Why are McLaren so crap?

[hairyben]

rdjohn said:

In his dreams!

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/12...

The consistant issue for McLaren seems to be that they overestimate their own strengths, while dismissing the strength of their opposition.

It is not a good recipe for success.

Ive said many times in the last few years mclaren consistently cant take a realistic stock of where they are. And without that you cant improve. The cars crap, forget all this smoke, mirrors and puff about chassis strengths. The engines crap, honda hamstrung themselves by failing to exploit the regs and fully develop before entering and bizarrely wont punt a few lumps out to a b team to get miles. And they seem consistently surprised by their lack of performance, like a goldfish with an electric fence next to it. I find a bizarre apparent arrogance and complacency about them, that their "time" is assured, that they're ordained to win. It isnt. Renault have won more titles recently than mclaren. Comparisons to ferraris lean spell of the early 90s are not unjustified; at least with ferrari today you get the sense that they're fustrated, that they know they need to improve.

[VolvoT5]

rdjohn said:

In his dreams!

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/12...

The consistant issue for McLaren seems to be that they overestimate their own strengths, while dismissing the strength of their opposition.

It is not a good recipe for success.

Yep, I think he is a bit deluded really. Their deficit to the front runners is far more than just the engine, as Gary Anderson suggests here:
http://www.autosport.com/premium/feature/7224/wher...

autosport said:

As for the others, McLaren was the disappointment of the weekend and a huge disappointment for Honda at its home race.

To spend the race dicing with a Sauber and a Toro Rosso in what McLaren has called the third best chassis is not what anyone would expect from a weekend where Jenson Button and Fernando Alonso struggled from the moment they hit the track on Friday.

I have been to Suzuka with cars powered by Honda engines and I know the credence the company puts into getting a good result at its home track.

What happened this weekend at Suzuka will ricochet through the Honda boardroom, and let's not forget it is not so long ago that it joined Toyota in running off with their tails between their legs back to Japan.

I'm sure this week questions will be asked along the lines of 'are we doing the right thing with the right team?'.

Suzuka is a track that really showcases a well-balanced chassis. It needs a bit of everything: downforce, efficiency, braking stability, long-corner balance, change of direction, low-speed mechanical grip and traction. If any of this is missing then the lap time just disappears, and looking at the McLaren it was missing more than one of these factors.

Before signing off the 2017 car McLaren has a lot of work to do to understand why it was so far off the pace at Suzuka, otherwise it will just carry the same problems into the new season with new regulations that place more of a premium on aerodynamic performance.

[Hungrymc]

I'm not as up to speed with the history and key events as many of you are. Its certainly true that F1 can be a volatile place for any of the teams, its a special mix of skills and resources to make a winning car and it can go wrong quickly.

I may be wrong here, but I look at the Martin Whitmarsh phase as a key part of how they are struggling so much now. Its easy to see how a constructor can get into a situation where they are behind the curve (they were in a bad spot when he took over). But I just look back at him as being extremely political and very defensive (I'd have thought pragmatic and looking for areas to pursue gains was healthier). Did he oversee the team while the new power unit rules were being developed and launched?

I also am sure I have heard Ron reason that McL were there to win and not just be competitive. And he didn't think that he could create a real advantage while using a Merc engine as he would be competing with a works team which developed the car and power unit together. He stated he wanted to go elsewhere to be able to do something different and create a real advantage. A gamble on Honda, and maybe the team also have gotten distracted by (hidden behind) PU issues and not had enough focus on everything else?

[Mr_Thyroid]

Rich_W said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the influence on McLaren's recent form of the urban design of Woking's town centre is so vanishingly small that it's probably not worth considering.

I bet you're fun at parties

You mean telling everyone their conversations are pointless is not considered good form??! Next people will be telling me my elephant impression is "not on" or "inappropriate".

[Hedgehogfromhell]

lee_fr200 said:

why whats alonso said i must have missed it

Basically called the PU unacceptable at the manufacturers home circuit, to do a Japanese person over in the home is VERY bad.

[Rich_W]

SkySprtsF1 said:

X are no longer a team but a "group of frightened people" who are scared of being "fired in disgrace", according to former chief track engineer Y.

Y, who inherited Z's role at the team in 2006 and left the team last year, believes the outfit's current struggles are no surprise thanks to the "climate of fear" staff work in.

"Unfortunately, neither B nor C have experience of racing, a culture that today the team has lost," Y told a newspaper.

"They are no longer a team, but a group of frightened people. In there is a climate of fear, the boys do not take risks for fear of being fired in disgrace. "

Adding on the future for team, Y said: "Well the money is there, with the political authority we have, but you win with stability. It should not be rushed.

