Mclaren Honda 2015

[trinidefender]

McLaren are on average 2.5-3 seconds a lap slower on race lap pace, but generally 2 to 2.5 seconds a lap down on one lap pace, thats on a average 5km lap. That means they can be a sitting duck most of the time. Id say that McLaren will make a second in chassis design in 2016 and another 1.5-2 on PU improvements. McLaren look on paper to be competitive in 2016, but id say they will be 2 seconds closer next year. It is all dependant on their TC, MGU-H and MGU-K design and advancements for 2016, the new spec Honda is a half a second up the road, and on that side there is room for optimism, but unless they can get their TC and MGU-H manufactured and in before Homologation, or in as a token update start/middle of next year, the Honda may be stillborn next year and there may be another year of hurt to come. Id say there is a 50/50 chance they can fight for podiums, but it is all far too dependant on what Honda bring on a engine side and not what Mclaren can bring on a chassis side.

Pretty sure the gap is bigger than that still as i don't think Merc are running their new power unit anywhere its full potential, but do hope McHonda can at least be a little more competitive next season.

I have to say that in the last two races I see some glimmers of hope. Main problem is the loss of electrical boost at the end of the straights. But apart from that the engine package does not seem that bad that they should not be able to cover a power shortfall with their overall design like Red bull has been doing for years with the Renault engines.

I do think they have a chassis problem as well. Especially the front end of the car seems very bouncy and twitchy under braking/turn in. Right now they are sitting ducks in the hard braking zones. I don't think it is airo, but more suspension related.

If they solve those issues over winter they can put up some performance next year. Maybe not enough to fight for podiums on a regular basis, but at least they can aim for the top of the midfield.

And hopefully that will be enough to retain the sponsors. Because as I said before my main worry is that they run out of development money before they are competitive.

You could be right however I would bet money that you aren't by the simple fact that all of the times they are overtaken is at the straights. To add to that everything you say is contradicted by both drivers. Both drivers say that the car has good turn in and good balance.

[Wazari]

I have seen the car perform first hand at Suzuki at almost every turn on the track up close. I have looked at the race data from Suzuka including entrance and exit speeds from the corners. The chassis which includes the suspension just isn't there where the Silver Arrows and Ferrari's are. In slow turns where HP isn't really a factor they are still deficient. The car also looks very nervous exiting corners and seems to have trouble with traction more so than the other cars. A car feeling well balanced is just one small component of a good chassis. There are several teams running the Merc PU and if the chassis didn't matter then they should have equal lap times and they don't. Hamilton and Rosberg may be good drivers but they are not 1 or 2 secs better than everyone else. IMO, McLaren does not have a great chassis as some seem to believe.

[Andres125sx]

I have to say that in the last two races I see some glimmers of hope. Main problem is the loss of electrical boost at the end of the straights. But apart from that the engine package does not seem that bad that they should not be able to cover a power shortfall with their overall design like Red bull has been doing for years with the Renault engines.

I do think they have a chassis problem as well. Especially the front end of the car seems very bouncy and twitchy under braking/turn in. Right now they are sitting ducks in the hard braking zones. I don't think it is airo, but more suspension related.

If they solve those issues over winter they can put up some performance next year. Maybe not enough to fight for podiums on a regular basis, but at least they can aim for the top of the midfield.

And hopefully that will be enough to retain the sponsors. Because as I said before my main worry is that they run out of development money before they are competitive.

You could be right however I would bet money that you aren't by the simple fact that all of the times they are overtaken is at the straights. To add to that everything you say is contradicted by both drivers. Both drivers say that the car has good turn in and good balance.

Any reason they should wait for the braking point to overtake when they can do it so easily in the straight before reaching the braking point?

Anycase, can´t remind who was right now, but after reading this reply a comment from DeLaRosa came to my mind. It was when someone overtook Jenson in the race, the tv reporter said what you can easily guess (some joke about McHonda top speed) but Pedro kicked in saying this time it was not in the straight, but the braking point.

Sincerely, didn´t notice it and neither give it any importance, but after reading this post his comment instantly came to my mind.

