planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:50 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

How Long Will You Give Honda to Shape Up?
One more year. 50%  50%  [ 15 ]
Two more years. 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Three to four more years. 30%  30%  [ 9 ]
Five plus years. 10%  10%  [ 3 ]
Honda will withdraw from F1 and I will still support them. 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 30
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
mds wrote:

Fourth, and this is me looking at the future (but no certainties involved), Mario Ilien has helped Renault in the past and his input could also propel Honda towards better competitiveness.


Notice that McLaren's decision to drop Honda came immediately after Ilien's visit to Honda. What he reported after that visit must have been pretty horrific news.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1740
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:

What evidence have they shown that when the engine rules are rewritten, they can deliver a top engine?


A whole host of champion winning cars powered by Renault in the recent past.


You need to go back to 2012 for that, and even then it was widely reported that Renault was the worst of the engines - the engines just didn't have as big an impact as they currently do.

As an engine provider under the current rules they have performed poorly. And have made no significant progress.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10403
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mds wrote:

Fourth, and this is me looking at the future (but no certainties involved), Mario Ilien has helped Renault in the past and his input could also propel Honda towards better competitiveness.


Notice that McLaren's decision to drop Honda came immediately after Ilien's visit to Honda. What he reported after that visit must have been pretty horrific news.


Just out of curiosity: according to you, when did McLaren decide to drop Honda?

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
moby wrote:
I know this thread is about Honda not Renault, but I still have to express my concern of how the Renault engine is going to perform in a size zero box? Rads, trunking and heat dispersion, vibration and weight etc?

There is a lot of problems from the Honda engine, but as far as the Mclaren car is concerned, there is a lot of benefits too, which they will loose. They can probably forget size zero, and size 1, and design in some big ducts.


Size zero concept stopped in 2016 but yeah they will definitely have to make compromises on their current chassis.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
mas wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
@mas

Hindsight makes switching to Honda the wrong call, there was nothing wrong with taking that decision at the time. It was and still is an engine formula and McLaren didn't want to just do what Red Bull have done and win a handful of races across 3 and a half seasons.

They wanted to be in a position to dominate and having works support offered that opportunity. They had built the best car the year before this decision so I don't really understand what those several would have been on about by saying the car was the problem not the engine.

Simply not wanting to be a customer was the motivation so they tried but Honda failed miserably. Now of course the landscape is different and they are desperate for a chance at mixing at the front before they lose their star driver,star technical staff and even more sponsors after 4 years in the doldrums so being a customer is better than more of the same with Honda.

Which was just not the case in 2013 a year after the best car, 6 out of 7 seasons fighting at the sharp end, a fuel supplier of their own, Title sponsor and other high profile more lucrative sponsors and a proven driver and technical staff.

The McLaren Mercedes was poor in 2014 and especially in 2013 with the bucking bronco chassis so clearly the chassis was at fault two clear seasons before the Honda switch. Not only that it was clear in 2014 that the Mercedes hybrid was the class of the field so it was always a risky gamble to give that proven engine up for a unproven size zero concept which looked great on PowerPoint but was abandoned completely two years on for a Mercedes clone. Basically Dennis rolled all the McLaren dice on some fantasy design and lost. Nothing was ever proven on any prototype and they were still having trouble marrying the car to the engine before the first season started. It's all very well trying to be a works engine team but really they should have taken the time and made sure everything was gelling before taking the plunge and giving up on Mercedes. Red Bull have proven over their entire history a customer engine is no impediment to success and they are proving it again against Renault.


The decision to move to Honda was taken early 2013 and they knew why they had messed up the 2013 chassis by choosing revolution over evolution so they wouldn't have had any reason to think they couldn't build a competitive chassis when deciding to go with Honda was the point.

The 2014 chassis had those daft suspension blockers and wasn't a great car but they were badly messed about by Mercedes in terms of requirements for the PU, they were given the wrong parameters and only given the right ones very late. They also had to choose between dumping Esso for Petronas or continuing with a disadvantage with the fuel and they chose Esso. They had no access to the software either so it's not like they were on an equal footing in this turbo era at any point.

Yeah the size zero concept just happened to be completely adverse to lean burn because of the higher temperatures created so it turned out to be a massive failure but only 1 of the 4 manufacturers anticipated lean burn and the others just happened to be easier to adjust to incorporating it, that isn't skill, it's pure chance.

Taking on a just starting,underfunded and understaffed Renault isn't the same as taking on Mercedes and Petronas. There's very good reason Red Bull want their own works supply and fuel supllier still, it's the best chance of beating in house Ferrari and Mercedes. It's not coincidence those two are at the top and it's not a coincidence Lewis was smart enough to leave the customer for the much worse supplier in 2012 with an eye on these regs.

And until a customer beats Mercedes or Ferrari to the crown it will still be the right call to chase works status, as it always as been. Honda failing only changes it with hindsight in McLaren's case because they are on the cusp of losing their star talent and whatever sponsors are left so are being forced to settle for customer status again.

They'll chase works status again for the 2021 regs I guarantee it. As will Red Bull and Williams. It's still the best way forward for independent teams.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1187
I basically came up with what Horner said here just before reading that he said it.
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/881715/1/h ... -an-option
If McLaren are going with Renault that is going to make Red Bull's position with Renault as an engine supplier look even worse than it is now. If Toro Rosso go with Honda and Red Bull are conducive to the move, Red Bull can watch Honda's progress and treat a partnership as a potential option at some point. Obviously the performance issues at the moment make it a no go, but down the line Red Bull Honda with Toro Rosso Honda as the junior team makes a lot of sense to me.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
Herb wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:

What evidence have they shown that when the engine rules are rewritten, they can deliver a top engine?


A whole host of champion winning cars powered by Renault in the recent past.


You need to go back to 2012 for that, and even then it was widely reported that Renault was the worst of the engines - the engines just didn't have as big an impact as they currently do.

As an engine provider under the current rules they have performed poorly. And have made no significant progress.


These rules are not going to last forever Herb.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
Herb wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:

What evidence have they shown that when the engine rules are rewritten, they can deliver a top engine?


A whole host of champion winning cars powered by Renault in the recent past.


You need to go back to 2012 for that,


You want to go back all the way to the 1980's for Honda's last winning year Herb? Is that preferable?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
Lotus49 wrote:


They'll chase works status again for the 2021 regs I guarantee it. As will Red Bull and Williams. It's still the best way forward for independent teams.


Red Bull didnt need works status and their achievements were somewhat respectable from what I remember.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:


They'll chase works status again for the 2021 regs I guarantee it. As will Red Bull and Williams. It's still the best way forward for independent teams.


Red Bull didnt need works status and their achievements were somewhat respectable from what I remember.


They had works status. Even when Renault had their own team in 2010 Red Bull had priority with upgrades.

Even after their falling out with Renault and re-branding their engine Tag they were given one of the upgraded TJI engines in Monaco 2016 when Renault could only build 2 in time. Dan got one and K-Mag got the other.

It's a special relationship because Red Bull allow Renault access to their full chassis dyno and other resources and they get rewarded for it even now.

You're also forgetting their success came in an aero dominated formula not an engine one as we've got. Now Renault are a works team again they'll chase Aston Martin if they get the simplified engine rules they want for 2021.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1564
Herb wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:

What evidence have they shown that when the engine rules are rewritten, they can deliver a top engine?


A whole host of champion winning cars powered by Renault in the recent past.


You need to go back to 2012 for that, and even then it was widely reported that Renault was the worst of the engines - the engines just didn't have as big an impact as they currently do.

As an engine provider under the current rules they have performed poorly. And have made no significant progress.

Renault supplied engines for 19 seasons between 1992 and 2013.

In those 19 seasons they powered 11 driver's titles and 12 constructors titles. They also powered cars to race wins in 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009, as well as powering Williams to wins in each of the 1989, 1990 and 1991 seasons before their golden run of titles. In the hybrid era they've also powered 6 wins for Red Bull, one less than Ferrari. They are a proven success when it comes to engine manufacturing in F1.

2001, 2002, 2007 and 2015 are the only seasons since 1989 where Renault have supplied engines and a Renault powered car has not won at least one race.

What's Honda's record on the other hand? One solitary win for Jenson Button and years of mediocrity.

