I've been thinking a bit about the McLaren-Honda situation and figured what I am about to write is probably best in here. Excuse me quoting a post from a few days ago, but it pretty much emphasizes what I've been thinking about:
ringo wrote:Anyhow, the news from Honda is not good and i think it shows how politics has a way of misdirecting a whole project.
Having the right leadership is very crucial. If you have a project leader/manager that is close minded you will have a lot of problems along the way and i say this looking on what Honda has done from 2015. They refused to listen to outsiders and they were hell bent on pursuing some pipe dream "size zero" philosophy in a blind and very vein manner.
I hope there is levelheadedness and logic applied to how they run things now. The engineers are tools, and their energies need to directed in the right fashion. No matter how good they are, if they are asked to design and develop rubbish, it will just be a well engineered piece of rubbish at the end of the day (not to say the Honda PU project is rubbish, but just using an extreme).
So hopefully Honda gets things back on track with this new for 2016 engine. And it would make 2017 even more optimistic if they just scrap size zero alltogether and make a kick ass brute of a PU.
Why is it that Honda here is singled out again and again as the one within the chain that is underperforming? As far as I understand, the size-zero concept is not something that originated from Honda, but from McLaren, because they obviously have certain aero goals they want to achieve. Naturally, it takes two to find the right balance - the aero is only as effective if the engine is not too compromised, but it also takes a certain amount of expertise and confidence to know what can be achieved with the PU within the boundaries that are set.
On some level, this failed last year and to some degree, one could argue that Honda had a bigger challenge to face last year, not only in playing catch up, but also having much more (space) and probably cooling restrictions by the boundaries that were set in order to achieve that size-zero.
Given that they are still pursuing that size-zero, I can only imagine 3 scenarios:
1.)
McLaren is stubborn in wanting to keep it in order to gain an aero advantage and confident the engine can produce enough within that space they have given it
2.)
Honda is confident they can achieve whatever performance levels that is required/targeted within those boundaries
3.)
as a team, one or the other, they are confident that both elements (aero + engine) working at their full potential is fast enough to be 'competitive' and race winning
Having read a lot in this topic and what Wazari has posted, I can see why they are pursuing that design choice, but I do wonder if it is a "winning formula/package". Maybe the struggles that are to be seen from the outside are simply a logical conclusion to a design philosophy that is too hard to achieve or simply not possible? In other words; a design choice leading into a dead-end because it just won't be good enough, no matter how elegant or efficient it ends up being?
And if this is really the case, I do wonder how much of it is Honda's fault. I think I'd look at it more as a failing of both parties, or setting too high goals/targets that are practically unachievable, where a more conservative approach might have yielded better results?
Even worse, if this is even half way accurate and the reason for their on-going struggles (if you could call it that), how easily could this be changed? It's not as if you can simply change your design direction - following a different design choice would also mean an entire new car would have to be built, potentially setting them back by another 1 season? Seems to be they're stuck at least to go with the size-zero for this season, regardless how well they can get the package to work.