[Vasconia]

I have seen the car perform first hand at Suzuki at almost every turn on the track up close. I have looked at the race data from Suzuka including entrance and exit speeds from the corners. The chassis which includes the suspension just isn't there where the Silver Arrows and Ferrari's are. In slow turns where HP isn't really a factor they are still deficient. The car also looks very nervous exiting corners and seems to have trouble with traction more so than the other cars. A car feeling well balanced is just one small component of a good chassis. There are several teams running the Merc PU and if the chassis didn't matter then they should have equal lap times and they don't. Hamilton and Rosberg may be good drivers but they are not 1 or 2 secs better than everyone else. IMO, McLaren does not have a great chassis as some seem to believe.

But the drivers seem to be quite happy with the balance of the car.

[Andres125sx]

There are several teams running the Merc PU and if the chassis didn't matter then they should have equal lap times and they don't.

I wouldn´t say equal as we all know works teams will never supply exactly same specs PU to any of their competitors, but they should be around half a second off as much, so it´s obvious there are a lot more than just the PU. Mercedes simply have the best package, best aero, best PU and best chasis, and if some of this is not the best, it´s so close to the best it doesn´t make any (negative) difference, while the other two do a big (positive) difference


But I´m not sure who think McLaren chasis is the best, even theirselves stated they´re fourth best after Mercedes, RBR and STR

[turbof1]

I have seen the car perform first hand at Suzuki at almost every turn on the track up close. I have looked at the race data from Suzuka including entrance and exit speeds from the corners. The chassis which includes the suspension just isn't there where the Silver Arrows and Ferrari's are. In slow turns where HP isn't really a factor they are still deficient. The car also looks very nervous exiting corners and seems to have trouble with traction more so than the other cars. A car feeling well balanced is just one small component of a good chassis. There are several teams running the Merc PU and if the chassis didn't matter then they should have equal lap times and they don't. Hamilton and Rosberg may be good drivers but they are not 1 or 2 secs better than everyone else. IMO, McLaren does not have a great chassis as some seem to believe.

But the drivers seem to be quite happy with the balance of the car.

Hamilton and Rosberg were happy with the balance too in Singapore, and they were a long way from pole. Feeling happy with the balance is not the same as having a good cornering car.

[bauc]

I have seen the car perform first hand at Suzuki at almost every turn on the track up close. I have looked at the race data from Suzuka including entrance and exit speeds from the corners. The chassis which includes the suspension just isn't there where the Silver Arrows and Ferrari's are. In slow turns where HP isn't really a factor they are still deficient. The car also looks very nervous exiting corners and seems to have trouble with traction more so than the other cars. A car feeling well balanced is just one small component of a good chassis. There are several teams running the Merc PU and if the chassis didn't matter then they should have equal lap times and they don't. Hamilton and Rosberg may be good drivers but they are not 1 or 2 secs better than everyone else. IMO, McLaren does not have a great chassis as some seem to believe.

But the drivers seem to be quite happy with the balance of the car.

When drivers & team say that the car is well balanced, it usually means that there are no design flaws in general terms, but as suggested by some other forum members its not a sing of a great chassis it just means that its a stable platform on which they can build on compared to the mp4-29 which had too much RDF.

[j.yank]

In all races after summer MH have the worst braking performance on the grid - they are stopping too early comparing to all other teams on the grid. In this case the braking point for them will be not the same like their competitors.

[j.yank]

On month ago:
Part of the reason Alonso is managing to remain upbeat is his apparent belief that McLaren’s actual chassis, the MP4-30, is among the very best on the grid. “I think we do have one of the best chassis on the grid,” he insisted. “The data proves it. “The cornering is the second best after Red Bull. I think we have a serious shortage of power and that is what we need to address,” Alonso added.

Maybe Alonso lies?

[FoxHound]

On month ago:
Part of the reason Alonso is managing to remain upbeat is his apparent belief that McLaren’s actual chassis, the MP4-30, is among the very best on the grid. “I think we do have one of the best chassis on the grid,” he insisted. “The data proves it. “The cornering is the second best after Red Bull. I think we have a serious shortage of power and that is what we need to address,” Alonso added.

