planetf1.com

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: You can't blame Alonso for not being willing to wait 8 years for a car on equal terms with the best. Neither Vettel or Hamilton would wait that long either.

I repeat again though in respect to Vettel he replaced Alonso and walked into that situation.

Different situation based on different recent history. Added to what I said in a previous post Seb was in his mid 20's and coming off of 4 recent WDC's so he obviously had more scope to absorb some waiting for competitiveness. Alonso was in his early 30's and without a WDC in 8 years.

Apples and Oranges in just about every respect.

I see your point but McLaren themselves had not won a race since 2012 and the last title was in 2008 and would have a totally unproven engine, if he couldn't see Ferrari turning things around anytime soon why were Mclaren going to do any better?

I think they just offered two bites at a cherry he knew he wasn't going to get at Ferrari. I think he was right that Ferrari would take longer than the duration left on his contract before they could challenge Mercedes and Honda at least offered the chance of hitting the ground running like Mercedes. There was a lot of fuss at the time about the split turbo being key for Mercedes and Honda had it as well,and in general a lot of hype.

That and the disillusionment at Ferrari might have been enough to think it was worth a shot. Lewis's gamble being such a success might have had an influence as well. I think there was a lot of things floating around in that time including the death of Botin and LdM getting ousted.

There was probably dozens of factors.

I was actually thinking the same about what Hamilton did with Mercedes but as a Hamilton fan I thought people would just focus on me trying to big Hamilton up.

Alonso in the past as always gone for the sure thing, he signed for McLaren in 2005 when they had the fastest car, he supposedly was in talks with Ferrari as early as 2008 when they had the fastest car, neither of these worked out for him.

Then he sees Hamilton gamble with a struggling team with a new project and it pays off, so yes that might have interested him in doing something similar.

That being said I think the McLaren Honda offer was just a back up plan, he thought he held all the cards at Ferrari has he tried to negotiate get out clauses in his new contract offer, all the other top drivers were under contract, he never knew about Vettel's get out clause in his Red Bull contract and Alonso got out maneuvered.

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:
It is hindsight. Maybe you found him overrated but that surely wasn't the general opinion around the paddock, amongst pundits, amongst an overwhelming majority of the fans. Most thought, ESPECIALLY after Allison left, that Ferrari would continue the decline they were in and 2017 wouldn't be good for them.

Now you might have got another opinion on it than just about everybody in the business, but then are you blaming Alonso for not consulting Rockie at PF1 forum?

So yes, hindsight.

If I as a fan can see it and people in it can't then there is a problem, especially for a driver, leaving out commentators who are biased.

If Alonso could not look at the track record of an engineer and the base of his information is the biased English media then no wonder he has found himself in his current predicament.

I repeat Allison is overrated asides riding the coat tail of others he has not led a championship winning design team.

So talking about hindsight is when you come off analysing a situation without logic in the first place.

Sorry mate, but this is all some serious BS. Ferrari wanted him, and they know loads more than you. It's that simple.

Keep telling yourself that.

Keep telling myself what? That Ferrari know more than you do? Oh yeah, what an outlandish statement of me

When Redbull wanted Max they caved in to his demands.

Yeah, and? Obviously when Ferrari wanted Allison they gave him what he wanted to go there, as he went there, so? They hired him and that was a sign that they valued his services highly. Which was not unfounded, given what Allison had done at Ferrari 2000-2005, after that at Renault, especially once he had to work on a shoestring budget at Lotus.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: So nothing to do with any work Honda put in over the winter, then? It's purely Honda taking the engine out of the McLaren and putting it into the STR that made the difference? Were they so confident they had a winner that they ended up playing golf all winter, not needing to do any development?

I'd be curious to see just how factual this fact is. Do you have a source?

So far we've had Honda admitting they didn't know that a larger exhaust would give them a power boost, and now you're claiming that they wouldn't have been able to identify that their power was being compromised by a chassis which crippled them? Better let Red Bull know just what clueless cowboys they are considering to take onboard pretty damn quick. They appear to be navigating by the best guess method if you are correct

The proof is in the pudding, 3 months into the season and the engine that McLaren ditched is going to be taken onboard by Red Bull whilst McLaren have sacked one of their designers, the failure was not a one way street.

Red Bull haven't been hurt by Honda performance for 3 years already, they actually gained Esso and Tag Heur because of those failings and they'll only take them once they've had mountains of data from their sister team. More apples and oranges.

And the designer fired is the one responsible for something else which is completely new to this years McLaren, the suspension. Which also happens to be what is responsible for the slow speed corner dismal performance this year, with McLaren having to run more d/f at the rear to get the tyres to work which in turn is causing a drag problem.

Might be a link there but that would be an inconvenient truth for those trying to say all McLaren chassis's lately have been bad.

Why sack a designer that has worked at McLaren since 1990 for one bad car when the previous one was so good, unless.....

..he had some other suspension nightmares on his recent record and who knows what else.

No-one's saying McLaren nailed their suspension or chassis every year. They've had ups (last year)and downs(Butterfly) in this turbo era alone for example.

He could've been moved on for more than just the suspension of course.

The McLaren line is that they are reviewing a lot of things in the design department after basically realising this year they are not as strong as they thought which again leads me to the thought about just how good was last year car, the language comes across as the hierarchy being misled previous to this season?

Forget it. Deleted original post

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: They've had to compromise the car for the Renault engine in comparison to the Honda engine, Red Bull don't seem to have any problems with the installation of the Renault engine in terms of chassis performance.

How many years have Red Bull been running Renault power now? Were they great in 2015 and the beginning of 2017?

Can we stop pretending only McLaren's chassis performance has fluctuated.

In this instance the fitting of the Renault engine has been specifically blamed.

Yes and you mentioned Red Bull who's chassis last year was designed for the Renault so obviously they didn't have the same problem as McLaren had with installation as the McLaren chassis was designed for a different one. One had to adapt theirs and the other didn't.

And can we stop with the constant peddling of McLaren unwilling to compromise on their chassis with regards to Honda and their engine. Do you seriously think they're going to refuse Honda changes that will compromise the car but then go and compromise it themselves by switching to Renault?

It wasn't plug 'n' play, they had to change the entire rear of the car and extend the wheelbase so why on earth would they deny Honda the same possibility of compromise?

It's just various things I read about the McLaren Honda alliance, also that's an interesting thing you say refuting the constant peddling of McLaren, trying to find articles i found this, just before the start of the 2017 season they forced Honda to change their fuel supplier.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/07/02 ... ne-so-bad/

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: You have a strange concept of proof. I note you didn't answer the question of whether the improvements were solely down to switching chassis, or whether winter development work may have had something to do with it? Honda have been trying to get it right for years and it stands to reason they would eventually make progress.

When the deal between Honda and TR was originally announced, it was pointed out that this would likely be a stepping stone towards a RB deal, where the junior team would do the development and the senior team would reap the rewards. So if it does happen then it's not proof of anything except that everyone could see it coming. As to McLaren sacking one of their designers, they've clearly not done a good job adapting the car, so it could be that. You have a tendency to read into things but it's best to wait for proof - proper proof - before jumping to conclusions

Honda had already improved the engine in the second half of the 2017 season but the McLaren was still slow on the straights, the Honda engine that started this season was still down on performance to the Renault engine so it's hard to see that they made a massive gain yet the STR was still appreciable quicker than the McLaren on the straights, even now the McLaren is the slowest of the Renault powered cars on the straight, this lack of straight line speed was as much to do with the car itself then the engine and towards the end of the partnership they exaggerated it even more to show how good the car was and how bad the Honda engines was, I think it was Lotus49 that mentioned it, he's a bit of an ace when it comes to these kind of things.

No that's a Honda apologist line, not mine. McLaren just optimised the car for best overall lap time, not strength on the straight. Just in Canada we had Hartley complaining about the low d/f of the STR again, just like Australia where they didn't run enough wing and killed their tyres.

They did improve in the second half last year but it's still 20kw + less than what STR started this year with which is significant.

McLaren's drag issue this year is directly linked to the suspension change they had to make to switch to Renault. The suspension doesn't work so they have to run more rear d/f which is causing excess drag, finally confirmed by EB in Canada though speculated a lot in recent months and called perfectly by a Mercedes source talking to AMuS in winter testing who said McLaren's unique rear suspension offered an aero benefit but would sacrifice too much mechanical grip and it did.

The optimisation of the car though made it even slower on the straight, Red Bull on the other hand tend to take down force off to make their car more competitive on the straight.

Doesn't matter if it's slower on the straight as long as it's faster overall, it's not a drag race. Red Bull have a better chassis which produces more d/f everywhere I'd imagine, they can do things McLaren can't you'll get no argument from me on that front.

But then we look at the STR that doesn't have good downforce that being given the reason why it has such good straight line speed, that hasn't stopped them scoring 19pts thus far, McLaren scored 30pts last season.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Is this a serious comment? Red Bull have had years working together with Renault so it would look extremely odd if they suddenly couldn't fit the engine. McLaren made the decision to move to Renault quite late and so had to make compromises, which Red Bull would not have had to do. This is surely basic?

What experience of the engine did they have in 2014 when they probably had the best chassis?

Both Williams amd Mercedes had better chassis's than Red Bull in 2014. Only in the wet and Monaco did it look better than Williams and it never looked better than Mercedes.

I would dispute that in the case of Williams given the superiority of the Mercedes engine.

Some in Mercedes felt it was the best chassis on a few tracks but fair enough, it's hard to argue when the engine was so dominant to be fair.

I remember them saying that on a few tracks the Williams was faster than their car.

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Honda had already improved the engine in the second half of the 2017 season but the McLaren was still slow on the straights, the Honda engine that started this season was still down on performance to the Renault engine so it's hard to see that they made a massive gain yet the STR was still appreciable quicker than the McLaren on the straights, even now the McLaren is the slowest of the Renault powered cars on the straight, this lack of straight line speed was as much to do with the car itself then the engine and towards the end of the partnership they exaggerated it even more to show how good the car was and how bad the Honda engines was, I think it was Lotus49 that mentioned it, he's a bit of an ace when it comes to these kind of things.

No that's a Honda apologist line, not mine. McLaren just optimised the car for best overall lap time, not strength on the straight. Just in Canada we had Hartley complaining about the low d/f of the STR again, just like Australia where they didn't run enough wing and killed their tyres.

They did improve in the second half last year but it's still 20kw + less than what STR started this year with which is significant.

McLaren's drag issue this year is directly linked to the suspension change they had to make to switch to Renault. The suspension doesn't work so they have to run more rear d/f which is causing excess drag, finally confirmed by EB in Canada though speculated a lot in recent months and called perfectly by a Mercedes source talking to AMuS in winter testing who said McLaren's unique rear suspension offered an aero benefit but would sacrifice too much mechanical grip and it did.

The optimisation of the car though made it even slower on the straight, Red Bull on the other hand tend to take down force off to make their car more competitive on the straight.

Doesn't matter if it's slower on the straight as long as it's faster overall, it's not a drag race. Red Bull have a better chassis which produces more d/f everywhere I'd imagine, they can do things McLaren can't you'll get no argument from me on that front.

But then we look at the STR that doesn't have good downforce that being given the reason why it has such good straight line speed, that hasn't stopped them scoring 19pts thus far, McLaren scored 30pts last season.

It's not sensible to make such a comparison. The PU last year was much worse than the PU this year

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:Renault clearly stated they were not ready for a driver of Alonso's calibre

They stated that in mid-2017 and I have this distinct feeling that Abiteboul basically got spooked by Alonso's perceived negativity at various times during the McHonda period and that he feared the same kind of "PR".

He was less negative at Ferrari, used much less scathing and sarcastig language. Abiteboul's opinion on getting him might have been different if he had stayed at Ferrrari and won a few more races instead of looking like a fool at the back of the field.

even for 2018 Alonso could have presumable gone to Renault

? no he couldn't because Abiteboul said he didn't want Alonso at that point - you referred to it yourself so I don't understand you saying this now?

so Alonso would have gone from Ferrari the 2nd/3rd best team and joined the Renault start up team in 2017 despite the fact that a year later he had no interest in joining Renault, and even for 2019 he seemingly has no interest.

I don't know if he has interest or not, I think his interest for new multi-year projects has disappeared altogether after the McHonda fiasco. I suggested the possibility because if he hadn't endured McHonda, then maybe he would have still had some appetite for a new up and coming works effort.