But sure, going with Renault is a mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1564
Conventional wisdom says that you need a works deal to win titles.

It is a measure of how bad an engine Honda have produced that McLaren are prepared to give up works status voluntarily to go back to being a customer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
GingerFurball wrote:
Conventional wisdom says that you need a works deal to win titles.


Conventional wisdom also said it was impossible for Apple to compete with IBM in the '70s.

The opportunity is there for McLaren and they have chosen to go against the so called "wisdom".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1740
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:

What evidence have they shown that when the engine rules are rewritten, they can deliver a top engine?


A whole host of champion winning cars powered by Renault in the recent past.


You need to go back to 2012 for that, and even then it was widely reported that Renault was the worst of the engines - the engines just didn't have as big an impact as they currently do.

As an engine provider under the current rules they have performed poorly. And have made no significant progress.


These rules are not going to last forever Herb.


So they will provide no benefit until the next rule set. At which Honda will have the same opportunity as Renault to produce a decent engine. You will probably scoff and say there is no chance of Honda doing so, but it might.

If they are with Renault, they will be down the pecking order behind their works team for upgrades and software. A definite disadvantage.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1799
Lotus49 := And until a customer beats Mercedes or Ferrari to the crown it will still be the right call to chase works status, as it always been.

In 2009 the team Mercedes bought was first in the WCC, McLaren was third. In 2010 Mercedes was fourth, McLaren was second. In 2011 they both retained their previous year's positions of fourth and second respectively. In 2012 Mercedes was fifth and McLaren was third. It was only in 2013 Mercedes pulled ahead again with second to McLaren's fifth after also pinching Hamilton. All these four seasons were with the same Mercedes v8 and the chassis/aero (and probably drivers too) proved the differentiator in each of those four seasons not works status.

_________________
"Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Last edited by mas on Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1740
GingerFurball wrote:
Herb wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Herb wrote:

What evidence have they shown that when the engine rules are rewritten, they can deliver a top engine?


A whole host of champion winning cars powered by Renault in the recent past.


You need to go back to 2012 for that, and even then it was widely reported that Renault was the worst of the engines - the engines just didn't have as big an impact as they currently do.

As an engine provider under the current rules they have performed poorly. And have made no significant progress.

Renault supplied engines for 19 seasons between 1992 and 2013.

In those 19 seasons they powered 11 driver's titles and 12 constructors titles. They also powered cars to race wins in 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2009, as well as powering Williams to wins in each of the 1989, 1990 and 1991 seasons before their golden run of titles. In the hybrid era they've also powered 6 wins for Red Bull, one less than Ferrari. They are a proven success when it comes to engine manufacturing in F1.

2001, 2002, 2007 and 2015 are the only seasons since 1989 where Renault have supplied engines and a Renault powered car has not won at least one race.

What's Honda's record on the other hand? One solitary win for Jenson Button and years of mediocrity.

But sure, going with Renault is a mistake.


So you go back to 89 to count Renault wins, but don't include Honda's from the very same season. And ignore '88...

I didn't say they weren't a proven success. Nice strawman.
The fact is Renault haven't built the best engine in a long time. And have made little progress in the current era.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2168
It shows the delicate balancing act required in modern F1, the works supply may be 'everything' but if you lose all your sponsors on the way to getting there it's not really worth it. It would be different if McLaren could see some light at the end of the tunnel, but they must now be thinking with the 3 engine rule next year, that's going to make it even harder and even if Honda could make some 'cast iron' promises that they will make progress, no one really believes they are going to get anywhere any time soon, and then if the engines are going to change in 2021 there will come a point where they then want to start work on the next engine and forget about this one. I don't think McLaren fancy seven years at the back, and where's the confidence that Honda's 2021 engine will be any better?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9380
Location: Ireland
Enrico Benzing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Benzing) has been doing an analysis of the engines throughout the season. If his analysis is sound it looks much better overall for Renault than it does for Honda

Vertical = horsepower
Horizontal = speed

Australian GP:
Image
http://www.formula1benzing.eu/

Monaco GP:
Image
http://www.formula1benzing.eu/

Canadian GP:
Image
http://www.formula1benzing.eu/

Hungarian GP:
Image
http://www.formula1benzing.eu/

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
Nice graphs. Clearly Honda is better than Renault.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6533
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?

