Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
Dakkon said:
Exactly, I completely agree.
The recent R&D into new models, expansion costs, costs to run two shifts but barely an increase in actual numbers of cars per day coupled with not winning in F1 and no title sponsor all add up.
I realise you have a completely different view Rubystone, but personally I don't think McLaren are as financially secure as they like to make out.
You work for them, I don't. I do know that they are still paying their bills though....The recent R&D into new models, expansion costs, costs to run two shifts but barely an increase in actual numbers of cars per day coupled with not winning in F1 and no title sponsor all add up.
I realise you have a completely different view Rubystone, but personally I don't think McLaren are as financially secure as they like to make out.
pits said:
So what do we think?
Alonso to walk after Melbourne?
McLaren to split with Honda end of the season?
Where do they go for an engine supplier?
3 years now to get an engine reliable and quick is poor, everyone else has managed it
I would love to see them start to do well again but I'd predictAlonso to walk after Melbourne?
McLaren to split with Honda end of the season?
Where do they go for an engine supplier?
3 years now to get an engine reliable and quick is poor, everyone else has managed it
Alonso does not even start the season
(unless a sudden and dramatic change in speed and reliability)
If things dont turn around by August will be last year of McHonda in F1.
But who knows?!
rubystone said:
WestyCarl said:
My 20 yrs experience of working in Japanese corporations tells me they will never succeed in F1. They are far to slow in decision making (usually by committee) and far too conservative minded in everything but especially Engineering. This trait is likely magnified in such a public sport.
I kind of like Ron and Mclaren, but really can't see this working.
Honda didn't do too badly in F1 in the late '80s.....I kind of like Ron and Mclaren, but really can't see this working.
Considering the financial input from Honda, alongside the engine supply, it would possibly be too expensive for McLaren to replace with paid for Mercedes engines, unless the team finds more sponsorship in the meantime (or a dramatic cut in the team overhead).
Always loved Ron Dennis, however I can't help but think he's run the team into a cul-de-sac. The Mercedes team appears outwardly to have inherited the spirit and nouse I used to love McLaren for.
Sad times.
Always loved Ron Dennis, however I can't help but think he's run the team into a cul-de-sac. The Mercedes team appears outwardly to have inherited the spirit and nouse I used to love McLaren for.
Sad times.
janesmith1950 said:
Considering the financial input from Honda, alongside the engine supply, it would possibly be too expensive for McLaren to replace with paid for Mercedes engines, unless the team finds more sponsorship in the meantime (or a dramatic cut in the team overhead).
I guess it depends on contracts that we don't see... there must be some kind of performance clause in the engine supply contract? But then if Honda are effectively paying for them, then maybe not.Vaud said:
I guess it depends on contracts that we don't see... there must be some kind of performance clause in the engine supply contract? But then if Honda are effectively paying for them, then maybe not.
My post above wasn't even taking into account any damages that might apply if McLaren terminate early. Honda might argue they've invested several hundred million dollars into a marketing programme to promote its brand, and that by McLaren terminating, it literally loses the vehicle to manifest that promotion. McLaren may counter that Honda have been doing such a poor job, their joint programme was in fact harming Honda's reputation, in any case.I could see a situation where Honda's poor performance allows McLaren to exit penalty free (or even that it opens up Honda to liquidated damages). Neither Honda nor McLaren would be keen on litigation detailing in public just how bad its all been.
rubystone said:
WestyCarl said:
My 20 yrs experience of working in Japanese corporations tells me they will never succeed in F1. They are far to slow in decision making (usually by committee) and far too conservative minded in everything but especially Engineering. This trait is likely magnified in such a public sport.
I kind of like Ron and Mclaren, but really can't see this working.
Honda didn't do too badly in F1 in the late '80s.....I kind of like Ron and Mclaren, but really can't see this working.
Edited by WestyCarl on Friday 3rd March 21:18
WestyCarl said:
rubystone said:
WestyCarl said:
My 20 yrs experience of working in Japanese corporations tells me they will never succeed in F1. They are far to slow in decision making (usually by committee) and far too conservative minded in everything but especially Engineering. This trait is likely magnified in such a public sport.
I kind of like Ron and Mclaren, but really can't see this working.
Honda didn't do too badly in F1 in the late '80s.....I kind of like Ron and Mclaren, but really can't see this working.
Edited by WestyCarl on Friday 3rd March 21:18
Big wide front wings
Big staggered slicks
Wide and low rear wings
V6 turbo
Difference is the Honda RA168E was good, but the Honda RA167 is crap.
The annoying part of all this, and I've stuck by McLaren Honda always with a "they'll get better" attitude, and they just don't, we know Honda can do it, if ever there was a company out there to bash out some high tech s
t with mechanical engineering be it's them.Maybe they're just sand bagging, yeah sand bagging and Alonso does not want to give the game away so quickly, couple of mid point finishes, the smash pole and win every race for rest of season ... Yeah the cars gonna be...Oh who am I kidding
rubystone said:
Honda didn't do too badly in F1 in the late '80s.....
And Williams were dominant in the 90's, they haven't won a race for a quite a while now... History in F1 means less than did all when it comes to lining up on the grid in Melbourne and Mclaren are unlikely to be battling for points at the rate they're going never mind a win.It's Grand Prix racing - and that means that whoever is on top won't stay there forever and whoever is at the bottom may move to the top - or sink without trace. Taking an innovative approach , as Honda has done , can involve being a prophet without honour who pays the price of derision from people(not necessarily on here ) who really don't seem to know to much about motor sport history.
Examples - how we giggled at the Renault RS1 at Silverstone 77 , as it hissed and parped its way around Silverstone. We weren't laughing at turbo cars a few years later . Lotus wing cars made them invincible in 78, and their 25, 49 and 72 were also groundbreaking . Unlike the 88 , the 80 , the 76 and most Lotuses post Chapman's death . Ferrari were a slow joke in 73 and might from 74 through to 77. They did quite well in the noughties too ...
I wish Honda all the best - as said , they did OK in the 80s with V6 turboes (and very well with the V10 and 12 of 90s ) but were possibly too clever by half in their 60s efforts
Examples - how we giggled at the Renault RS1 at Silverstone 77 , as it hissed and parped its way around Silverstone. We weren't laughing at turbo cars a few years later . Lotus wing cars made them invincible in 78, and their 25, 49 and 72 were also groundbreaking . Unlike the 88 , the 80 , the 76 and most Lotuses post Chapman's death . Ferrari were a slow joke in 73 and might from 74 through to 77. They did quite well in the noughties too ...
I wish Honda all the best - as said , they did OK in the 80s with V6 turboes (and very well with the V10 and 12 of 90s ) but were possibly too clever by half in their 60s efforts
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff