Does that include moving to an engine supplier that can deliver?
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Does that include moving to an engine supplier that can deliver?
Deliver what exactly?
While a Mercedes customer we will never get the same engine as Merc, they are so much quicker in quali than every customer team. I understand why we have changed because unless you are a priority team....you wont get the full engine.
If we wanted to be mid/top grid then sure Merc could deliver but no one is going to beat them over a season at the moment.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Every Merc team has the same engine. On certain tracks Williams with a large chassis deficit got within a few tenths, at others they are a second + down. This is because their chassis is probably the most basic and simple on the entire grid. Downforce, what's downforce, that is effectively what Williams are doing.
Mercedes are spending upwards of 250mil a year, Williams with the biggest budget of the rest of the Mercedes teams is spending significantly less than half of that, and this is being ultra conservative with Merc's budget.
The reason Williams, FI and Lotus aren't anywhere near them is they are spending no where near the same amount of money. Mclaren, Mercedes, Ferrari and RBR have budgets to produce a performance level other teams are utterly incapable of matching. It has precisely nothing to do with the engine being different.
One year is a disadvantage for customer teams. The first year around new engine regs the customer teams will have less idea of the final engine dimensions and have a harder time making the best chassis possible although even then the mounting points were identical so certain dimensions were known. After a year the engine changes are relatively minimal. We'll probably have the Mercedes engine being fairly similar in size for what, 5-6 years before an engine change, of which one would be a problem for a team the size of Mclaren.
You absolutely get the full engine and using teams with less than half the budget of both Mercedes and Mclaren in comparison to suggest a customer team can't match a works team is an extremely poor excuse.
With the Merc engine if Mclaren made a comparably good car(suspension, brakes, aero, cooling, downforce/drag ratio) they would absolutely be able to compete.
It's easier to have a stronger engine and not have to get everything else perfect with the same engine, easier.... making a stronger engine than Merc is not easy.
Mercedes are spending upwards of 250mil a year, Williams with the biggest budget of the rest of the Mercedes teams is spending significantly less than half of that, and this is being ultra conservative with Merc's budget.
The reason Williams, FI and Lotus aren't anywhere near them is they are spending no where near the same amount of money. Mclaren, Mercedes, Ferrari and RBR have budgets to produce a performance level other teams are utterly incapable of matching. It has precisely nothing to do with the engine being different.
One year is a disadvantage for customer teams. The first year around new engine regs the customer teams will have less idea of the final engine dimensions and have a harder time making the best chassis possible although even then the mounting points were identical so certain dimensions were known. After a year the engine changes are relatively minimal. We'll probably have the Mercedes engine being fairly similar in size for what, 5-6 years before an engine change, of which one would be a problem for a team the size of Mclaren.
You absolutely get the full engine and using teams with less than half the budget of both Mercedes and Mclaren in comparison to suggest a customer team can't match a works team is an extremely poor excuse.
With the Merc engine if Mclaren made a comparably good car(suspension, brakes, aero, cooling, downforce/drag ratio) they would absolutely be able to compete.
It's easier to have a stronger engine and not have to get everything else perfect with the same engine, easier.... making a stronger engine than Merc is not easy.
Merc were absolutely holding out in code last year, I dont doubt the engine itself was the same but to get the most of it you need all the code that goes with it. If you think its simply a money thing you are much mistaken.
Otherwise why would we leave Merc?
Otherwise why would we leave Merc?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
They were holding back AFTER Mclaren decided to leave and were working on an engine with Honda. The other teams had no such draw back, in terms of what was held back afaik only certain telemetry was held back. There were as with all teams a couple of engine specialists in the engine working the same, they just kept hold of most of the data.
Mclaren put themselves in that position, Mclaren didn't leave because that was something that was on going but a situation they created by leaving Mercedes.
Why would Mclaren leave Merc, the want to not advertise Mercedes, a rival, on their car. The want to have a stronger engine than Mercedes to beat them more easily, the arrogance of Ron thinking they could rush development, make a better engine and dominate as Red Bull did in the previous 4 years. Lots of reasons, none of which involve lack of data. Mclaren weren't developing the engine anyway, the most direct need for the data withheld would be for developing their own engine... how terrible that Merc didn't just hand over all their engine information and data on a platter to a direct rival attempting to make their own engine.
Last edited:
Results, performance, reliability, etc?
If you say you are "doing everything we can" to improve, but your list of things doesn't include changing engine supplier, then you really aren't "doing everything you can".
When a team identifies a driver as being a problem, they replace them.
When a team finds their aero direction is wrong, they adjust it.
When a team identifies their engine is holding them back, they change it.
You mean the code that runs on the McLaren built ECU...
Last edited:
Analysis of how Honda's ERS and ICE is leaving McLaren drivers down 240bhp at times:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-why-honda-faces-a-240bhp-headache/
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-why-honda-faces-a-240bhp-headache/
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
I seriously doubt they are 240bhp down at any point. That's an immense difference. Their straight line speeds are of course very poor, but suddenly losing 160bhp would be dangerous as you'd have other drivers with a sudden large speed deficit, and it's clearly not that bad.
Just change the engine...just like that
I'll be sure to bring it up next time I'm having a chin wag with big RD!
Its not actually as far fetched as you think. Standard engine mounts etc mean it should be pretty easy to swap engines. Were well over half way through the season and a lot of teams on the grid don't yet know what engine they will be running next year, yet you can be sure the 2016 chassis are already being designed.
McLarens blockers on changing engines are contractual rather than technical.
They are slower with DRS open and super slippery aero on than a Sauber-Ferrari without DRS and with more traditional aero, so its pretty bad...
RBRs partnership with Renault was terminated after 1.5 seasons of mediocre engines.
McLaren have suffered half a season of shocking engines, so I don't think killing the partnership after 1 year is that far fetched either. If they are still getting shoddy engines next year and they don't look elsewhere for 2017 then it will just cement that the partnership is more about contract or image or money than it is about actually being competitive.
Going back to DiCe's comment, I think McLaren are far from "doing everything they can" if they refuse to change the one piece that is killing their results, and the careers of 2 WDCs. Even if you subscribe to the "you'll never win as a customer team" ethos, a customer Ferrari, Mercedes or Renault unit looks like a much better option than a Factory Honda one at the moment, and for the near future too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 2,981
- Location
- Herts, UK
Would there be anything in the rules against Honda pulling out, but then Acura releasing an engine developed from scratch but with ideas from the Honda engine?
Practical as well to be fair
No other choice apart from Merc to go to right now
Renault arent any good currently (according to RBR anyway) and Ferrari is as much a non-starter for McLaren as Merc are (and dubious Ferrari would want to /be able to support a team like McLaren anyway)
What other choice do McLaren have
Would there be anything in the rules against Honda pulling out, but then Acura releasing an engine developed from scratch but with ideas from the Honda engine?
Take a look at what Ferrari and Haas have been rumoured to be doing...
Although engine testing isnt restricted, just running it in a chassis is, so there isn't really anything to be gained.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Engine is solely the manufacturer and not related to any team, so as long as Ferrari or Honda are still involved in the above to any degree, it's a no go. I read that even if, say, Renault pulled out for a year, then returned for 2017, they'd still be limited to the combined tokens used for next year and 2017, so they couldn't just go and make a whole new PU.
The rumours are Ferrari have been using Haas for vastly more wind-tunnel time (though it's hardly showing on the track - they're about as far back as they have been throughout the season - I'd say they're further behind if anything), not for any form of engine development.
The rumours are Ferrari have been using Haas for vastly more wind-tunnel time (though it's hardly showing on the track - they're about as far back as they have been throughout the season - I'd say they're further behind if anything), not for any form of engine development.
It's easy to say the chassis is good when it's so far off being a fast car. I have seen that excuse used so many times before. Plus it's Mclaren they couldn't build a good chassis even when they cheat with the best engine on the grid.
Saying the Mclaren chassis is good is about as relevant as saying a Honda jazz handles well in a straight line. I heard someone say the other day that only now can it be seen how good a job Whitmarsh was doing. That's how crap they now are, they are making Whitmarsh look good.
You would think when a mighty team like Mclaren fell they would then realise how life is for lower teams and realise they have to do more to protect the sport and even the playing field for a more interesting competition, but nah they will go back to being arrogant ****s.
Just change the engine...just like that
I'll be sure to bring it up next time I'm having a chin wag with big RD!
Brawn did it and created a better car than Mclaren have in 16 years. I guess that's the difference between Brawns attitude and ability to get stuff done and Ron's safe approach, an nice conservative approach.
To me Mclaren seems in dire need of a major clear out, to get rid of that old mclaren way of doing things. They need new leadership.