planetf1.com

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

UnlikeUday wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

Nonsense. There is zero evidence that McLaren were thwarting Honda's progress. And of course Honda is going to be enthusiastic about the new partnership: it's called PR. He's hardly going to say "well, we're just trying to make the best of it," is he?

Honda had to come good at some point. Just how good they are remains to be seen, of course, but it was embarrassing enough for them to be so poor after three years, without adding a fourth to it. I can't imagine anyone thought they would never show any progress: the last three years' development must have taught them something.

As soon as the split was announced, people were saying that Red Bull would be using this year as a test bed in preparation for a Honda works team bid. This isn't something that has just cropped up.

It never ceases to amaze me how people on this forum often look for the most convoluted reasoning for anything that happens, instead of looking at the most logical. Honda must have learned something from the last three years and of course they are going to show some improvement at some point. McLaren just needed that point to be now, not some undefined future date.

UnlikeUday wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote: You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

And of course you have missed the fact that Honda is among the leaders in trap speeds.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote: Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

kleefton wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

And of course you have missed the fact that Honda is among the leaders in trap speeds.

Indeed although McLaren themselves believed that the fastest way around the track was to load the car up with down force and say look how fast we are around the corners but the donkey in the back is killing us on the straights, STR's lap times don't look too shabby to me and let's not forget they have inexperienced drivers and not an all time great in one of their cars.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:
You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.

If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

Zoue wrote:Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?

Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

kleefton wrote:If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some kind of basis for throwing out accusations, beyond "I feel it in my bones."

I'm defending McLaren against unfounded accusations. For the record, I'm disappointed with them being so far behind Red Bull and I think with their resources they should be much closer. That's something I do think is down to them and if they don't improve fairly rapidly I'll be quite happy to voice my displeasure. But in the Honda years even Honda admitted they messed up, so I don't understand this obsession for trying to pin the blame on McLaren when they had such a massive handicap to work with. Why the desperate need to make them the bad guys?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote: Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.

Not missing it. That was last year, was it not? I've little doubt that the architecture of the Renault and the Honda are completely different, so I don't think a direct comparison is possible.

And last year McLaren weren't the only ones making claims about their chassis. Several independents also stated the car looked very good in the corners. What makes you think they didn't?

If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

kleefton wrote:If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

You do realize posting twice doesn’t make your case any stronger?

A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote: More than it being a coincidence that Honda improved in the 4th year (year after divorce with McLaren), it looks as if McLaren on the contrary were thwarting Honda's progress. No wonder Honda boss was saying he was getting more freedom with Toro Rosso. Honda have made such remarkable progress that it looks highly probable that Red Bull will run the Honda engine in 2019.

I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?

Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote: Fact is, after three years Honda finally seem to be showing some improvement. Why would that be, do you think? At some point they had to come good. The only question for McLaren was how long were they prepared to wait

Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.

Not missing it. That was last year, was it not? I've little doubt that the architecture of the Renault and the Honda are completely different, so I don't think a direct comparison is possible.

And last year McLaren weren't the only ones making claims about their chassis. Several independents also stated the car looked very good in the corners. What makes you think they didn't?

Really which teams were claiming they had the fastest car?

UnlikeUday wrote:A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:Sure. Lets completely discard the fact that they have come good as soon as Mclaren has left. Bravo.

Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.

Not missing it. That was last year, was it not? I've little doubt that the architecture of the Renault and the Honda are completely different, so I don't think a direct comparison is possible.

And last year McLaren weren't the only ones making claims about their chassis. Several independents also stated the car looked very good in the corners. What makes you think they didn't?

Really which teams were claiming they had the fastest car?

Where did I claim teams were saying it? This was discussed quite extensively last year and I'm pretty sure you would have seen it. There were a number of people, including journalists and technical experts, who were impressed with the McLaren chassis

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:I think we have to question the design limitations that McLaren put upon Honda, with Renault they have had earlier reliability issues and have no choice but to change the car to suit, with Honda they might have said that the engine needs sorting because we don't want to compromise the car?

I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?

Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.

Of course they put pressure on Honda - this is big business we are talking about. None of this exempts Honda from only committing to what they could deliver. I note you didn't answer my questions?

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?

Just highlighted the important bit in bold for you

UnlikeUday wrote:A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

BIB: Clearly, yes. The evidence is in the last three years

I'm sorry, but stating that all the embarrassment McLaren has suffered implies that you feel Honda are not to blame for any of it and I'm finding that a little incredulous. Are you seriously suggesting that the engine maker is not to blame for problems with the engine?

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some kind of basis for throwing out accusations, beyond "I feel it in my bones."

I'm defending McLaren against unfounded accusations. For the record, I'm disappointed with them being so far behind Red Bull and I think with their resources they should be much closer. That's something I do think is down to them and if they don't improve fairly rapidly I'll be quite happy to voice my displeasure. But in the Honda years even Honda admitted they messed up, so I don't understand this obsession for trying to pin the blame on McLaren when they had such a massive handicap to work with. Why the desperate need to make them the bad guys?

Please show me where I’ve made baseless accusations.

Again, all I’m doing is asking questions, because the narrative that Mclaren has the best chassis in the history of mankind and that Honda was the sole reason for their disastrous last 3 years just does not gel with what we have seen so far in this young season. Which is a Mclaren car with no hope of challenging the top 3 and a resurgent Honda pu that is almost topping the trap speeds consistently and running flawlessly.

I was one of Honda’s worst critics last year. This year I predicted that they would be last. That’s how little confidence I had in them turning it around. But seeing the season unfold so far it looks like I was wrong. And i don’t see how the so called Mclaren apologists can’t see that they were wrong too. Surely the blame is not solely on Honda as Mclaren still can’t run reliably and still can’t challenge the top 3.

But no, you have to go out of your way to pounce on everyone that thinks different from you. Not cool dude.

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some kind of basis for throwing out accusations, beyond "I feel it in my bones."

I'm defending McLaren against unfounded accusations. For the record, I'm disappointed with them being so far behind Red Bull and I think with their resources they should be much closer. That's something I do think is down to them and if they don't improve fairly rapidly I'll be quite happy to voice my displeasure. But in the Honda years even Honda admitted they messed up, so I don't understand this obsession for trying to pin the blame on McLaren when they had such a massive handicap to work with. Why the desperate need to make them the bad guys?

Please show me where I’ve made baseless accusations.

Again, all I’m doing is asking questions, because the narrative that Mclaren has the best chassis in the history of mankind and that Honda was the sole reason for their disastrous last 3 years just does not gel with what we have seen so far in this young season. Which is a Mclaren car with no hope of challenging the top 3 and a resurgent Honda pu that is almost topping the trap speeds consistently and running flawlessly.

I was one of Honda’s worst critics last year. This year I predicted that they would be last. That’s how little confidence I had in them turning it around. But seeing the season unfold so far it looks like I was wrong. And i don’t see how the so called Mclaren apologists can’t see that they were wrong too. Surely the blame is not solely on Honda as Mclaren still can’t run reliably and still can’t challenge the top 3.

But no, you have to go out of your way to pounce on everyone that thinks different from you. Not cool dude.

It's on record from Honda themselves that they messed up. There was no joint falling on swords and no ambiguity as to where the problem lay. It was Honda. Does that make McLaren perfect? No, absolutely not. But it does mean that there is no foundation for laying blame at McLaren's door for the issues they faced last year.

Whatever happens this year has no bearing on what happened last year. It's expected / hoped that Honda made some progress. McLaren are looking a bit slow so far and that's not good this year, but it doesn't mean you can draw conclusions from that for last year.

Honda had got quite close to Renault by the end of last year and may even have caught up by now. However it was a necessary divorce because McLaren have been making excuses since 2013 for their so so performance and by process of elimination there will be no-one else to blame now but themselves. They gave up the best engine because of some misbelief not being a works team was a terminal disadvantage. They then became a works team but the grass was no greener. Now they are sharing an engine with probably the best chassis team since 2009 so if they don't succeed now they know who to blame. Hopefully this dose of realism will do both McLaren and Alonso good in the long run. It's also calmed Red Bull down too now knowing they have two engine suppliers to choose from going forward. Hopefully less hysterics all round.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some kind of basis for throwing out accusations, beyond "I feel it in my bones."