So you are basically agreeing that Renault was never on the cards for Alonso.

Can you explain to me how that follows from what I said?

What I'm actually saying is that even if he had not left Ferrari after 2014, he would have been well fed up mid 2016 and Renault might have been a possibility given the renewed factory effort.

We've gone through the fact that Renault did not want Alonso whilst they were in their rebuilding phase, Alonso himself seems to have little interest in joining Renault next year, yet he would have joined Renault in 2017?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I'd explained it to you earlier. Why do you insist on going over old ground? Renault engine bigger, compromises had to be made. Honda engine smaller, more room to play with.

But let's go down the road again, do you think that McLaren did not have sufficient time to design the car?

If you agree they had to redesign the car, then clearly it's a different one to last year's. so that draws a line under the discussion, no?

Every car is different to the one they had last year.

then why are you still peddling the myth that this year's troubles proved last year's car was terrible?

As opposed to the McLaren myth of give us a better engine and we'll be running near the front?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:But let's go down the road again, do you think that McLaren did not have sufficient time to design the car?

If you agree they had to redesign the car, then clearly it's a different one to last year's. so that draws a line under the discussion, no?

Every car is different to the one they had last year.

then why are you still peddling the myth that this year's troubles proved last year's car was terrible?

As opposed to the McLaren myth of give us a better engine and we'll be running near the front?

I'm sure when they said that they didn't mean give us a better engine that forces us to completely redesign the car with minimal notice, but I think you know that? And you didn't really answer the question. If you acknowledge that every car is different to the previous year's model, why are you insisting that this year's performance shows last year's car was poor?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: No that's a Honda apologist line, not mine. McLaren just optimised the car for best overall lap time, not strength on the straight. Just in Canada we had Hartley complaining about the low d/f of the STR again, just like Australia where they didn't run enough wing and killed their tyres.

They did improve in the second half last year but it's still 20kw + less than what STR started this year with which is significant.

McLaren's drag issue this year is directly linked to the suspension change they had to make to switch to Renault. The suspension doesn't work so they have to run more rear d/f which is causing excess drag, finally confirmed by EB in Canada though speculated a lot in recent months and called perfectly by a Mercedes source talking to AMuS in winter testing who said McLaren's unique rear suspension offered an aero benefit but would sacrifice too much mechanical grip and it did.

The optimisation of the car though made it even slower on the straight, Red Bull on the other hand tend to take down force off to make their car more competitive on the straight.

Doesn't matter if it's slower on the straight as long as it's faster overall, it's not a drag race. Red Bull have a better chassis which produces more d/f everywhere I'd imagine, they can do things McLaren can't you'll get no argument from me on that front.

But then we look at the STR that doesn't have good downforce that being given the reason why it has such good straight line speed, that hasn't stopped them scoring 19pts thus far, McLaren scored 30pts last season.

It's not sensible to make such a comparison. The PU last year was much worse than the PU this year

It's still the worse PU and apparently it's in a much worse car, so how do STR score all those points in such a scenario?

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: How many years have Red Bull been running Renault power now? Were they great in 2015 and the beginning of 2017?

Can we stop pretending only McLaren's chassis performance has fluctuated.

In this instance the fitting of the Renault engine has been specifically blamed.

Yes and you mentioned Red Bull who's chassis last year was designed for the Renault so obviously they didn't have the same problem as McLaren had with installation as the McLaren chassis was designed for a different one. One had to adapt theirs and the other didn't.

And can we stop with the constant peddling of McLaren unwilling to compromise on their chassis with regards to Honda and their engine. Do you seriously think they're going to refuse Honda changes that will compromise the car but then go and compromise it themselves by switching to Renault?

It wasn't plug 'n' play, they had to change the entire rear of the car and extend the wheelbase so why on earth would they deny Honda the same possibility of compromise?

It's just various things I read about the McLaren Honda alliance, also that's an interesting thing you say refuting the constant peddling of McLaren, trying to find articles i found this, just before the start of the 2017 season they forced Honda to change their fuel supplier.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/07/02 ... ne-so-bad/

The article contains a lot of guesswork, to be fair. If McLaren changed their supplier without informing Honda at any point, I think they should take some blame for any knock-on effect. However, I find it hard to believe that they blindsided their engine partner on which fuel they would use and I don't recall any reports from Honda saying they were upset at the change. Given the amount of blame they were having to swallow, I find it strange that they wouldn't even have mentioned it (of course, it's possible they did but I missed it?).

Meanwhile, at last weekend's Grand Prix, Red Bull hammered both other Renault-powered teams and matched the other front runners for race pace, despite them using a different fuel to Renault's recommended and reportedly losing 14bhp benefit in the process. So strange that they weren't crippled, too?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Every car is different to the one they had last year.

then why are you still peddling the myth that this year's troubles proved last year's car was terrible?

As opposed to the McLaren myth of give us a better engine and we'll be running near the front?

I'm sure when they said that they didn't mean give us a better engine that forces us to completely redesign the car with minimal notice, but I think you know that? And you didn't really answer the question. If you acknowledge that every car is different to the previous year's model, why are you insisting that this year's performance shows last year's car was poor?

So you're saying that McLaren did not have enough time?

If last year's car was so good why the need to restructure the design team especially if you think they were not given enough time, as been pointed out Red Bull don't always get it right but are given the time to sort things out based on past performance, are the hierarchy at McLaren not sold on the theoretical past performance?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The optimisation of the car though made it even slower on the straight, Red Bull on the other hand tend to take down force off to make their car more competitive on the straight.

Doesn't matter if it's slower on the straight as long as it's faster overall, it's not a drag race. Red Bull have a better chassis which produces more d/f everywhere I'd imagine, they can do things McLaren can't you'll get no argument from me on that front.

But then we look at the STR that doesn't have good downforce that being given the reason why it has such good straight line speed, that hasn't stopped them scoring 19pts thus far, McLaren scored 30pts last season.

It's not sensible to make such a comparison. The PU last year was much worse than the PU this year

It's still the worse PU and apparently it's in a much worse car, so how do STR score all those points in such a scenario?

Are you honestly comparing this year's PU with the one from last year? The one where they didn't even managed to start two of the races leading up to Canada because the PU refused to play ball? You lose all credibility when you post things like this

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: In this instance the fitting of the Renault engine has been specifically blamed.

