Hopefully they are just pretending to be short of money but to me it sounded like a lower ranked team bemoaning the situation

Just because some guys have a pocketful of cash and happen to be involved with a team does not mean they will keep dipping in and producing it. These guys are business themselves and have lots of people working for them to make sure they stay rich. There has to come a point where they feel enough is enough, they should have taken more care of what I have already given them.

jiminwatford wrote:I hope you are right about their finances

Teams don't really care about the sport unless they are struggling in some way

Mclaren need another $100,000,000 for next year and Zack specifically tasked himself with finding sponsors

Hopefully they are just pretending to be short of money but to me it sounded like a lower ranked team bemoaning the situation

McLaren pretending to be short of money is simply something you are imagining.

There is no evidence whatsoever that McLaren's finances are tight. None. As already stated, there are other reasons one could want a cap other than their own finances. Why you continue to think, without evidence, that this is a sign that McLaren is struggling is inexplicable.

moby wrote:Just because some guys have a pocketful of cash and happen to be involved with a team does not mean they will keep dipping in and producing it. These guys are business themselves and have lots of people working for them to make sure they stay rich. There has to come a point where they feel enough is enough, they should have taken more care of what I have already given them.

True, but there is no evidence that McLaren's owners are pulling in the reigns. That McLaren walked away from 100 million Honda dollars says that pretty clear. Would Williams or Sauber walk away from 100 million? I dont think so.

Mclaren are calling for a budget cap. You could say this, as Zack Brown said, is to close the gap and create a level playing field. Spoken like a mid-field team. This is what makes me sad to hear. I cannot imagine if they were leading both championships, or even in the top three, they would be saying this

Are they calling for a cap for the good of the sport? IE to help other people and not just themselves? Or is it because they want to save themselves some money (for whatever reason)?

I think it's obvious

moby wrote:As we keep hearing, Honda are in it to learn stuff. Where as say Renault would bring in a guy from Merc with the knowledge, Honda are making home grown. This is going to be slower and there are going to be mistakes, because the guy that made the mistake in on a different engine is not there to tell them. This is part of why it is no good Honda just flooding the benches with people doing stuff, because it does not get into the learning tree from the right place.

Once the DO know what they are doing, things should come along leaps and bounds, but just like your kid making a cart, what seems like a good idea sometimes falls off when you get on it to ride. They remember this next time (both of them ) and understand why it happened and next time can make a better one than the kid who did what Dad said was good.

Honda are going to have lots of problems, but know why they have them (well, maybe ) and make an better engine so Red bull can win the championship in 2020

From the perspective of Formula One, Honda does not seem to have any logical or coherent process. But we reach back to the reason why factories are involved in Formula One. One prime reason we hear a lot is that Formula One technology trickles down to road cars. IMO that statement is slightly obsolete, but for Honda, it is a training ground for future road car engineers.

For Honda, they put prospective future star engineers into the Formula One program, and they learn to deal with time constraints, performance goals, and having to deliver under immense pressure. Any mistake is magnified and immediately recognized. And if they get it wrong, Honda suffers slightly, but it won't kill the company. But if an engineer gets something wrong on their road car designs, it could lead to massive recalls, lost sales to the count of billions of dollars.

This is how Honda works, and I doubt they will change this corporate philosophy. For Honda, this is the acid test training ground for future road car engineers. Additionally those engineers are young enough to try new and unproven methods and technologies. For example, Honda trialed carbon matrix in the cylinder walls. It worked, and in 1990 Honda introduced this technology in their Prelude Si (the B21A1 engine).