"I understand that B wants to win right away, but in Formula 1 that does not work. It's difficult to make it in less than three years. " (Full story - external link, ).

http://www.skysports.com/f1/live-blog/30104/10034948/f1-gossip-column


Now that's an edited piece. (By myself)


It's actually from Luca Baldisserri talking about Ferrari.

But put McLaren instead of team and Ron instead of B and it's still accurate!

[rubystone]

Rich_W said:

http://www.skysports.com/f1/live-blog/30104/100349...


Now that's an edited piece. (By myself)


It's actually from Luca Baldisserri talking about Ferrari.

But put McLaren instead of team and Ron instead of B and it's still accurate!

With respect, there's no culture of fear at McLaren.

[aeropilot]

RYH64E said:

ukaskew said:

When was the last time a team with a strong Japanese link was actually successful? Toyota had one of the biggest budgets in F1 and basically did nothing.

Ferrari aside, having key elements outside of Motorsport Valley must be pretty tough.

Honda had a championship winning package when they pulled out and gifted the lot to Brawn.

I'd say they didn't as their package included their own engine, which was far from being class of the field.
The package only became a winning one when it got the Merc engine after Honda ran away

[rubystone]

aeropilot said:

I'd say they didn't as their package included their own engine, which was far from being class of the field.
The package only became a winning one when it got the Merc engine after Honda ran away

And that Merc engine was 'suboptimal ' in its installation too!

[hairyben]

aeropilot said:

I'd say they didn't as their package included their own engine, which was far from being class of the field.
The package only became a winning one when it got the Merc engine after Honda ran away

The engine wasn't honda's issue back then... what "made" the brawn though was the double diffuser arrangement that the all the big teams of F1 were so certain would be declared illegal they didn't bother trying that hard to replicate or impliment it until after the FIA's hearing and blessing several races into the season.... As to why the big teams like mclaren and fez - normally so adept at interpreting/bending F1 rules to the point of daftness - managed to get it so "wrong", perhaps the head of the FIA Mr mosely knows... who by coincidence was engaged in a power struggle over the future of F1 that looked set to tear the sport apart with said same teams under the banner of FOTA at the time

[rubystone]

hairyben said:

The engine wasn't honda's issue back then... what "made" the brawn though was the double diffuser arrangement that the all the big teams of F1 were so certain would be declared illegal they didn't bother trying that hard to replicate or impliment it until after the FIA's hearing and blessing several races into the season.... As to why the big teams like mclaren and fez - normally so adept at interpreting/bending F1 rules to the point of daftness - managed to get it so "wrong", perhaps the head of the FIA Mr mosely knows... who by coincidence was engaged in a power struggle over the future of F1 that looked set to tear the sport apart with said same teams under the banner of FOTA at the time

I'm not so sure that the car would've been a winner with that boat anchor engine, diffuser or not. What's most amusing is the story Ross tells about his bringing to FOCA's attention the fact that the loophole existed to be exploited. No one seemed to pick this up and short of showing them what the Super Aguri guys were working on he couldn't understand why everyone didn't follow his lead. From memory, Toyota did design the car round this feature and I have a feeling that Williams may have too. But Ross says that only Brawn GP got it right out of the box.

[Rich_W]

rubystone said:

With respect, there's no culture of fear at McLaren.

I meant more Fear of failure, "so lets not try anything too radical or risk us looking foolish"

We all know Dennis has an aura around him. Quite understandably, the guy is a perfectionist and has a lot of silverware to show for his life in Motorsport. But does this make the people he employs less likely to stand their ground with him. To suggest solutions/designs that are completely out of the box. Or is the man actually quite open to that sort of thing? In a way is he actually approachable by his staff?

[RYH64E]

Rich_W said:

I meant more Fear of failure, "so lets not try anything too radical or risk us looking foolish"

We all know Dennis has an aura around him. Quite understandably, the guy is a perfectionist and has a lot of silverware to show for his life in Motorsport. But does this make the people he employs less likely to stand their ground with him. To suggest solutions/designs that are completely out of the box. Or is the man actually quite open to that sort of thing? In a way is he actually approachable by his staff?

How much more foolish can they look?

[hairyben]

rubystone said:

I'm not so sure that the car would've been a winner with that boat anchor engine, diffuser or not. What's most amusing is the story Ross tells about his bringing to FOCA's attention the fact that the loophole existed to be exploited. No one seemed to pick this up and short of showing them what the Super Aguri guys were working on he couldn't understand why everyone didn't follow his lead. From memory, Toyota did design the car round this feature and I have a feeling that Williams may have too. But Ross says that only Brawn GP got it right out of the box.

Because they thought it simply wouldnt fly.

It drove a coach and horses through what the FIA's rules were trying to achieve in terms of disrupting airflow to following cars and they (the big teams) thought it'd be laughed out of town and a clarification issued. Brawn himself said he expected the loophole to be closed when he pointed it out, not shrugged off, I guess he just thought it was worth rolling the dice on.

[PhillipM]

Rich_W said:

I meant more Fear of failure, "so lets not try anything too radical or risk us looking foolish"

Which would be the complete opposite of what they've done with the car over the past few years and even new updates they've trialled this year. With all due respect, it doesn't tally with Mclaren at all.

[C70R]

With Webber's retirement, do we think that one of the current Mc line-up may give way and slide across into WEC next year? I feel like the current setup isn't really right for two 'old-timers' in the twilight of their careers.
A younger driver with a bit more thrust/edge might give the team the shot in the arm it so dearly needs...

[HarryFlatters]

PhillipM said:

Rich_W said:

I meant more Fear of failure, "so lets not try anything too radical or risk us looking foolish"

Which would be the complete opposite of what they've done with the car over the past few years and even new updates they've trialled this year. With all due respect, it doesn't tally with Mclaren at all.

I might be getting my timeline wrong here, but I thought that the 2009 car was tricky because of a couple of things...

1. They changed from pushrod to pullrod (or maybe the other way around) suspension, and it took them a long time to get their heads around how to set up the car. The theory being that evolution would gain them x seconds, and that revolution would gain 2x seconds, or something...

2. They were chasing peak downforce, rather than downforce that's accessible over a much larger setup window.

To say that McLaren don't try radical ideas isn't, IMHO, correct. The MP4/1 was the first F1 car with a carbon fibre composite monocoque, for example. We're not going to see that level of step change any more, but I don't think that they're afraid to innovate.

I don't really know why they're so crap at the moment, Honda accepted. Maybe they've lost a lot of personnel since their last WDC, maybe gone down a development cul-de-sac, maybe the opposition is simply better...

I do hope that they're challenging for wins in the next few seasons.

[hairyben]

C70R said:

With Webber's retirement, do we think that one of the current Mc line-up may give way and slide across into WEC next year? I feel like the current setup isn't really right for two 'old-timers' in the twilight of their careers.
A younger driver with a bit more thrust/edge might give the team the shot in the arm it so dearly needs...

Buttons already out, in some kind of "ambassador" (might drive the car if princess alonso won't) role, and is it vanndorne in?

[C70R]

hairyben said:

C70R said:

With Webber's retirement, do we think that one of the current Mc line-up may give way and slide across into WEC next year? I feel like the current setup isn't really right for two 'old-timers' in the twilight of their careers.
A younger driver with a bit more thrust/edge might give the team the shot in the arm it so dearly needs...

Buttons already out, in some kind of "ambassador" (might drive the car if princess alonso won't) role, and is it vanndorne in?

I must concede, that bit of news passed me by a tad. A sad end for a thoroughly likeable bloke and decent driver, but a bit of youth and enthusiasm will do the team good.

[Dr Z]

HarryFlatters said:

PhillipM said:

Rich_W said:

I meant more Fear of failure, "so lets not try anything too radical or risk us looking foolish"

Which would be the complete opposite of what they've done with the car over the past few years and even new updates they've trialled this year. With all due respect, it doesn't tally with Mclaren at all.

I might be getting my timeline wrong here, but I thought that the 2009 car was tricky because of a couple of things...

1. They changed from pushrod to pullrod (or maybe the other way around) suspension, and it took them a long time to get their heads around how to set up the car. The theory being that evolution would gain them x seconds, and that revolution would gain 2x seconds, or something...

2. They were chasing peak downforce, rather than downforce that's accessible over a much larger setup window.

To say that McLaren don't try radical ideas isn't, IMHO, correct. The MP4/1 was the first F1 car with a carbon fibre composite monocoque, for example. We're not going to see that level of step change any more, but I don't think that they're afraid to innovate.

I don't really know why they're so crap at the moment, Honda accepted. Maybe they've lost a lot of personnel since their last WDC, maybe gone down a development cul-de-sac, maybe the opposition is simply better...

I do hope that they're challenging for wins in the next few seasons.

They have been doing the radical thing for quite a few years, haven't they? Not a lot of success to show for it.

Only in the recent past (2012) they managed to build a quick car but couldn't work out why it was fast, not could they exploit it to the full. They have stuck to their guns with evolving one overarching concept since they put a Honda engine at the back (with Prodromou at the helm of course). But I very much suspect that they haven't been able to realise the concept fully due to the PU not up to par with the rest of the manufacturers. But they are doing the best they could with it. I also suspect that their aero/chassis design philosophy will be more fully realised with the 2017 regulations. I just hope that next year's Honda PU will be strong as it will be vital.

You lot can point and laugh, but I'll be back to gloat when they're up to speed.