Yes and you mentioned Red Bull who's chassis last year was designed for the Renault so obviously they didn't have the same problem as McLaren had with installation as the McLaren chassis was designed for a different one. One had to adapt theirs and the other didn't.

And can we stop with the constant peddling of McLaren unwilling to compromise on their chassis with regards to Honda and their engine. Do you seriously think they're going to refuse Honda changes that will compromise the car but then go and compromise it themselves by switching to Renault?

It wasn't plug 'n' play, they had to change the entire rear of the car and extend the wheelbase so why on earth would they deny Honda the same possibility of compromise?

It's just various things I read about the McLaren Honda alliance, also that's an interesting thing you say refuting the constant peddling of McLaren, trying to find articles i found this, just before the start of the 2017 season they forced Honda to change their fuel supplier.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/07/02 ... ne-so-bad/

The article contains a lot of guesswork, to be fair. If McLaren changed their supplier without informing Honda at any point, I think they should take some blame for any knock-on effect. However, I find it hard to believe that they blindsided their engine partner on which fuel they would use and I don't recall any reports from Honda saying they were upset at the change. Given the amount of blame they were having to swallow, I find it strange that they wouldn't even have mentioned it (of course, it's possible they did but I missed it?).

Meanwhile, at last weekend's Grand Prix, Red Bull hammered both other Renault-powered teams and matched the other front runners for race pace, despite them using a different fuel to Renault's recommended and reportedly losing 14bhp benefit in the process. So strange that they weren't crippled, too?

From what I could see Honda just basically took everything on the chin.

Your last paragraph just strengthens what I said, you can't blame everything on the engine.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:Renault clearly stated they were not ready for a driver of Alonso's calibre

They stated that in mid-2017 and I have this distinct feeling that Abiteboul basically got spooked by Alonso's perceived negativity at various times during the McHonda period and that he feared the same kind of "PR".

He was less negative at Ferrari, used much less scathing and sarcastig language. Abiteboul's opinion on getting him might have been different if he had stayed at Ferrrari and won a few more races instead of looking like a fool at the back of the field.

even for 2018 Alonso could have presumable gone to Renault

? no he couldn't because Abiteboul said he didn't want Alonso at that point - you referred to it yourself so I don't understand you saying this now?

so Alonso would have gone from Ferrari the 2nd/3rd best team and joined the Renault start up team in 2017 despite the fact that a year later he had no interest in joining Renault, and even for 2019 he seemingly has no interest.

I don't know if he has interest or not, I think his interest for new multi-year projects has disappeared altogether after the McHonda fiasco. I suggested the possibility because if he hadn't endured McHonda, then maybe he would have still had some appetite for a new up and coming works effort.

So you are basically agreeing that Renault was never on the cards for Alonso.

Can you explain to me how that follows from what I said?

What I'm actually saying is that even if he had not left Ferrari after 2014, he would have been well fed up mid 2016 and Renault might have been a possibility given the renewed factory effort.

We've gone through the fact that Renault did not want Alonso whilst they were in their rebuilding phase, Alonso himself seems to have little interest in joining Renault next year, yet he would have joined Renault in 2017?

Please can you read what is being said?

I've said specifically that I think Abiteboul got spooked by Alonso's constant negativity during the McHonda days, and that he didn't want that kind of bad press while in rebuilding phase.
I've said that I consider it a possibility that had Alonso stayed at Ferrari until 2016, he would never have been as negative as he was during the McHonda days, being more at the front and winning some races.
I've said that in that case, Abiteboul might have been OK with bringing Alonso in for 2017.

And from Alonso's side, not having endured a hard process like the McHonda project, he might have been willing to join Renault for 2017. Whereas at THIS moment in time, we are again 2 years further and time is now definitely running out for Alonso to join yet another up-and-coming project.

That's what I said, I think this was clear from the go but if you elect not to do a decent read-through and just go on in your usual type of blurting out as many responses as possible, then all of us waste time. Please read decently.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:As opposed to the McLaren myth of give us a better engine and we'll be running near the front?

I'm sure when they said that they didn't mean give us a better engine that forces us to completely redesign the car with minimal notice, but I think you know that? And you didn't really answer the question. If you acknowledge that every car is different to the previous year's model, why are you insisting that this year's performance shows last year's car was poor?

So you're saying that McLaren did not have enough time?

If last year's car was so good why the need to restructure the design team especially if you think they were not given enough time, as been pointed out Red Bull don't always get it right but are given the time to sort things out based on past performance, are the hierarchy at McLaren not sold on the theoretical past performance?

we're repeating again. The sheer number of changes have already been explained to you, but it seems when you don't like the answer you just keep repeating the question? The number of changes is one issue. The way they dealt with it is another. But it still doesn't mean that it proves last year's chassis was a problem

As regards the design team, McLaren have had a complete internal restructure, right up to Zak Brown's role and I'm not aware he was ever on the design team. So it seems you're drawing hasty conclusions again maybe?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Doesn't matter if it's slower on the straight as long as it's faster overall, it's not a drag race. Red Bull have a better chassis which produces more d/f everywhere I'd imagine, they can do things McLaren can't you'll get no argument from me on that front.

But then we look at the STR that doesn't have good downforce that being given the reason why it has such good straight line speed, that hasn't stopped them scoring 19pts thus far, McLaren scored 30pts last season.

It's not sensible to make such a comparison. The PU last year was much worse than the PU this year

It's still the worse PU and apparently it's in a much worse car, so how do STR score all those points in such a scenario?

Are you honestly comparing this year's PU with the one from last year? The one where they didn't even managed to start two of the races leading up to Canada because the PU refused to play ball? You lose all credibility when you post things like this

So they used one engine design all season?

The engine was much improved at the end of the season with Honda saying it was close to the performance of the Renault engine.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Yes and you mentioned Red Bull who's chassis last year was designed for the Renault so obviously they didn't have the same problem as McLaren had with installation as the McLaren chassis was designed for a different one. One had to adapt theirs and the other didn't.

And can we stop with the constant peddling of McLaren unwilling to compromise on their chassis with regards to Honda and their engine. Do you seriously think they're going to refuse Honda changes that will compromise the car but then go and compromise it themselves by switching to Renault?

It wasn't plug 'n' play, they had to change the entire rear of the car and extend the wheelbase so why on earth would they deny Honda the same possibility of compromise?

It's just various things I read about the McLaren Honda alliance, also that's an interesting thing you say refuting the constant peddling of McLaren, trying to find articles i found this, just before the start of the 2017 season they forced Honda to change their fuel supplier.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/07/02 ... ne-so-bad/

The article contains a lot of guesswork, to be fair. If McLaren changed their supplier without informing Honda at any point, I think they should take some blame for any knock-on effect. However, I find it hard to believe that they blindsided their engine partner on which fuel they would use and I don't recall any reports from Honda saying they were upset at the change. Given the amount of blame they were having to swallow, I find it strange that they wouldn't even have mentioned it (of course, it's possible they did but I missed it?).

Meanwhile, at last weekend's Grand Prix, Red Bull hammered both other Renault-powered teams and matched the other front runners for race pace, despite them using a different fuel to Renault's recommended and reportedly losing 14bhp benefit in the process. So strange that they weren't crippled, too?

From what I could see Honda just basically took everything on the chin.

Your last paragraph just strengthens what I said, you can't blame everything on the engine.

it weakens it. You provided an article to prove that McLaren were to blame for some of their troubles by forcing Honda to accept a different fuel supplier. But Red Bull have just given a superb performance while also having a different fuel supplier that that recommended by their engine partner, which illustrates that this shouldn't necessarily have had the impact you think it did

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:But then we look at the STR that doesn't have good downforce that being given the reason why it has such good straight line speed, that hasn't stopped them scoring 19pts thus far, McLaren scored 30pts last season.

It's not sensible to make such a comparison. The PU last year was much worse than the PU this year

It's still the worse PU and apparently it's in a much worse car, so how do STR score all those points in such a scenario?

Are you honestly comparing this year's PU with the one from last year? The one where they didn't even managed to start two of the races leading up to Canada because the PU refused to play ball? You lose all credibility when you post things like this

So they used one engine design all season?

The engine was much improved at the end of the season with Honda saying it was close to the performance of the Renault engine.

Make your mind up. You were just comparing STR's points haul so far this year, which is at the beginning of the season, not the end. But if you want to get technical, STR's points haul in the first 7 races of the year is identical to McLaren's in the last 7 races of last year. The difference is that STR haven't had to go through the pain of the previous months like McLaren did

mds wrote: Please can you read what is being said?

I've said specifically that I think Abiteboul got spooked by Alonso's constant negativity during the McHonda days, and that he didn't want that kind of bad press while in rebuilding phase.
I've said that I consider it a possibility that had Alonso stayed at Ferrari until 2016, he would never have been as negative as he was during the McHonda days, being more at the front and winning some races.
I've said that in that case, Abiteboul might have been OK with bringing Alonso in for 2017.

And from Alonso's side, not having endured a hard process like the McHonda project, he might have been willing to join Renault for 2017. Whereas at THIS moment in time, we are again 2 years further and time is now definitely running out for Alonso to join yet another up-and-coming project.

That's what I said, I think this was clear from the go but if you elect not to do a decent read-through and just go on in your usual type of blurting out as many responses as possible, then all of us waste time. Please read decently.

Fair enough but going on from that when Alonso left Ferrari in 2014 the car was dire, in 2016 the car was far from dire plus he would have won races the year before, also factor in that Vettel had a poor season in 2016 so the results might have been that much better with Alonso were the Ferrari might have been viewed as the second best car.

Would he had gone from the second best car to a start up operation in 2017, I very much doubt it plus would Renault have had the budget to pay Alonso what he was being paid at Ferrari, again I very much doubt it.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I'm sure when they said that they didn't mean give us a better engine that forces us to completely redesign the car with minimal notice, but I think you know that? And you didn't really answer the question. If you acknowledge that every car is different to the previous year's model, why are you insisting that this year's performance shows last year's car was poor?

So you're saying that McLaren did not have enough time?

If last year's car was so good why the need to restructure the design team especially if you think they were not given enough time, as been pointed out Red Bull don't always get it right but are given the time to sort things out based on past performance, are the hierarchy at McLaren not sold on the theoretical past performance?

we're repeating again. The sheer number of changes have already been explained to you, but it seems when you don't like the answer you just keep repeating the question? The number of changes is one issue. The way they dealt with it is another. But it still doesn't mean that it proves last year's chassis was a problem

As regards the design team, McLaren have had a complete internal restructure, right up to Zak Brown's role and I'm not aware he was ever on the design team. So it seems you're drawing hasty conclusions again maybe?

No the article clearly states that McLaren have realised they have a wider problem with their design department.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43904342

For me it's clear that these issues were masked behind the Honda engine.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Yes and you mentioned Red Bull who's chassis last year was designed for the Renault so obviously they didn't have the same problem as McLaren had with installation as the McLaren chassis was designed for a different one. One had to adapt theirs and the other didn't.

And can we stop with the constant peddling of McLaren unwilling to compromise on their chassis with regards to Honda and their engine. Do you seriously think they're going to refuse Honda changes that will compromise the car but then go and compromise it themselves by switching to Renault?

It wasn't plug 'n' play, they had to change the entire rear of the car and extend the wheelbase so why on earth would they deny Honda the same possibility of compromise?

It's just various things I read about the McLaren Honda alliance, also that's an interesting thing you say refuting the constant peddling of McLaren, trying to find articles i found this, just before the start of the 2017 season they forced Honda to change their fuel supplier.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/07/02 ... ne-so-bad/

The article contains a lot of guesswork, to be fair. If McLaren changed their supplier without informing Honda at any point, I think they should take some blame for any knock-on effect. However, I find it hard to believe that they blindsided their engine partner on which fuel they would use and I don't recall any reports from Honda saying they were upset at the change. Given the amount of blame they were having to swallow, I find it strange that they wouldn't even have mentioned it (of course, it's possible they did but I missed it?).

Meanwhile, at last weekend's Grand Prix, Red Bull hammered both other Renault-powered teams and matched the other front runners for race pace, despite them using a different fuel to Renault's recommended and reportedly losing 14bhp benefit in the process. So strange that they weren't crippled, too?

From what I could see Honda just basically took everything on the chin.

