planetf1.com

You keep saying this, and its basically nonsense really.

If Mclaren cant build a new car over the winter, then they have way bigger problems than people actually think.

They signed up with Renault September '17 after ditching Honda, they got the engine specs after that, are you now saying Mclaren cant build a car to spec over winter?

Nothing great about China as an example you might want to check James Allen's race strategy report.

What you mean the one that says this:

Raikkonen was then sent on a mission to stay out. At first this looked like a repeat of what they did in Melbourne, with Vettel building a seven-lap tyre offset. But the time being lost by Raikkonen against cars on new tyres ( up to 2 seconds per lap) meant that this didn’t make sense as a strategy. The sub plot was that Raikkonen was being left out to try to close Bottas up to Vettel so he could try an attack.

This kind of move is risky on two fronts; first it is hard to choreograph and second, it’s demoralising for the driver who is asked to do it. Raikkonen has been more competitive this season than for many years and felt he had a chance to win this race. Being blocked at the start by Vettel into Turn 1 and losing position to Bottas did not improve his mood.

or this:

Raikkonen’s had a 24 second lead to Hulkenberg. So, there was no risk from behind to him making that stop.

For Ferrari, the reason for not stopping Raikkonen must surely come down to the calculation that he might catch and want to pass Vettel.

With a clearly defined team dynamic between the two – Raikkonen seems to be cast as the ‘domestique’, as they call it in cycling, doing the dirty work for the lead driver – how would Vettel have reacted to being asked to let his team mate through?

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2018/04/analysis-the-details-that-let-ferrari-down-and-how-red-bull-snatched-the-f1-win/

Seems a fairly decent example to me

Where did I say that, exactly? Would you mind pointing it out as it doesn't sound like something I would have said?

It's more nonsense to say that making major changes to the entire car won't have any effect and therefore a dud this year must mean a dud last year.

McLaren have definitely messed up this year and I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. Clearly they didn't do a good job over the winter. But the nonsense bit is then concluding that the car last year must therefore also have been bad, when the two cars are different...

Honda said they were initially concerned about Aston as they have the NSX but in the end they didn't care that much but drew the line at branding the PU Tag, it had to be Honda.

They aren't the factory Honda team, Honda have said it's not a works deal, and they won't have their name in the team name apparently, just branding on the car. It's still Aston Martin Red Bull but powered by Honda.

It's like a hybrid between customer and works support, I don't think Honda are keen to give over the levels of input a works partner has to someone else again after the McHonda nightmare.

Closer than normal customers but not a works deal in the traditional sense like McLaren had.

_________________
"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

I think the engine change was more harmful to their chassis than they'd like to admit or had anticipated. The Honda gave great packaging advantages,their suspension was praised and a fair amount of drag comes from poor internal packaging which wasn't an issue with Honda as the car was built for it. They had to change their gearbox bell housing and suspension at the rear as well to fit in the Renault.

As poor a job as they did with the new suspension and rear of the car in general, I think if that was the only change they made over the winter it would've went better but they massively changed the front of the car as well with the new nose concept. And they struggled to get it past the crash test, it was 3 months late and only passed on 11th April I believe. So until Spain they had the old front of the car mixed with the new rear and not optimised packaging of the Renault through lack of experience which can cause more drag.

That's 3 pretty sizeable changes for just one winter so you can imagine the strain on each department, they'd have had to split the work and this doesn't include those working on other aspects like the floor,diffuser,bargeboards,front and back brake ducts,front wing,rear wing and of course the halo.

That's a helluva workload for one winter that would've had even the half billion dollar and 1000+ workers teams in a mad rush to get it to track.

We can tell there is a fault in this particular chassis that wasn't present on last years by looking at performance on Saturday and Sunday. Last year if they were 5th or 6th fastest then they were 5th or 6th fastest on both days. This year they've regularly been 6/7th fastest on Saturday, sometimes worse like Canada where they looked 8th/9th, but still on a Sunday they are fighting for 4th quickest, even in Canada on Sunday Alonso was matching Hulk's pace in the race. Now Alonso's good but he aint that good. There's clearly an issue in how they work the tyres on a Saturday which wasn't present last year.

It's such an obvious fault we don't have to guess if last years car was as bad as this, we can see it in the data it had no such problem like that. That doesn't mean it was a world beater to be clear but it didn't share these faults, we can see that.

_________________
"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

delusional or plain ignorant !

Yeah, clearly not a works deal. Which makes it even more puzzling why they decided to leave Renault. The whole thing smells like Redbull just childlishly waving their middle finger at Renault. The power units are getting closer in terms of output and there is only 2 years left of development. Renault had shown some good improvement; we've seen a Redbull outqualify a Merc at a power circuit, for Christ's sake. The move wasn't necessary. I wish I can say they will get what they deserve, but they will probably be just fine, as long as they continue to build a top car. Oh well...

don't put yourself down like that. You'll get it eventually

Or able to look at a situation with a lot more nuance than you?

In the post I replied to, Mclaren had the specs of the engine in September they weren't fighting for the title, so why could they not throw all their resources on this years car they had 6 months to work on it also right now the car is not improving.

Also nothing shows last years car wasn't a dud as well, as since '13 they have been building duds, also they had the Mercedes engine and were crap as well.

All this is just trying to excuse Mclarens failure to build a competitive chassis, the aero did not change between '17 and '18.

Brawn adjusted it's car to make testing with the Mercedes engine after Honda pulled out.

Nice bit of fabrication / fantasy there, but I never made that claim. Please don't make things up.

You're entitled to your opinion of course and if you feel last year's car was bad that's up to you. My issue is with the claim that what's happening this year somehow proves last year's was bad. That's just not true. As to the relevance of '13, well, doesn't really deserve an answer, tbh

How is pointing out their failures (suspension and late nose) with the chassis making excuses for failure to build a competitive chassis? The Aero didn't change but 3 big parts of the car did with new rear suspension,engine and nose concept.

_________________
"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

Honda PU concept also changed in 2017 which would have given same challenges in packaging. In the Amazon series McLaren were also behind schedule which if I remember correctly included floor and suspension. So they probably made same mistakes last year as this year, masked by Honda reliability woes and draggy chassis.

All this is good insight and information from a well-informed, respected poster. Better to take it for its value and with its merits and try to actually make a constructive post.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

You're not going to convince everyone, but I think another poster put it best when he said it is clear the fault lies with both parties, and I agree that this year clearly exposes that. My impression this season is that McLaren seemed far to certain that all the fault lay with Honda, and were blinded to the fact that in addition to the PU deficit, they also had a chassis which created to much drag and did not, and still doesn't generate downforce efficiently enough. The penny only seems to have dropped this season.

So what are we supposed to take from RBR is not a works team. Is it going to be take what you get like Renault did or does it mean RBR and STR is going to get the same intensity of support as a works team would (like STR are getting now) . Meaning neither are customers either, in the common f1 definition. Honda seem to hold a lot of appreciation and loyalty to both teams for giving them a second chance in f1

Insight is good but reality remains what it is reality.

Mclaren is not Sauber or Williams it should not be facing such problems, the engine change is just a way to excuse the downward spiral.

No ones fabricating anything or making anything up.

They were late with the floor for just a shakedown test, not the first test and certainly not until Spain. The whole car had changed for the new rules in 2017 so it would've been in conjunction with the Honda concept change.

_________________
"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

For me it's not so much that McLaren turned up in Australia with an uncompetitive car; the points you make do adequately explain that. It's the lack of progress since then, the failure of the much-hyped Spain upgrade, the dreadful showing in Canada that demonstrated that they've addressed none of their most serious deficiencies, and that Force India seem to have overtaken them in the development race. For me relieving Tim Goss of his duties was an admission that they have real fundamental issues on the engineering side - no one removes a long-standing technical lead simply because integrating a new engine proved to be more work than expected - and that then leads me to conclude that their cars for the past few years haven't been much good either, and definitely not as good as they have been claiming.

well, since I never wrote what you claimed I'd say you were?

yeah they're certainly not looking impressive this year, that's for sure. There's no denying that they messed up the Renault integration and are looking pretty woeful at the moment. I don't get the feeling that they know what to do to make things right, which is a little worrying for them.

As for Goss, Whitmarsh claimed recently that he'd been scapegoated, so I guess there's more to his sacking than meets the eye. I'd normally dismiss stories in the Daily Mail outright but the fact that McLaren have come out and publicly rejected the claims ironically suggest that there may be some fire behind the smoke. It was a bit of a non-story before then. They've had a complete corporate restructure, not just an Engineering reshuffle, so I think it's dangerous to draw too many conclusions from it.

One can only look at Mclaren and wonder how they were making the claim of one of best chassis last season.

Mclaren seem to a bit better in race but I do not think they have been 4th best in any weekend this year. Obviously there is not much overtaking so qualifying pretty much decides the race on Sunday. Australia Haas were the 4th best team and K Mag had a solid P6 in Spain. FI had podium in Baku and a good P6 in Monaco. Gasly had that amazing weekend in Bahrain etc ... Renault have been fairly consistent. The midfield battle is going to be interesting through the year. I would say Mclaren is 5th or 6th best team and today they hit a new low. Alonso has qualified only twice in Q3 that pretty much says it all.

But I still think RBR will not join this group next year lol. They should be quite way ahead of this pack though with Honda may have more DNF hopefully it will be on Friday or Honda and diagnose and fix this issue before next year.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI

No way 5th. Renault and Haas have been clearly better over the season. At absolute best it's 6th on average. And that's assuming the STR drivers are pretty close to Alonso in performance and far better than Vandoorne.

https://wtf1.com/post/mclarens-best-cha ... am-morale/

now can we get over this, it comes up far too often

They've not been outright 4th no, but they've been on the 4th teams pace in the race in clear air a few times with Alonso, China,Monaco and Canada off the top of my head, and fighting for 4-5th in Spain and Australia. Alonso has done plenty of overtaking, they've been qualifying in 12-15 usually and he's been running in the points every race.

The difference between Saturday and Sunday has been quite clear with only Australia and Spain looking like doing the same on a Saturday. Monaco I'm not convinced wasn't a case of others blowing it and Alonso not in Q2.

It's not new though, this is the same as Canada, as predicted. On predominantly slow speed corners and straights they look the worst car out there tbh, the Williams is getting let down by the drivers. They'll be bad in Austria as well and then back fighting for Q3 in Silverstone with or without upgrades (But they'll have upgrades).

No quick fix either as they need either a new suspension which means new gearbox bell housing design and suspension design or a shed tonne more rear d/f which if they pile on with the rear wing kills them on the straights. They've been trying to run more d/f but most d/f comes from the floor and diffuser and they're obviously not cutting it either.

Red Bull will be fine, the Honda is smaller,lighter and better packaged. Performance wise they're close enough in most areas and there's no real reason to expect them to fall way behind again, they won't try a new concept as there's nothing hindering this one.

_________________
"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

So I was wrong. Apparently Red Bull will give Honda no restrictions for packaging, telling them to create the best engine they can and Red Bull wil make it fit.

https://www.racefans.net/2018/06/22/red ... ne-design/

Be interesting to see how that rear end is going to look next year.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Is that for real? So they're admitting to lying about the performance of their car and publicly heaping all the blame on Honda just to boost their own team morale? That, I'm afraid, is appalling.

There is no quote from Brown to that effect in the WTF1 article, nor is there in the F1.com interview it appears to be referencing (https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... n-con.html).

In the WTF1 article, there is this line:


Which implies that one will find a quote from Brown saying that in the F1.com interview. There is not, however. What there is instead is a block of body text (sans quotes) that reads:


That's not a quote from Brown, and there's no evidence that he ever said it.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Yeah but in the same sentence continuing on he claimed they are on par chassis wise with Renault which is another bizarre claim.

Yes that is what made me question it a bit, I did look up the original article. However it is on the official F1 website and was posted several weeks ago without being corrected. If it was untrue I would imagine McLaren would have requested it to be amended.

Remember that the interview was given in Spain, before the Canadian or French GPs. At that time McLaren really did look pretty much level with Renault.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Oh ok!

Honeymoon well and truly over. Toxic Gasly has stuck the boot in Honda after just 10 races. Where do they get off loading the car up with d/f just to make their car look better in GPS traces and to make Honda look bad. Tut Tut.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/toro ... 57491/?s=1



Good luck Red Bull.

_________________
"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

Sure that's not an old quote from Alonso?

Sure sounds it at least. He actually praised Renault today on a day they were catching heat from just about everyone else. Said he had no issues on the straights.

Max called the Renault a F2 engine today as well so the claws are starting to come out on all sides now the deals are all sewn up and done. Could get fun...

_________________
"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