Will McLaren survive their Honda contract?
Discussion
NRS said:
There kind of will be. The problem is the engine. Aero and chassis work might give a few tens of a second improvement. But without an engine they will not be able to get that 2 seconds or so back. They almost certainly need at least a second to become competitive against the proper mid-teams, which is not going to happen from better aero etc.
Alonso had said that they're between 30-80hp behind in power compared to Merc/Ferrari. For all practical purposes, they have fixed 'deployment' in the race, which was their Achilles heel last year. There is talk of Honda also having a qualifying engine mode for this year. If they truly have a top 3 chassis (Alonso has suggested best chassis by European races), they should be in a similar position to where Red Bull was in 2014 because the power deficit is not as crippling. Otherwise, the stop watch never lies I'm afraid. We could form a good opinion of their chassis in the first three races.I don't know what their development plan is for 2016 and when they will switch over to 2017. Will they develop the MP4/31 throughout this year and then evolve it for 2017 with the main aero concept being the same? Will it translate well to the new regs? Don't know. Williams switched over to FW38 early last year and I don't think they made a step forward in the pecking order for 2016.
I do not
Dr Z said:
McLarens last year have consistently had blinding starts, easily gaining 3-4 positions by the first few corners. It would be good if they have still kept this characteristic. Williams at Silverstone '15 is nothing!
I wonder how much of that is down to the package, and how much is down to two of the worlds best F1 drivers in the seat. Remember how Kimi would make up places last year off the line?FeelingLucky said:
Dr Z said:
McLarens last year have consistently had blinding starts, easily gaining 3-4 positions by the first few corners. It would be good if they have still kept this characteristic. Williams at Silverstone '15 is nothing!
I wonder how much of that is down to the package, and how much is down to two of the worlds best F1 drivers in the seat. Remember how Kimi would make up places last year off the line?
EnglishTony said:
Will McLaren survive their Honda contract?
Yes, they survived Peugeot.
They signed to Peugeot on the back of the most successful period any F1 team had ever seen.Yes, they survived Peugeot.
They had on board the title sponsor with the deepest pockets (Philip Morris).
Associate sponsors were falling over themselves to sign up.
Do you believe the two scenarios to be directly comparable?
Dr Z said:
NRS said:
There kind of will be. The problem is the engine. Aero and chassis work might give a few tens of a second improvement. But without an engine they will not be able to get that 2 seconds or so back. They almost certainly need at least a second to become competitive against the proper mid-teams, which is not going to happen from better aero etc.
Alonso had said that they're between 30-80hp behind in power compared to Merc/Ferrari. For all practical purposes, they have fixed 'deployment' in the race, which was their Achilles heel last year. There is talk of Honda also having a qualifying engine mode for this year. If they truly have a top 3 chassis (Alonso has suggested best chassis by European races), they should be in a similar position to where Red Bull was in 2014 because the power deficit is not as crippling. Otherwise, the stop watch never lies I'm afraid. We could form a good opinion of their chassis in the first three races.I don't know what their development plan is for 2016 and when they will switch over to 2017. Will they develop the MP4/31 throughout this year and then evolve it for 2017 with the main aero concept being the same? Will it translate well to the new regs? Don't know. Williams switched over to FW38 early last year and I don't think they made a step forward in the pecking order for 2016.
I do not
Actually, I've seen some conflicting speed trap data from the second test. Obviously in the 1st test they were down on speed, but they improved to mid pack on one of the days and then went back to where they were before. They ran the monkey seat all the time which suggests that they're alright. I don't think you can read much from speed trap data as Mercedes were also a bit up and down on various days. McLaren's speed is still an unknown IMO. Just one more week to go before we can find out.
Dr Z said:
Actually, I've seen some conflicting speed trap data from the second test. Obviously in the 1st test they were down on speed, but they improved to mid pack on one of the days and then went back to where they were before. They ran the monkey seat all the time which suggests that they're alright. I don't think you can read much from speed trap data as Mercedes were also a bit up and down on various days. McLaren's speed is still an unknown IMO. Just one more week to go before we can find out.