Your last paragraph just strengthens what I said, you can't blame everything on the engine.

it weakens it. You provided an article to prove that McLaren were to blame for some of their troubles by forcing Honda to accept a different fuel supplier. But Red Bull have just given a superb performance while also having a different fuel supplier that that recommended by their engine partner, which illustrates that this shouldn't necessarily have had the impact you think it did

You clearly said by doing this they are losing 14hp so that did make a negative impact on the engine, the superb performance is clearly because of the car itself, as a comparsion when did McLaren get wins and podiums with the Honda engine to be able to credit the McLaren car itself?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:It's just various things I read about the McLaren Honda alliance, also that's an interesting thing you say refuting the constant peddling of McLaren, trying to find articles i found this, just before the start of the 2017 season they forced Honda to change their fuel supplier.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/07/02 ... ne-so-bad/

The article contains a lot of guesswork, to be fair. If McLaren changed their supplier without informing Honda at any point, I think they should take some blame for any knock-on effect. However, I find it hard to believe that they blindsided their engine partner on which fuel they would use and I don't recall any reports from Honda saying they were upset at the change. Given the amount of blame they were having to swallow, I find it strange that they wouldn't even have mentioned it (of course, it's possible they did but I missed it?).

Meanwhile, at last weekend's Grand Prix, Red Bull hammered both other Renault-powered teams and matched the other front runners for race pace, despite them using a different fuel to Renault's recommended and reportedly losing 14bhp benefit in the process. So strange that they weren't crippled, too?

From what I could see Honda just basically took everything on the chin.

Your last paragraph just strengthens what I said, you can't blame everything on the engine.

it weakens it. You provided an article to prove that McLaren were to blame for some of their troubles by forcing Honda to accept a different fuel supplier. But Red Bull have just given a superb performance while also having a different fuel supplier that that recommended by their engine partner, which illustrates that this shouldn't necessarily have had the impact you think it did

You clearly said by doing this they are losing 14hp so that did make a negative impact on the engine, the superb performance is clearly because of the car itself, as a comparsion when did McLaren get wins and podiums with the Honda engine to be able to credit the McLaren car itself?

It may have given a small bhp loss, but that's fairly nominal when compared to the issues they faced last year. If 14bhp was all they had to worry about they'd still be together now.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: It's not sensible to make such a comparison. The PU last year was much worse than the PU this year

It's still the worse PU and apparently it's in a much worse car, so how do STR score all those points in such a scenario?

Are you honestly comparing this year's PU with the one from last year? The one where they didn't even managed to start two of the races leading up to Canada because the PU refused to play ball? You lose all credibility when you post things like this

So they used one engine design all season?

The engine was much improved at the end of the season with Honda saying it was close to the performance of the Renault engine.

Make your mind up. You were just comparing STR's points haul so far this year, which is at the beginning of the season, not the end. But if you want to get technical, STR's points haul in the first 7 races of the year is identical to McLaren's in the last 7 races of last year. The difference is that STR haven't had to go through the pain of the previous months like McLaren did

But the McLaren car was supposed to be a potential race winner whilst the STR car is supposed to be a midfield car and they don't have Alonso.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:It's still the worse PU and apparently it's in a much worse car, so how do STR score all those points in such a scenario?

Are you honestly comparing this year's PU with the one from last year? The one where they didn't even managed to start two of the races leading up to Canada because the PU refused to play ball? You lose all credibility when you post things like this

So they used one engine design all season?

The engine was much improved at the end of the season with Honda saying it was close to the performance of the Renault engine.

Make your mind up. You were just comparing STR's points haul so far this year, which is at the beginning of the season, not the end. But if you want to get technical, STR's points haul in the first 7 races of the year is identical to McLaren's in the last 7 races of last year. The difference is that STR haven't had to go through the pain of the previous months like McLaren did

But the McLaren car was supposed to be a potential race winner whilst the STR car is supposed to be a midfield car and they don't have Alonso.

The STR also hasn't come close to winning races this year, so what's your point here?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: So you're saying that McLaren did not have enough time?

If last year's car was so good why the need to restructure the design team especially if you think they were not given enough time, as been pointed out Red Bull don't always get it right but are given the time to sort things out based on past performance, are the hierarchy at McLaren not sold on the theoretical past performance?

we're repeating again. The sheer number of changes have already been explained to you, but it seems when you don't like the answer you just keep repeating the question? The number of changes is one issue. The way they dealt with it is another. But it still doesn't mean that it proves last year's chassis was a problem

As regards the design team, McLaren have had a complete internal restructure, right up to Zak Brown's role and I'm not aware he was ever on the design team. So it seems you're drawing hasty conclusions again maybe?

No the article clearly states that McLaren have realised they have a wider problem with their design department.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43904342

For me it's clear that these issues were masked behind the Honda engine.

from the article you posted:

But the spokesman said McLaren was "undergoing a review of its technical operations as part of its programme to return the team to success".

"This is a proactive, ongoing process that addresses a broad range of factors across the organisation," he added.

But hey, let's just call it a problem with the design department

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: The article contains a lot of guesswork, to be fair. If McLaren changed their supplier without informing Honda at any point, I think they should take some blame for any knock-on effect. However, I find it hard to believe that they blindsided their engine partner on which fuel they would use and I don't recall any reports from Honda saying they were upset at the change. Given the amount of blame they were having to swallow, I find it strange that they wouldn't even have mentioned it (of course, it's possible they did but I missed it?).

Meanwhile, at last weekend's Grand Prix, Red Bull hammered both other Renault-powered teams and matched the other front runners for race pace, despite them using a different fuel to Renault's recommended and reportedly losing 14bhp benefit in the process. So strange that they weren't crippled, too?

From what I could see Honda just basically took everything on the chin.

Your last paragraph just strengthens what I said, you can't blame everything on the engine.

it weakens it. You provided an article to prove that McLaren were to blame for some of their troubles by forcing Honda to accept a different fuel supplier. But Red Bull have just given a superb performance while also having a different fuel supplier that that recommended by their engine partner, which illustrates that this shouldn't necessarily have had the impact you think it did

You clearly said by doing this they are losing 14hp so that did make a negative impact on the engine, the superb performance is clearly because of the car itself, as a comparsion when did McLaren get wins and podiums with the Honda engine to be able to credit the McLaren car itself?

It may have given a small bhp loss, but that's fairly nominal when compared to the issues they faced last year. If 14bhp was all they had to worry about they'd still be together now.

Red Bull have been using the fuel for a while now whilst for Honda they had to change at short notice so the impact may have been larger, however the point being it still put Honda in a compromised position, I also believe the article also mentioned it might cause reliability issues, surely an engine manufacturer chooses it's own supplier not the team?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: So you're saying that McLaren did not have enough time?

If last year's car was so good why the need to restructure the design team especially if you think they were not given enough time, as been pointed out Red Bull don't always get it right but are given the time to sort things out based on past performance, are the hierarchy at McLaren not sold on the theoretical past performance?

we're repeating again. The sheer number of changes have already been explained to you, but it seems when you don't like the answer you just keep repeating the question? The number of changes is one issue. The way they dealt with it is another. But it still doesn't mean that it proves last year's chassis was a problem

As regards the design team, McLaren have had a complete internal restructure, right up to Zak Brown's role and I'm not aware he was ever on the design team. So it seems you're drawing hasty conclusions again maybe?

No the article clearly states that McLaren have realised they have a wider problem with their design department.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43904342

For me it's clear that these issues were masked behind the Honda engine.

from the article you posted:

But the spokesman said McLaren was "undergoing a review of its technical operations as part of its programme to return the team to success".

"This is a proactive, ongoing process that addresses a broad range of factors across the organisation," he added.

But hey, let's just call it a problem with the design department

When did a marketing man like Zak Brown become a technician, the articles own interpretation was that McLaren have a wider problem with their design department which goes beyond the sacking of Tim Goss.

pokerman wrote: Fair enough but going on from that when Alonso left Ferrari in 2014 the car was dire, in 2016 the car was far from dire plus he would have won races the year before, also factor in that Vettel had a poor season in 2016 so the results might have been that much better with Alonso were the Ferrari might have been viewed as the second best car.

The Ferrari, three years into the new regs, was utterly dire compared to the Mercedes.
Once again, there is absolutely no joy for Alonso to be in a car that is a distant second and no, he wouldn't have had a sniff at the title in 2016. Not even remotely close.

Would he had gone from the second best car to a start up operation in 2017, I very much doubt it

Why do you doubt that? He did the same when going to McHonda.

it plus would Renault have had the budget to pay Alonso what he was being paid at Ferrari, again I very much doubt it.

I'm willing to bet that his huge salary is a product of good negotiations and McLaren being able to pay it, but that he'd settle for much less if the funding wasn't there provided it's a project he believes in.

Heck I'm sure he'd drive the Ferrari or Mercedes for free if he got the offer.

Besides, Renault are not in financial troubles and are a huge constructor. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to pay him a good salary.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: Fair enough but going on from that when Alonso left Ferrari in 2014 the car was dire, in 2016 the car was far from dire plus he would have won races the year before, also factor in that Vettel had a poor season in 2016 so the results might have been that much better with Alonso were the Ferrari might have been viewed as the second best car.

The Ferrari, three years into the new regs, was utterly dire compared to the Mercedes.
Once again, there is absolutely no joy for Alonso to be in a car that is a distant second and no, he wouldn't have had a sniff at the title in 2016. Not even remotely close.

Would he had gone from the second best car to a start up operation in 2017, I very much doubt it

Why do you doubt that? He did the same when going to McHonda.

it plus would Renault have had the budget to pay Alonso what he was being paid at Ferrari, again I very much doubt it.

I'm willing to bet that his huge salary is a product of good negotiations and McLaren being able to pay it, but that he'd settle for much less if the funding wasn't there provided it's a project he believes in.

Heck I'm sure he'd drive the Ferrari or Mercedes for free if he got the offer.

Besides, Renault are not in financial troubles and are a huge constructor. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to pay him a good salary.

The Ferrari in 2014 was clearly not the second best car, 4th/5th best, in 2016 2nd/3rd best car with 11 podiums, should have been more, Vettel had a few mishaps, to a Renault team that was the 9th best car and he would see his best chance of beating Mercedes would be to go to Renault, I don't think anyone would?

pokerman wrote: The Ferrari in 2014 was clearly not the second best car, 4th/5th best, in 2016 2nd/3rd best car with 11 podiums, should have been more, Vettel had a few mishaps, to a Renault team that was the 9th best car and he would see his best chance of beating Mercedes would be to go to Renault, I don't think anyone would?

The Renault was 9th best but it wasn't developed with the Renault factory budget. If he was capable of taking a punt on a completely new entry in the PU department, it's not far-fetched he could just as well have taken a punt on a renewed factory effort.

Especially after seven seasons after which he would still find himself in a very distant second best car, with no hopes of the title and with the general idea that they would even go downhill in 2017.

Answer me this: how many drivers do you know of his calibre waited for more than 7 seasons for a team to come good? Hamilton waited 4 seasons, and left the joint fastest (at least) car to go to the fifth fastest.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: The Ferrari in 2014 was clearly not the second best car, 4th/5th best, in 2016 2nd/3rd best car with 11 podiums, should have been more, Vettel had a few mishaps, to a Renault team that was the 9th best car and he would see his best chance of beating Mercedes would be to go to Renault, I don't think anyone would?

The Renault was 9th best but it wasn't developed with the Renault factory budget. If he was capable of taking a punt on a completely new entry in the PU department, it's not far-fetched he could just as well have taken a punt on a renewed factory effort.

Especially after seven seasons after which he would still find himself in a very distant second best car, with no hopes of the title and with the general idea that they would even go downhill in 2017.

Answer me this: how many drivers do you know of his calibre waited for more than 7 seasons for a team to come good? Hamilton waited 4 seasons, and left the joint fastest (at least) car to go to the fifth fastest.

I get your point but seriously would you tag Renault as future Mercedes beaters, even now, maybe 2021 when the rules change?

Also what's to stop Alonso joining Renault next year and let's remember that Renault said themselves it would take them 3 years to be competitive, that's not a timeline that would attract Alonso, let's face it Alonso expected to be challenging for the title in his second year at McLaren.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: So you're saying that McLaren did not have enough time?

If last year's car was so good why the need to restructure the design team especially if you think they were not given enough time, as been pointed out Red Bull don't always get it right but are given the time to sort things out based on past performance, are the hierarchy at McLaren not sold on the theoretical past performance?

we're repeating again. The sheer number of changes have already been explained to you, but it seems when you don't like the answer you just keep repeating the question? The number of changes is one issue. The way they dealt with it is another. But it still doesn't mean that it proves last year's chassis was a problem

As regards the design team, McLaren have had a complete internal restructure, right up to Zak Brown's role and I'm not aware he was ever on the design team. So it seems you're drawing hasty conclusions again maybe?

No the article clearly states that McLaren have realised they have a wider problem with their design department.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43904342

For me it's clear that these issues were masked behind the Honda engine.

from the article you posted:

But the spokesman said McLaren was "undergoing a review of its technical operations as part of its programme to return the team to success".

"This is a proactive, ongoing process that addresses a broad range of factors across the organisation," he added.

But hey, let's just call it a problem with the design department

When did a marketing man like Zak Brown become a technician, the articles own interpretation was that McLaren have a wider problem with their design department which goes beyond the sacking of Tim Goss.

no, the article states that it was PART of a programme to overhaul the ENTIRE organisation

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: From what I could see Honda just basically took everything on the chin.

Your last paragraph just strengthens what I said, you can't blame everything on the engine.

it weakens it. You provided an article to prove that McLaren were to blame for some of their troubles by forcing Honda to accept a different fuel supplier. But Red Bull have just given a superb performance while also having a different fuel supplier that that recommended by their engine partner, which illustrates that this shouldn't necessarily have had the impact you think it did

You clearly said by doing this they are losing 14hp so that did make a negative impact on the engine, the superb performance is clearly because of the car itself, as a comparsion when did McLaren get wins and podiums with the Honda engine to be able to credit the McLaren car itself?

It may have given a small bhp loss, but that's fairly nominal when compared to the issues they faced last year. If 14bhp was all they had to worry about they'd still be together now.

Red Bull have been using the fuel for a while now whilst for Honda they had to change at short notice so the impact may have been larger, however the point being it still put Honda in a compromised position, I also believe the article also mentioned it might cause reliability issues, surely an engine manufacturer chooses it's own supplier not the team?

It's not a relevant point, because a) we don't know the impact, b) we don't even know whether Honda were consulted, and c) we have zero idea whether this was something imposed by McLaren against Honda's wishes.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: we're repeating again. The sheer number of changes have already been explained to you, but it seems when you don't like the answer you just keep repeating the question? The number of changes is one issue. The way they dealt with it is another. But it still doesn't mean that it proves last year's chassis was a problem

As regards the design team, McLaren have had a complete internal restructure, right up to Zak Brown's role and I'm not aware he was ever on the design team. So it seems you're drawing hasty conclusions again maybe?

No the article clearly states that McLaren have realised they have a wider problem with their design department.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43904342

For me it's clear that these issues were masked behind the Honda engine.

from the article you posted:

But the spokesman said McLaren was "undergoing a review of its technical operations as part of its programme to return the team to success".

"This is a proactive, ongoing process that addresses a broad range of factors across the organisation," he added.

But hey, let's just call it a problem with the design department

When did a marketing man like Zak Brown become a technician, the articles own interpretation was that McLaren have a wider problem with their design department which goes beyond the sacking of Tim Goss.

no, the article states that it was PART of a programme to overhaul the ENTIRE organisation

Which happens to start with the sacking of a designer but it's purely just some kind of management overhaul.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: No the article clearly states that McLaren have realised they have a wider problem with their design department.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43904342

For me it's clear that these issues were masked behind the Honda engine.

from the article you posted:

But the spokesman said McLaren was "undergoing a review of its technical operations as part of its programme to return the team to success".

"This is a proactive, ongoing process that addresses a broad range of factors across the organisation," he added.

But hey, let's just call it a problem with the design department

When did a marketing man like Zak Brown become a technician, the articles own interpretation was that McLaren have a wider problem with their design department which goes beyond the sacking of Tim Goss.

no, the article states that it was PART of a programme to overhaul the ENTIRE organisation

Which happens to start with the sacking of a designer but it's purely just some kind of management overhaul.

an overhaul which gave Zak Brown a new job, among others, but let's keep insisting it's some kind of smokescreen just to sack Goss

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: it weakens it. You provided an article to prove that McLaren were to blame for some of their troubles by forcing Honda to accept a different fuel supplier. But Red Bull have just given a superb performance while also having a different fuel supplier that that recommended by their engine partner, which illustrates that this shouldn't necessarily have had the impact you think it did

You clearly said by doing this they are losing 14hp so that did make a negative impact on the engine, the superb performance is clearly because of the car itself, as a comparsion when did McLaren get wins and podiums with the Honda engine to be able to credit the McLaren car itself?

It may have given a small bhp loss, but that's fairly nominal when compared to the issues they faced last year. If 14bhp was all they had to worry about they'd still be together now.

Red Bull have been using the fuel for a while now whilst for Honda they had to change at short notice so the impact may have been larger, however the point being it still put Honda in a compromised position, I also believe the article also mentioned it might cause reliability issues, surely an engine manufacturer chooses it's own supplier not the team?

It's not a relevant point, because a) we don't know the impact, b) we don't even know whether Honda were consulted, and c) we have zero idea whether this was something imposed by McLaren against Honda's wishes.

Honda build the engines but McLaren changed the fuel supplier and it was said at fairly short notice, but this wouldn't be any kind of interference by McLaren or detriment to Honda?

You have already given an example how Red Bull having a different fuel supplier to Renault is a detriment to them, also I'm sure I heard McLaren did the same when they had Mercedes engines which also gave them a performance deficit.

So let's theorise Red Bull lose 14hp, Honda gained 13hp when they were able to change the exhaust system in the STR, that's close to 30hp.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: from the article you posted:

But the spokesman said McLaren was "undergoing a review of its technical operations as part of its programme to return the team to success".

"This is a proactive, ongoing process that addresses a broad range of factors across the organisation," he added.

But hey, let's just call it a problem with the design department

When did a marketing man like Zak Brown become a technician, the articles own interpretation was that McLaren have a wider problem with their design department which goes beyond the sacking of Tim Goss.

no, the article states that it was PART of a programme to overhaul the ENTIRE organisation

Which happens to start with the sacking of a designer but it's purely just some kind of management overhaul.

an overhaul which gave Zak Brown a new job, among others, but let's keep insisting it's some kind of smokescreen just to sack Goss

Would that be lead designer?