mitadumapaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ Morbid
>
> I do not understand one thing.You (just like me)
> think that McLaren willl not challenge for wins
> any time soon, even in the next season. You even
> brought up some technical data to support this.
>
> Then, why are people so optimistic? The BBC
> pundits, the Sky team all bet on McLaren making
> wins towards the end of THIS season. Are they not
> insiders? Do not they know that stuff? Why are
> they all making such claims?
>
> Indeed, if you go through the posts, Gav also
> argued that the potential is there for mclaren. SO
> why are people so overly optimistic, whenthe only
> cars behind them are Marrusias
It is a bit difficult for me to talk about the inner workings of others, but I would say, it is simply hype. Ron Dennis talked it up massively last year, with all his references to past epic achievements. The signing of Alonso, given the history they have together adds to that. We all know that he has a limited time left in F1, and that he wants more championships. His assessment by signing is an implicit endorsement of that hype. Would there be such a fervour around McLaren-Honda, had he refused the deal? I think not. Would there be such fervour if Honda had come in to supply Red Bull? I think not.
What surprises me the most, is that I don't see any positive assessments, that are based on verifiable input. Kiesa commentates F1 for Viasat in Denmark, and last season he made some calls to engineers at various teams and asked them if Honda was going to impress at the season opener as promised. The feedback can be summed up as follows: "Are you joking?!? These engines are so incredibly complicated! With the problems all the existing teams had at the regulation switch, there is no way they are going to muscle in and start winning races! Not this year, and not the next!" These are people that are actually working on F1 cars every day, and who don't have a political and commercial need to communicate a success potential, to attract drivers, technical staff, sponsorship and placate investors. It is just a flat "from the garage and design" level assessment. And lo and behold, as of yet, it has held true. It was a surprise to Kiesa, and it was a surprise to me too, not in the sense of expressed doubt, but the overwhelming pessimism of the appraisal of Honda potential.
What Honda has done with the engine design is very creative, but the specific problems that this design creates are serious, and there are no obvious solutions. Just a tiny mix of the electrical engine coolant and the oil surrounding it does bring the car to a complete stop. Cooling the electrical engine is also a huge challenge. The most tangible rewards is not losing some 10-15 bhp due to sending the power through the gearbox first, but that is not a race winning advantage, even IF the Honda engine is a powerful as the Mercedes engine. Which I might add, no one has yet claimed that it is, not even Honda! So, if the Honda engine is 10-15 bhp down on Mercedes, then McLaren-Honda is on a level play field, with a slight advantage in flexibility of application of power to the tyres. So there needs to be other advantages to get success.
Can this be fixed if the concept does not work? The Ferrari engine fix was actually quite simple. The turbo was under-dimensioned based on an assessment that it was more important to have a slim rear body on the car. Thus, expanding the room for the turbo and making it bigger was a viable option, especially with the large amount of token credits to work with going into 2015. Honda won't have that token amount for 2016, and you can't move an electrical engine to somewhere else in the power-unit based on "reliability issues". Thus Honda hands are much more tied if they abandon the concept, and if they do, it is hard to see, that it will give them a leg up. Rather, it will just put them into more conventional engine design, and conventional performance parameters. Short term fix? Expand the rear end of the car, which has some very aggressive packaging, to allow more air to cool the oil that surrounds the electrical engine component. But that will trade off one advantage to get another component to work as intended. And it is not certain that is enough to fix the problem.
Given Honda's last period in F1, we know that the potential is there given the fact that Brawn GP did produce a championship winning car. But it was not a car that was legs up on the rest in all areas of development. The car was in the better average range, but excessively flattered by the monopoly, and later head start, on the double diffuser. And Honda was not able to do anything of significance without excellent technical and organisational leadership, which was what Ross Brawn brought to the operation. What have they done to amend those points? At the moment, nothing much it would seem. Their entry has been an embarrassment up to this point, with clear indications that project management was not aware of the actual status of the product development, and hence was subjected to a harsh awakening by introduction to the reality of actual track time. With all their resources, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they didn't bolt the engine onto a SuperGT car and had some track time before the start of the test season. If there was issues with the rule book, they could have fielded a one-off concept engine, sharing the same features instead... Granted it would have left many unanswered questions, but at least the initial problems would have been revealed before F1 testing.
But what else do we know about the McLaren-Honda car? Last year, the car was based on the traditional McLaren philosophy of maximum measurable downforce. That led to a car that was tricky to drive on the limit, and which was hungry for tyres if not kept in check by the driver. We saw that on numerous occasions, with Button being able to manage most of the time, and Kevin not so much. And even with that design concept, the McLaren had for years been down on downforce compared to other teams. The arrival of Peter Prodromou saw that that concept changed into something closer to the Red Bull philosophy, of using aero to maximize driveability. In short, what good is max downforce at top speed? How often do you flick the car around at those speeds? The result has been good, with both Jenson and Magnussen reporting that the car was much better to accept braking, turning and applications of throttle. Alonso was equally pleased. So it seems as solid evidence. I think that will probably also generally hold true, when (and if) the Honda engine delivers maximum power, but there is bound to be an appearance of some niggles and kinks. However, what we have not seen is the McLaren being significantly better in terms of tyre life span, which I would think was a given with such improved handling characteristics. They really don't seem to be able to pull off a "Ferrari/Malaysia" strategy. Thus I reckon there is still work to be done in the area of suspension. And given that McLaren was down on downforce for years, the arrival of Peter Prodromou will not see that fixed for at least 2 years, unless he pulled a Nigel Stepney, which I don't think Ron Dennis is willing to risk again. This aero improvement will be needed. The Mercedes might have the strongest engine, but they are also up on downforce, even compared to Red Bull. This was apparent from cornering speeds throughout the length of the 2014 season. The McLaren car is not pulling the highest cornering speeds on the grid, and that cannot be attributed to the engine problems.
In summation, I think McLaren-Honda have their work cut out for them. There are many things that need to be done to produce a championship winning car, and it is not going to happen through some magic fix of the engine. Once the most obvious problems have been fixed, it is going to be the usual every day grind at the design office, like it is for every other championship aspiring team. I have to ask, where do they have the advantage here, compared to all the others? That's the way I see it. I realize that I am writing this with limited information. But I have yet to see anyone provide some sort of argument based on technical and managerial reasons to show otherwise.
It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 01:51PM by Morbid.