Maybe Alonso lies?

Which data proves it?

Alonso is a talented driver, but if the data is one corner of one track then that data is meaningless. Most data we see indicates Mercedes hold advantages through corners with Red Bull and Ferrari a bit further behind and after them Mclaren.

[Vasconia]

I have seen the car perform first hand at Suzuki at almost every turn on the track up close. I have looked at the race data from Suzuka including entrance and exit speeds from the corners. The chassis which includes the suspension just isn't there where the Silver Arrows and Ferrari's are. In slow turns where HP isn't really a factor they are still deficient. The car also looks very nervous exiting corners and seems to have trouble with traction more so than the other cars. A car feeling well balanced is just one small component of a good chassis. There are several teams running the Merc PU and if the chassis didn't matter then they should have equal lap times and they don't. Hamilton and Rosberg may be good drivers but they are not 1 or 2 secs better than everyone else. IMO, McLaren does not have a great chassis as some seem to believe.

But the drivers seem to be quite happy with the balance of the car.

Hamilton and Rosberg were happy with the balance too in Singapore, and they were a long way from pole. Feeling happy with the balance is not the same as having a good cornering car.

But if you feel comfortable with the balance you should be able to go faster in the corners than with an unbalanced and nervous car.

[Wazari]

But if you feel comfortable with the balance you should be able to go faster in the corners than with an unbalanced and nervous car.

Not necessarily. You can have a car that is nervous at 9/10ths before breaking away and a stable feeling car at 9/10ths where the 9/10ths speed of the first car is higher than the second car at the same corner. I know this is not worded well but I'm having trouble putting down in English what I'm trying to say right now.

[trinidefender]

In all races after summer MH have the worst braking performance on the grid - they are stopping too early comparing to all other teams on the grid. In this case the braking point for them will be not the same like their competitors.

I honestly believe their perceived "bad braking performance" isn't actually that. I honestly believe that they are trying regenerate as much energy as possible from the MGU-K. By setting it up that the MGU-K has a stronger braking force (to recover more energy) then the drivers will have to be easier on the brakes. I.e. An earlier braking point.

Since kers was introduced years ago a point that drivers have made is that it isn't easy for teams to set the best brake balance as it becomes very sensitive and easy to lock up tyres through the KERS/MGU-K adding a braking force onto the rear axle.

On the topic of when they are overtaken you will notice that many times they are overtaken very early in the straights. I actually haven't seen them getting overtaken much in the braking zone, even with their compromised braking setup.

[alexx_88]

Or, wording a bit differently and taking the point a bit to the extreme: my MX5 has great balance, but an unbalanced F1 car will always be quicker.

Balance relates to how consistent the car feels under different actions. A car that has more downforce overall, but which feels unbalanced when near the peak, can be driven more conservatively and still achieve faster lap times than one with more consistent, but lower downforce. Obviously, a more adaptable driver can take the first car closer to its limit, improving lap times even further.

[j.yank]

In all races after summer MH have the worst braking performance on the grid - they are stopping too early comparing to all other teams on the grid. In this case the braking point for them will be not the same like their competitors.

I honestly believe their perceived "bad braking performance" isn't actually that. I honestly believe that they are trying regenerate as much energy as possible from the MGU-K. By setting it up that the MGU-K has a stronger braking force (to recover more energy) then the drivers will have to be easier on the brakes. I.e. An earlier braking point.

Since kers was introduced years ago a point that drivers have made is that it isn't easy for teams to set the best brake balance as it becomes very sensitive and easy to lock up tyres through the KERS/MGU-K adding a braking force onto the rear axle.

On the topic of when they are overtaken you will notice that many times they are overtaken very early in the straights. I actually haven't seen them getting overtaken much in the braking zone, even with their compromised braking setup.

Yes, I think the same. Just Formula 1 site reports in this way. They are trying to harvest more energy from MGU-K. BTW, I thought that MGU-K is their problem, but the same results can be replicated with MGU-H running at 50%. However, in this case the deficit is much larger, and this means that they have very, very competitive chassis to compensate this deficit.