Excellent post :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?


McLaren will lose their best driver and probably a boat load of employees who are tired of endless losing if they stick with Honda. How is that better long term?

At least you admit that Honda is a long shot to get anything right long term.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6533
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?


McLaren will lose their best driver and probably a boat load of employees who are tired of endless losing if they stick with Honda. How is that better long term?

At least you admit that Honda is a long shot to get anything right long term.

Not really a long shot, just a complete chance as predicting who will do well in the next engine regulations is just guessing really.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Honda were better than Renault in the next engine regulations for example, but it wouldn't surprise me if not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?


McLaren will lose their best driver and probably a boat load of employees who are tired of endless losing if they stick with Honda. How is that better long term?

At least you admit that Honda is a long shot to get anything right long term.

Not really a long shot, just a complete chance as predicting who will do well in the next engine regulations is just guessing really.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Honda were better than Renault in the next engine regulations for example, but it wouldn't surprise me if not.


I guess stats and data dont mean much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3199
mas wrote:
Lotus49 := And until a customer beats Mercedes or Ferrari to the crown it will still be the right call to chase works status, as it always been.

In 2009 the team Mercedes bought was first in the WCC, McLaren was third. In 2010 Mercedes was fourth, McLaren was second. In 2011 they both retained their previous year's positions of fourth and second respectively. In 2012 Mercedes was fifth and McLaren was third. It was only in 2013 Mercedes pulled ahead again with second to McLaren's fifth after also pinching Hamilton. All these four seasons were with the same Mercedes v8 and the chassis/aero (and probably drivers too) proved the differentiator in each of those four seasons not works status.


Aero dominant regs and practically frozen engine regs.

For the new aero limited and engine dominant regs in 2014 McLaren didn't want to spend those years with inferior equipment to the Manufacturer team and using different fuel/lubricants. They wanted the same in house built benefits RBR(At the time),Mercedes and Ferrari had as those were the competition and they'd be seriously on the back foot being the only customer outfit among them.

It's really not complicated. It's always been the way to chase works status because of these benefits and the financial help it brings and that wont change even with this disaster is what I meant with the last line. Both McLaren and Red Bull will try again in 2021 with AM,Lambo,Porsche or whoever else they can try and persuade.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1564
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?

How do you keep your drivers, your engineers, your aerodynamicists and your sponsors happy if Honda aren't up to the job? Do you think Vandoorne is going to stick around in the hope that Honda might not be rubbish in 2021? Do you think someone like Lando Norris will drive for McLaren-Honda when he can prove his talent in the lower formula and possibly get himself a better drive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 107
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6533
GingerFurball wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?

How do you keep your drivers, your engineers, your aerodynamicists and your sponsors happy if Honda aren't up to the job? Do you think Vandoorne is going to stick around in the hope that Honda might not be rubbish in 2021? Do you think someone like Lando Norris will drive for McLaren-Honda when he can prove his talent in the lower formula and possibly get himself a better drive?

Fair point, but how long are Vandoorne/Norris going to hang around in a team placed around the Red Bull/Force India mark? All drivers look up the grid, only way to hold onto drivers is to have the best car, and if you have the best car the best drivers will come to you.

On the engineers I don't think you tend to see them abandoning teams who are struggling. Moving to the current winning team isn't as common as with drivers. Look at Paddy Lowe leaving Mercedes for Williams this year. Or that James Key just signed another deal with Toro Rosso despite being highly rated within the paddock, surely he could get himself a job at a better team if he wanted, so why doesn't he?

Sponsors I agree with, but McLaren weren't able get a title sponsor to replace Vodafone back in 2013, sure 2013 was a poor year but they had just come off the back of being a front running car on and off for over a decade. I think McLaren's trouble in finding sponsors pre-dates their terrible results and so there must be more to it than that. I don't think a Renault engine deal will have the potential sponsors flocking to them.

In the short term a Renault deal is almost guaranteed to be better for McLaren. In the long term (is 4 years really long term?) it is far less certain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7501
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The question over Renault vs Honda isn't about next year. I'd be very surprised if Honda was more competitive than Renault next year or even the year after and I think most people who aren't enthusiastic about the potential deal are the same. I think these engine regulations are a write off for Honda but I can't see Renault producing an engine on par with Mercedes or Ferrari either.

The point about sticking with Honda is that it would be a works deal for the next regulations. Renault have their own works team which has a long term plan to be back to winning in a few years so when the new regulations do come around there's a pretty decent chance McLaren will have to compete with the works Renault team if they want to win a title. The Renault engine and car will be built around each other whereas McLaren would receive the dimensions etc and build their car around that.

Of course Honda could completely screw up the next regulations too which would make all this talk pointless, but I believe it's been pointed out on here that the current engine proposals are similar to engines that Honda have had a lot of success with and take away one of the key issues with the current engine, the MGU-H.

The thought of another 3 years of the same isn't great for McLaren but ultimately what do they aim to be? Because I can't see them challenging for a title before 2021 with a Renault engine. If their only ambition is to be title contenders then they need to look towards being in the best position in 2021. With Honda they could be title winners if (and I accept it's a big if) Honda can get the next regs right. Even if Renault ace the next regulations, could McLaren realistically compete with the works team while on a customer engine deal?

How do you keep your drivers, your engineers, your aerodynamicists and your sponsors happy if Honda aren't up to the job? Do you think Vandoorne is going to stick around in the hope that Honda might not be rubbish in 2021? Do you think someone like Lando Norris will drive for McLaren-Honda when he can prove his talent in the lower formula and possibly get himself a better drive?

Fair point, but how long are Vandoorne/Norris going to hang around in a team placed around the Red Bull/Force India mark? All drivers look up the grid, only way to hold onto drivers is to have the best car, and if you have the best car the best drivers will come to you.

On the engineers I don't think you tend to see them abandoning teams who are struggling. Moving to the current winning team isn't as common as with drivers. Look at Paddy Lowe leaving Mercedes for Williams this year. Or that James Key just signed another deal with Toro Rosso despite being highly rated within the paddock, surely he could get himself a job at a better team if he wanted, so why doesn't he?

Sponsors I agree with, but McLaren weren't able get a title sponsor to replace Vodafone back in 2013, sure 2013 was a poor year but they had just come off the back of being a front running car on and off for over a decade. I think McLaren's trouble in finding sponsors pre-dates their terrible results and so there must be more to it than that. I don't think a Renault engine deal will have the potential sponsors flocking to them.

In the short term a Renault deal is almost guaranteed to be better for McLaren. In the long term (is 4 years really long term?) it is far less certain.

Ref engineers, it depends more on their circumstance and appreciation in the team and the facilities and freedom they are allowed in their field. Very often an Engineer learns more form something not being perfect than by just boilerplating someone else good bits. A non or poorly working machine is a personal challenge to an engineer and far more involving than just putting oil on the moving bits (metaphorically speaking) far more enjoyable sorting it than just following on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1231
rodH wrote:
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.

I wish that I could live in the world of make believe where an engine that fails every race (despite being designed to run 5 races) is just as good as one that has podiumed 36 times and even won.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7701
Herb Tarlik wrote:
rodH wrote:
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.

I wish that I could live in the world of make believe where an engine that fails every race (despite being designed to run 5 races) is just as good as one that has podiumed 36 times and even won.

Ye. It's ridiculous. I wish Honda all the best and really wants them to improve, but how long we can wait?

_________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7501
Herb Tarlik wrote:
rodH wrote:
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.

I wish that I could live in the world of make believe where an engine that fails every race (despite being designed to run 5 races) is just as good as one that has podiumed 36 times and even won.


As you seem to have a database available to look up concerning Renault engines, How many starts and DNF's are included in that tally?
I seem to recall that in some races there would have been at least 8 Renault engines, and one win

Edit

If you do not have a data base, dont wast time wading through, Its just interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7701
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
rodH wrote:
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.

I wish that I could live in the world of make believe where an engine that fails every race (despite being designed to run 5 races) is just as good as one that has podiumed 36 times and even won.


As you seem to have a database available to look up concerning Renault engines, How many starts and DNF's are included in that tally?
I seem to recall that in some races there would have been at least 8 Renault engines, and one win

Edit

If you do not have a data base, dont wast time wading through, Its just interest.