I'm defending McLaren against unfounded accusations. For the record, I'm disappointed with them being so far behind Red Bull and I think with their resources they should be much closer. That's something I do think is down to them and if they don't improve fairly rapidly I'll be quite happy to voice my displeasure. But in the Honda years even Honda admitted they messed up, so I don't understand this obsession for trying to pin the blame on McLaren when they had such a massive handicap to work with. Why the desperate need to make them the bad guys?

Please show me where I’ve made baseless accusations.

Again, all I’m doing is asking questions, because the narrative that Mclaren has the best chassis in the history of mankind and that Honda was the sole reason for their disastrous last 3 years just does not gel with what we have seen so far in this young season. Which is a Mclaren car with no hope of challenging the top 3 and a resurgent Honda pu that is almost topping the trap speeds consistently and running flawlessly.

I was one of Honda’s worst critics last year. This year I predicted that they would be last. That’s how little confidence I had in them turning it around. But seeing the season unfold so far it looks like I was wrong. And i don’t see how the so called Mclaren apologists can’t see that they were wrong too. Surely the blame is not solely on Honda as Mclaren still can’t run reliably and still can’t challenge the top 3.

But no, you have to go out of your way to pounce on everyone that thinks different from you. Not cool dude.

It's on record from Honda themselves that they messed up. There was no joint falling on swords and no ambiguity as to where the problem lay. It was Honda. Does that make McLaren perfect? No, absolutely not. But it does mean that there is no foundation for laying blame at McLaren's door for the issues they faced last year.

Whatever happens this year has no bearing on what happened last year. It's expected / hoped that Honda made some progress. McLaren are looking a bit slow so far and that's not good this year, but it doesn't mean you can draw conclusions from that for last year.

I completely disagree that what happens last year has no bearing on this year. This is the second year of these regs. Cars are simple evolutions of last year. The Honda unit in the back of that TR is fundamentally the same as the one in the back of Mclaren last year. It has some development to it, yes, but nothing to explain why all of a sudden it looks ultra competitive and will run all day long. Only a blind fan boy will try to argue differently. Sorry.

kleefton wrote:The Honda unit in the back of that TR is fundamentally the same as the one in the back of Mclaren last year. It has some development to it, yes, but nothing to explain why all of a sudden it looks ultra competitive and will run all day long. Only a blind fan boy will try to argue differently. Sorry.

It does not look ultra competitive. The Toro Rossos are notably slower than all the Renault powered cars in practice so far.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Ah, the "no smoke without fire" school of judging.

Do you have any evidence, beyond a desperate desire to apportion blame, that McLaren were in any way responsible for Honda's failings over the last three years? Failings that Honda themselves admitted to? Anything at all?

I think what you are missing here is McLaren's claims of having the fastest car that just needs a decent engine.

Not missing it. That was last year, was it not? I've little doubt that the architecture of the Renault and the Honda are completely different, so I don't think a direct comparison is possible.

And last year McLaren weren't the only ones making claims about their chassis. Several independents also stated the car looked very good in the corners. What makes you think they didn't?

Really which teams were claiming they had the fastest car?

Where did I claim teams were saying it? This was discussed quite extensively last year and I'm pretty sure you would have seen it. There were a number of people, including journalists and technical experts, who were impressed with the McLaren chassis

It was a misread, going on from that it was due to corner speed which now apparently has disappeared, maybe they've stopped pyling the down force on?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't really understand what you mean here?

It still boils down to the fact that Honda should only have agreed to something they believed they could deliver. If it wasn't possible, the onus is on them to say so. You can't blame McLaren for making a request: that's the whole point of a partnership, surely?

A request or a demand?

Even if it was a demand, what was stopping Honda from contesting it?

If McLaren had said/demanded that Honda produce a PU that weighed 100 grams, was the size of a sheet of A4, produced 1500BHP at 5,000 revs and could get through an entire race on 50l of fuel, do you think Honda would have agreed? And, if they had done, who would have been at fault for them failing to deliver? McLaren, for asking the impossible, or Honda, for stupidly agreeing to something they knew they couldn't do?

It's up to Honda to commit to a solution that they know they can produce. They are the experts in engine technology, after all.

McLaren called the shots from day one when they demanded Honda enter F1 in 2015 one year earlier than they themselves wanted to, they put an enormous amount of pressure on Honda and it seemed dictated design paths for Honda to go down so as not to compromise their car.

Anyway the point being is that McLaren last year were talking the talk and I'm waiting for them to walk the walk, at the moment it's looking more likely they will be competing against STR Honda rather than Red Bull.

