Mclaren pick up where they left off...... engine failures!

[Woody]

Oh dear - looks like Alonso might be in for a tough year as the Mercedes seems to be it usual reliable self!!!

How will the new engine rules affect sorting these problems out?

Planet-F1 said:

Alonso parks new McLaren after engine trouble
Wednesday January 17 2007

McLaren's first shakedown of the MP4/22 has not gone to plan as world champion Fernando Alonso was forced to park the car in the pitlane after it lost power during Wednesday's test.

The Spaniard was putting the car through its paces in Valencia before he parked the car which was bellowing smoke and losing oil.

Alonso's former team had similar bad luck on Tuesday as the Renault R27's track debut was marred by engine trouble.

The Anglo-French outfit were testing their 2007 challenger at Jerez and Giancarlo Fisichella managed 33 laps before technical problems forced the R27 back into the paddock.

Renault remain optimistic despite the technical setbacks and technical director Bob Bell said, "With any new car, our work has only just begun. We encountered the normal gremlins that you expect on any shakedown."

[rcarr]

I am a Mercedes Benz fan through and through but this really takes the piss! Why can't they make these 2.4 V8s, when for several years they have been making V8 road cars and V8 race engines? What has happened?

I don't like Alonso but I am more disappointed by the technical back up supplied by Mercedes to McLaren. I hope Lewis Hamilton gives him a good run for his money this season!

[Eric Mc]

I think there is a world of diffrence between a road spec engine and an F1 engine.

Anyway, having breakdowns during testing is the best time to have them.

[Woody]

Eric Mc said:

I think there is a world of diffrence between a road spec engine and an F1 engine.

Anyway, having breakdowns during testing is the best time to have them.

They had this problem lastyear though - and it carried on through the season.

I think they're gonna be well screwed by the new engine rule due to limited development.

[rubystone]

Did Mclaren really have many engine failures last year? I recall them having problems in 2005, but not that many in 2006.

I'd have thought that the engine rule ought to increase reliability?

This failure could well be associated with packaging and cooling rather than anything wrong with the engine per se. Red Bull's aero was compromised last year as a result of cooling issues IIRC.

[baz1985]

I guess its Alonso...the car breaker now then.

[rcarr]

Eric Mc said:

I think there is a world of diffrence between a road spec engine and an F1 engine.

Anyway, having breakdowns during testing is the best time to have them.

But they have made Group C and GTP engines, the DTM engines and also the larger supercar engines, SLR, Zonda etc.

Edited by rcarr on Wednesday 17th January 17:21

[ahonen]

Mercedes have been ruining McLaren's chances for a few years now. In 2000 Hakkinen's title hopes died with his engine at Indianapolis, while their troubles in 2005 were well documented. Throughout that time Ferrari has been building bomb-proof cars and engines that keep finishing races and scoring points. And the further McLaren fall behind in each title race, the harder the drivers have to push and the more chances there are for further breakdowns - caused by driveshafts, gearboxes etc. It's a vicious circle.

F1 doesn't really do Mercedes' brand credibility any good at all. The cars look cool (though that's the McLaren part) and have stylish colourschemes, but the constant stream of engine failures must make some of the MB top brass wonder what they really get out of it.

While all the time Audi just keeps on winning Le Mans - partly by using technology that they can link to their road car programmes. Who cares if there isn't that much competition for them, when the marketing department can keep on promoting the victories.

[rubystone]

rcarr said:

But they have made Group C and GTP engines, the DTM engines and also the larger supercar engines, SLR, Zonda etc.

The F1 engines were built by Ilmor - quite diferent from the part of Mercedes that built the other racing engines. The Ilmor operation was bought out by Mercedes several years ago and I am surmising that the F1 engine building area was subsumed into the other racing areas, but I don't know for sure.

Let's see how Audi fare against the French Peugeot Le Mans efort this year (note the use of the word "French"....

[Locoblade]

There's really no comparison to be made with the F1 engine and anything else that Merc make, its like saying Bridgestone make road tyres that last 20,000 miles on the road, so how come the F1 tyres only last 200 miles on track?

Anyway as mentioned, its very likely to be be a packaging / ancilliaries issue anyway rather than an engine failure, you only need one oil pipe to fail or become disconnected and you have all the above symptoms - ie lots of smoke and oil escaping.

Edited by Locoblade on Wednesday 17th January 18:25

[Ahonen]

rubystone said:

Let's see how Audi fare against the French Peugeot Le Mans efort this year (note the use of the word "French"....

Audi will slaughter them, French-factory-team-at-Le-Mans or not. It's Joest we're talking about, don't forget: and Joest doesn't f*ck around. The Audis were merely playing with Pesca last year.

Great to see another factory team out there though.

Locoblade - Bridgestone uses its successes with Ferrari to sell road tyres, by telling the world how grippy they are and how durable and safe they are over a race distance. If Bridgestone's tyres suffered delamination and blow-outs at regular intervals it wouldn't do their marketing efforts any good, despite the lack of technological connection between F1 and road cars.

[Locoblade]

Ahonen said:

Locoblade - Bridgestone uses its successes with Ferrari to sell road tyres, by telling the world how grippy they are and how durable and safe they are over a race distance. If Bridgestone's tyres suffered delamination and blow-outs at regular intervals it wouldn't do their marketing efforts any good, despite the lack of technological connection between F1 and road cars.

You completely missed my point
My post was aimed at "rcarr" and had nothing to do with marketing, it was merely pointing out that from a technical point of view to question why Mercedes can't build a good F1 V8 when they're capable of building a good road V8 or a good DTM V8 is a bit short sighted.

cheers

Chris

Edited by Locoblade on Wednesday 17th January 19:09

[Ahonen]

Locoblade said:

You completely missed my point

Ah... Many apologies!

[rcarr]

I know fine and well that making a road engine is completely different from a Formula 1 engine but since they know how to win championships with a decent engine with Hakkinen driving the car, why can't they make an engine that will be both hardy and quick! I wasn't saying as some people took it "coz they have good road car engines they must be good at making F1 engines"

Why shouldn't the experience that they've got in the team (Mercedes Benz) rub off onto their Formula 1 racing engine development?

Ilmor Engines are being used in Moto GP with Mario Illien, he is no longer involved with the Mercedes racing engines, maybe they need to recruit someone who is a engine genius like Mario Illien to make them improve.

It all kind of fell apart when Paul Morgan was killed, that lead on to Mario Illien leaving McLaren a wee while after and of course it didn't help that the experienced head of Hakkinen was replaced by that other Finn!

Edited by rcarr on Wednesday 17th January 20:03

[Locoblade]

Who's to say their current engine isnt both hardy and quick though? I know Mercedes had issues in 2005 and they also seemed to be a bit behind-the-game when they first bought out the V8 at the start of last season, but their engine looked perfectly OK for the last 3/4 of last season and seeing as the design hasn't changed since then due to homologation, there's nothing to suggest the engine will be a problem unless there's a packaging issue with the new chassis.

Renault have thus far had the same (single) "engine related" failure as McLaren this winter and I believe have had an engine fail in a race more recently than Mercedes, but I don't see anyone questioning their engines.

[flemke]

Before people get too excited about a "Here we go again, Mercedes can't build engines, what a bunch of losers, etc...", in today's case the engine did not fail at all.
The incident was caused by a minor electrical fault.

[Locoblade]

As long as it was the classic electrical fault that occasionally occur, where a conrod goes through the wiring loom

Edited by Locoblade on Wednesday 17th January 21:33

[Ahonen]

Locoblade said:

As long as it was the classic electrical fault that occasionally occur, where a conrod goes through the wiring loom

Edited by Locoblade on Wednesday 17th January 21:33

Ah yes, the "oil leak" that used to account for so many of Renault's problems at the beginning of their 1.5-litre turbo programme in the late '70s. Nigel Roebuck once enquired of a Renault engineer, after a race, whether the retirement had been due to another "oil leak". "Yes", he replied, "the oil leaked from this hole in the side of the block..."

[rcarr]

The problem is that a minor electrical fault could be anything. In "Ron-speak" "minor electrical fault" could be an absolute failure of the wiring loom! McLarens are normally hampered by "hydraulic failures" which could be anything from the throttle mechanism to the clutch failing!

[Locoblade]

If this was happening half way through the season then Id agree, but it was the first time the car turned a wheel! Its not called a shakedown test for nothing