Just look at Red Bull results. :) Though I hope Renault will get better too.

_________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7501
dizlexik wrote:
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
rodH wrote:
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.

I wish that I could live in the world of make believe where an engine that fails every race (despite being designed to run 5 races) is just as good as one that has podiumed 36 times and even won.


As you seem to have a database available to look up concerning Renault engines, How many starts and DNF's are included in that tally?
I seem to recall that in some races there would have been at least 8 Renault engines, and one win

Edit

If you do not have a data base, dont wast time wading through, Its just interest.

Just look at Red Bull results. :) Though I hope Renault will get better too.

But its only wins with Red bull, there were other renault engines in the races too, Lotus Williams Cateram and more


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7701
moby wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
rodH wrote:
This arguing of Honda Vs Renault reminds me of "imagine if" game my 5 year old would play. "Imagine if you have your eyes poked out or could have your arms cut off, which one would you pick?".

Renault isn't a big upgrade in my opinion, in fact if Honda left, it becomes the default "crap package" and attention turns to them.

I wish that I could live in the world of make believe where an engine that fails every race (despite being designed to run 5 races) is just as good as one that has podiumed 36 times and even won.


As you seem to have a database available to look up concerning Renault engines, How many starts and DNF's are included in that tally?
I seem to recall that in some races there would have been at least 8 Renault engines, and one win

Edit

If you do not have a data base, dont wast time wading through, Its just interest.

Just look at Red Bull results. :) Though I hope Renault will get better too.

But its only wins with Red bull, there were other renault engines in the races too, Lotus Williams Cateram and more

Ahhh I understand. You want to know something different. All I was trying to say that Renault engine is much better than Honda, because Red Bull had plenty of success while using it. On the other hand Honda cannot make their engines last 1 race. That's probably not what you wanted to know, but I'm just explaining my post. :P

_________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7501
dizlexik wrote:
Ahhh I understand. You want to know something different. All I was trying to say that Renault engine is much better than Honda, because Red Bull had plenty of success while using it. On the other hand Honda cannot make their engines last 1 race. That's probably not what you wanted to know, but I'm just explaining my post. :P



What I was getting at was that if Reb bull were the only 2 Renault engine cars in the race and one won, thats 50% and very good.

If car A, B C and D were in a race and A won, B cane in 4th C+D were not placed, it gives it a completely different look.
A 1 in 8 win and a 1 in 8 points.

OK, still better than Honda, but over an 18 race season thats 144 starts or more, so 10 wins does not seem as good. Times 10 seasons....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
Herb Tarlik wrote:
You are incorrect. Had you read and understood my text you'd have followed along to the part where the podiums then turn into race wins and then contending for championships. It's all there in the text, if you take the time to read it.
I have read your posts. I don't think you've made your position that clear beyond "anything but Honda."
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I want bigger things for that for McLaren and I have my doubts that Renault will be able to deliver. Sure, there are doubts about Honda, too, but I suspect most of their issues stem from having to play catch up all the time, while Renault doesn't have that excuse.

Honda has made NO progress at all. None. Catching up implies some forward momentum. Honda has none. Red Bull get podiums. [ Red Bull has a VERY competitive trap speed. You can give Honda another 3 years and they will accomplish nothing but making Fernando go insane, and invent new excuses why they cannot understand their constant failure.
Ah, yes, this old chestnut. It's odd that you would accuse me of not reading and/or understanding your posts and then post a reply to one of mine that completely ignores the point I made that the odd win isn't enough and doesn't make a title contender? Shall I just re-type it so we can go in an endless circle?
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Zoue wrote:
With the new regs coming up, which by all accounts will deliver much less complex engines, in an attempt to attract other manufacturers, I think they would be better off being a Honda Works team than a Renault customer. Take all the hilarity you want from that, but I suspect McLaren will have cause to regret their decision in a couple of years


You and others have a "Works" fetish. It is not reasonable and certainly not backed up by any facts. Since you have no facts all you can rely on is speculation. Red Bull was a customer team and dominated. Liberty Media and the FIA are working very hard to insure that the next engine formula is much more fair than the current one. Since the level of complexity will be much lower, it is highly likely that they will succeed.

Flushing Honda down the toilet will be a great watershed moment in McLaren's history. I suspect you'll see that in the near future as McLaren have nowhere to go but up. Sadly, you'll watch Torro Rosso plunge into the dumpster formerly occupied by McLaren.
I don't have a Works fetish. Can't speak for others, of course. But it's my position that in an engine-dominated formula it makes sense that the engine manufacturers will always have the upper hand. This is also backed up by statistics. Not since Brawn's title in 2009 has a team beaten the manufacturer of its engines to a title, and even that was an anomaly. And before you quote 2010, Renault sold up to Genii and kept a 25% stake in the team that year. They weren't running it as a factory team anymore. After that they made the Red Bull team a Works team in all but name, even if the engine freeze made the advantages less prominent than now. So statistically at least, being a manufacturer (partner) has its perks. And certainly since the introduction of the hybrids the only challenge to Mercedes has come from - surprise, surprise - another manufacturer. All in all there's a great deal more evidence that being a manufacturer is beneficial to title aspirations than that it isn't.

There may be some truth to your claim that with the newer, allegedly less complex regulations the manufacturer advantage will be less pronounced, but I remain unconvinced. They will still be cutting edge, or so I'm led to believe, and a close partnership, especially when the very oil supplier you use may make a crucial difference, will still be an advantage IMO. Only time will tell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9380
Location: Ireland
moby wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Ahhh I understand. You want to know something different. All I was trying to say that Renault engine is much better than Honda, because Red Bull had plenty of success while using it. On the other hand Honda cannot make their engines last 1 race. That's probably not what you wanted to know, but I'm just explaining my post. :P



What I was getting at was that if Reb bull were the only 2 Renault engine cars in the race and one won, thats 50% and very good.

If car A, B C and D were in a race and A won, B cane in 4th C+D were not placed, it gives it a completely different look.
A 1 in 8 win and a 1 in 8 points.

OK, still better than Honda, but over an 18 race season thats 144 starts or more, so 10 wins does not seem as good. Times 10 seasons....

I can't agree with this argument at all. Yes the PU is the primary reason why Red Bull have not been successful in the hybrid era. But for all the other teams it's a myriad of reasons - budget, capabilities, takeovers, and of course the PU. Toro Rosso are non-winners from the start

Aside from the works Ferrari team, how many wins have there been by the other Ferrari-powered teams? How many points scores do Ferrari-powered teams get in comparison to Renault-powered teams? I'm only guessing but my gut feel is that Renault-powered teams have fared better

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7501
mcdo wrote:
moby wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Ahhh I understand. You want to know something different. All I was trying to say that Renault engine is much better than Honda, because Red Bull had plenty of success while using it. On the other hand Honda cannot make their engines last 1 race. That's probably not what you wanted to know, but I'm just explaining my post. :P



What I was getting at was that if Reb bull were the only 2 Renault engine cars in the race and one won, thats 50% and very good.

If car A, B C and D were in a race and A won, B cane in 4th C+D were not placed, it gives it a completely different look.
A 1 in 8 win and a 1 in 8 points.

OK, still better than Honda, but over an 18 race season thats 144 starts or more, so 10 wins does not seem as good. Times 10 seasons....

I can't agree with this argument at all. Yes the PU is the primary reason why Red Bull have not been successful in the hybrid era. But for all the other teams it's a myriad of reasons - budget, capabilities, takeovers, and of course the PU. Toro Rosso are non-winners from the start

Aside from the works Ferrari team, how many wins have there been by the other Ferrari-powered teams? How many points scores do Ferrari-powered teams get in comparison to Renault-powered teams? I'm only guessing but my gut feel is that Renault-powered teams have fared better



My badly stated point is more or less that the good record Renault has for the decade (or what ever) is probably the result of running 1000+ engine/races. Honda has a way to go yet, and could match it. Not extremely likely, but possible.
Numbers can say lots of things.

Even Ferrari you use as an example above run 6 engines a race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 1388
i think Honda should apply to the FIA to increase the grid places so they can fit the penalties in


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Jezza13, owenmahamilton and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group