Of course they put pressure on Honda - this is big business we are talking about. None of this exempts Honda from only committing to what they could deliver. I note you didn't answer my questions?

The part about Honda allowing themselves to be dictated to by their partners, I guess they should have done a Renault when they told Red Bull to do one, not part of Japanese culture I guess?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:A big organization like Honda needs 3 years to understand how to make efficient engines?

McLaren were probably stubborn enough to make Honda follow their principles instead of mutually understanding & working in unison. All the embarrassment that McLaren suffered in the last 3 years were their own doing. I'm sure many won't believe it's a coincidence that after 3 years of blow ups, Honda suddenly find a magic potion in order to not just get efficient but have close enough power to Renault even.

Indeed did Helmet Marko not state recently that the Honda was now equal to the Renault?

Just highlighted the important bit in bold for you

I guess you didn't read the article about the extra room they found available under the STR engine cover that was designed around the Renault engine enabled Honda to find another 10KW, they've not been restricted by the kind of size zero aero concepts they had at McLaren.

mas wrote:Honda had got quite close to Renault by the end of last year and may even have caught up by now. However it was a necessary divorce because McLaren have been making excuses since 2013 for their so so performance and by process of elimination there will be no-one else to blame now but themselves. They gave up the best engine because of some misbelief not being a works team was a terminal disadvantage. They then became a works team but the grass was no greener. Now they are sharing an engine with probably the best chassis team since 2009 so if they don't succeed now they know who to blame. Hopefully this dose of realism will do both McLaren and Alonso good in the long run. It's also calmed Red Bull down too now knowing they have two engine suppliers to choose from going forward. Hopefully less hysterics all round.

No Horner is still bleating about engines every time a microphone is put before him.

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:The Honda unit in the back of that TR is fundamentally the same as the one in the back of Mclaren last year. It has some development to it, yes, but nothing to explain why all of a sudden it looks ultra competitive and will run all day long. Only a blind fan boy will try to argue differently. Sorry.

It does not look ultra competitive. The Toro Rossos are notably slower than all the Renault powered cars in practice so far.

Indeed but I would say it's pulling it's weight more than the McLaren car and that's despite McLaren having better drivers and supposedly better engineers.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:It does not look ultra competitive. The Toro Rossos are notably slower than all the Renault powered cars in practice so far.

Indeed but I would say it's pulling it's weight more than the McLaren car and that's despite McLaren having better drivers and supposedly better engineers.

We'll see after quali, but I have to admit that right now it looks as though you're right.

Of course, it's really impossible to say (just like it was between 2015 and 2017) how much of that is Toro Rosso and how much is the Honda PU.

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:The Honda unit in the back of that TR is fundamentally the same as the one in the back of Mclaren last year. It has some development to it, yes, but nothing to explain why all of a sudden it looks ultra competitive and will run all day long. Only a blind fan boy will try to argue differently. Sorry.

It does not look ultra competitive. The Toro Rossos are notably slower than all the Renault powered cars in practice so far.

I was talking about the engine itself, not the car as a whole. Obviously.

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:The Honda unit in the back of that TR is fundamentally the same as the one in the back of Mclaren last year. It has some development to it, yes, but nothing to explain why all of a sudden it looks ultra competitive and will run all day long. Only a blind fan boy will try to argue differently. Sorry.

It does not look ultra competitive. The Toro Rossos are notably slower than all the Renault powered cars in practice so far.

I was talking about the engine itself, not the car as a whole. Obviously.

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:If it’s one thing about you Zoue it’s that you are always asking for more evidence even when it’s staring you in the face. Lol. You will always defend Mclaren until the cows come home. It’s ok dude. I get you.

Anyways, I’m not making any statements, just raising some questions which I’m sure that many people are. So no need to provide you with more “evidence”.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some kind of basis for throwing out accusations, beyond "I feel it in my bones."

I'm defending McLaren against unfounded accusations. For the record, I'm disappointed with them being so far behind Red Bull and I think with their resources they should be much closer. That's something I do think is down to them and if they don't improve fairly rapidly I'll be quite happy to voice my displeasure. But in the Honda years even Honda admitted they messed up, so I don't understand this obsession for trying to pin the blame on McLaren when they had such a massive handicap to work with. Why the desperate need to make them the bad guys?

Please show me where I’ve made baseless accusations.

Again, all I’m doing is asking questions, because the narrative that Mclaren has the best chassis in the history of mankind and that Honda was the sole reason for their disastrous last 3 years just does not gel with what we have seen so far in this young season. Which is a Mclaren car with no hope of challenging the top 3 and a resurgent Honda pu that is almost topping the trap speeds consistently and running flawlessly.

I was one of Honda’s worst critics last year. This year I predicted that they would be last. That’s how little confidence I had in them turning it around. But seeing the season unfold so far it looks like I was wrong. And i don’t see how the so called Mclaren apologists can’t see that they were wrong too. Surely the blame is not solely on Honda as Mclaren still can’t run reliably and still can’t challenge the top 3.

But no, you have to go out of your way to pounce on everyone that thinks different from you. Not cool dude.

It's on record from Honda themselves that they messed up. There was no joint falling on swords and no ambiguity as to where the problem lay. It was Honda. Does that make McLaren perfect? No, absolutely not. But it does mean that there is no foundation for laying blame at McLaren's door for the issues they faced last year.

Whatever happens this year has no bearing on what happened last year. It's expected / hoped that Honda made some progress. McLaren are looking a bit slow so far and that's not good this year, but it doesn't mean you can draw conclusions from that for last year.

I completely disagree that what happens last year has no bearing on this year. This is the second year of these regs. Cars are simple evolutions of last year. The Honda unit in the back of that TR is fundamentally the same as the one in the back of Mclaren last year. It has some development to it, yes, but nothing to explain why all of a sudden it looks ultra competitive and will run all day long. Only a blind fan boy will try to argue differently. Sorry.

No reason to get stupid about it. These kind of comments just make your argument look weak. There's really no need. If you can't debate the point without resorting to insults like that, then basically you've lost the argument

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

emb1496 wrote:Been trying to avoid this... For the last few days been hoping someone else writes it and saves me the trouble.
We've heard that during McLaren Honda relationship that the Honda's engine was capable on simulator and Dyno but when strapped to the back of the McLaren it was capable of only going up in smoke.
Fair enough so McLaren make the change to Renault power and Honda finds its way to the Torro Rosso. Now McLaren has had it's car suffering reliability problems at similar rates to Honda... Meanwhile the Honda engine strapped to Junior red bull has not only worked reliably but the drivers have even praised the power it makes.
This leads me to my question what's the chances and when can we say that perhaps it was McLaren and not Honda's fault?
Curious to see other opinions because this has been eating me up the last week and today's results only seem to confirm it.

You are right.. it wasn't Honda's fault. It wasn't their fault when the engine would die constantly. It wasn't their fault when Mclaren was at the back of the field on day 1. People don't realise how bad it was with Button being the only Mclaren on the track due to a major failure on Alonso's car.
It wasn't Honda's fault when their sheer horsepower was miles off the field of every engine on the track.

Sorry but it was. Not everything would be Honda/engine because other parts like the gear box are not provided by Honda. You remove the sheer unreliability of Honda and down on horsepower.. you have a diffferent car.

So yes, Honda played a major factor especially in the first two seasons. I don't know why people are still questioning it. It's like claiming Ferrari/Vettel reliability and mistakes didn't play a part in the championship.. they did..

Fact is, after 2 practice sessions Honda seems to be doing a lot better than when they were with Mclaren. Why would that be? And Mclaren has closed the gap but is still miles off Redbull.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it was a necessary divorce. Those 2 just couldn't work together.

Mclaren is better without Honda, I've seen no evidence so far to suggest STR is better with Honda...

Apparently in long run pace STR Honda are only 2 tenths slower than McLaren whilst McLaren are 1.4s slower than Red Bull.

This is what people seem to be missing. McLaren said for the last couple of years that their chassis was top shelf. Now it turns out that another car with the same engine is more than a second faster! Meanwhile Torro Rosso are quick through the speed trap and don't seem to be lacking power at all.

I've said all along that McLaren made a huge mistake as an organization. Red Bull are going to steal their works status right from under their noses. Instead of clinging to Alonso so desperately, they should have held on to Honda. In the grand scheme of things, works team status is far more important. In fact, Alonso is basically wasted on Mclaren anyway.