This is spot on.Testing is testing, not competition. The bulls
t stops at the first race.glazbagun said:
Has anyone plotted the power output of these engines over time? IE: WOT+max deploy HP (y) against time since WOT (x), or are the numbers not publicly available?
They are more complex than that.The mapping of the power deployment of the PUs depends on energy status lap to lap (for example, you will run totally differently on quali than during a race lap, and an in/out lap for a pitstop will also look totally different to a race lap.
The mapping will vary widely from track to track too (eg. at Spa, there's 1MJ of energy change just from going up and down the elevation change - the PU mapping needs to take account of this).
Shorter answer: no.
yes, wrong question.
max power they can deploy is 160Hp - the limit of the MGU-K
however, that in itself is a bit meaningless, as what counts is how long they can keep running the MGU-K at 160Hp, ie, how much energy they can (1) recover from braking, and (2) harvest from the MGU-H.
the former is limited to 2Mj/lap (~555w/h) by the regs so at 120Kw deployment that's only 16.66 seconds (assuming your power conversion electronics is 100%).
to make up the shortfall between this and how many seconds you actually could use per lap, you have to harvest as much as you can from the MGU-H, and this is where Merc have excelled, rumour has it they are able to pull close to 120Kw from the turbo when the engines at WOT.
max power they can deploy is 160Hp - the limit of the MGU-K
however, that in itself is a bit meaningless, as what counts is how long they can keep running the MGU-K at 160Hp, ie, how much energy they can (1) recover from braking, and (2) harvest from the MGU-H.
the former is limited to 2Mj/lap (~555w/h) by the regs so at 120Kw deployment that's only 16.66 seconds (assuming your power conversion electronics is 100%).
to make up the shortfall between this and how many seconds you actually could use per lap, you have to harvest as much as you can from the MGU-H, and this is where Merc have excelled, rumour has it they are able to pull close to 120Kw from the turbo when the engines at WOT.
not as easy as that.
IC power output is also a factor of how much energy is being recovered by the MGU-H, or in the extreme, if the turbo load is being supplied by the battery not the turbine.
ie, the more 'load' the MGU-H is putting up, the less power the IC engine output will be.
the trick is a balancing act between harvesting and IC power output.
IC power output is also a factor of how much energy is being recovered by the MGU-H, or in the extreme, if the turbo load is being supplied by the battery not the turbine.
ie, the more 'load' the MGU-H is putting up, the less power the IC engine output will be.
the trick is a balancing act between harvesting and IC power output.
LOL. Two stories on the same day!
Boullier warns against McLaren expectations: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns33236.html
Fernando Alonso predicts big McLaren performance gains: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14933139/ferna...
Boullier warns against McLaren expectations: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns33236.html
Fernando Alonso predicts big McLaren performance gains: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14933139/ferna...
Adam Ansel said:
LOL. Two stories on the same day!
Boullier warns against McLaren expectations: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns33236.html
Fernando Alonso predicts big McLaren performance gains: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14933139/ferna...
I would trust Boullier a lot more than Alonso from what we have seen in testing...Boullier warns against McLaren expectations: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns33236.html
Fernando Alonso predicts big McLaren performance gains: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14933139/ferna...
FeelingLucky said:
They signed to Peugeot on the back of the most successful period any F1 team had ever seen.
They had on board the title sponsor with the deepest pockets (Philip Morris).
Associate sponsors were falling over themselves to sign up.
Do you believe the two scenarios to be directly comparable?
Actually, yes. 'cos they aren't exactly poor now either thanks to the differences in the way Bernie (albeit reluctantly) pays out these days.They had on board the title sponsor with the deepest pockets (Philip Morris).
Associate sponsors were falling over themselves to sign up.
Do you believe the two scenarios to be directly comparable?
We should be concerned about Sauber's reported problems paying their staff on time.
What are we to make of Red Bull's desire to hang about in F1 making up the numbers?
How long before Force India get impounded to pay their current owner's alleged debts?
Manor - will another big change in the rules bankrupt them?
How long do Mercedes want to continue as team owners?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff