227 replies to this topic

[oetzi]

Bottom line is you're ok with people suggesting positive opinions are based on hope but defend against the accusation that negative opinions are based on hope. 
Obviously this is because it's inline with your own negative opinions.
In other words your opinion counts for squat as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not here for a debate on it further.

All I said was that somebody who suggests you are hoping for something does not necessarily hope for the opposite.

There's no need to debate that, it's true.
 

Alonso has spoken, so I'd like some evidence to counter the strong claims from Alonso today that the car is good now and should be competitive next year.

[Ferrari2183]

Alonso's comments this morning categorically and emphatically state that in his opinion the car itself is a good one and he believes next year's car will be strong.

What "evidence" do you have to the contrary?

Evidence. Not hope or opinion.

I'm not saying Alonso will be proven right. I just don't see evidence to the contrary. Its this casual passing of the notion that there is some "proof" to support your claim I'm questioning. 

That unlike Red Bull, McLaren don't make sufficient progress up the grid at circuits that aren't very power hungry like Monaco, Hungary and Singapore.

McLaren's performances as opposed to Red Bull (also with a power deficit) at those tracks are not born from hope or opinion.

 

Power track or not the gap to pole has been between 2 - 3 seconds consistently.

[trogggy]

Troggy, it would be helpful if you could actually provide information as well rather than playing Pedantosaurus Rex.

 

It's not really adding any knowledge. Feel free to disagree, but please add some information as well.

 

 

On a general note, anyone have details of the Chandon sponsorship mentioned earlier?

If by 'add knowledge' you mean 'pretend to know stuff', 'claim to know what other people are thinking' or just 'make stuff up' then no, sorry.

 

I don't think Alonso knows how good the car will be next year.  I don't think RD or PP or JB know either.

I don't think Honda know how good the power unit will be, and I'm damn sure that nobody at McLaren knows either.

 

I don't know how strong McLaren's financial position is, but I can see a team that's continuing to invest heavily.

 

Next year's car / engine combination might be a rocket, might be a p.o.s., might be midfield.  For me midfield would be a cause for optimism - at least  I think I think so, obviously I'll have to check that with Ferrari2183, maybe I really think something else.

[Rinehart]

We can start with the apparent GPS data, the things Boullier said, the fact that in sectors with slow corners they are actually losing more time than in fast sectors (which is normal though enventhough if the chassis is so much better than the engine than the opposite would be the case as it is at Red Bull) and so on.

 

On the other side you have the statements from the drivers (like Alonso) and the fact that they are overall closer on rain races/tracks with slow corners, both things doesnt mean that the chassis is actually a top chassis thogh.

The GPS data debate, for a start it originated early in the summer, the car has improved since then.

The second part is that frankly, I'm yet to be convinced that anyone on here really knows what they are looking at or talking about when it comes to analysing GPS data. Pretty much everyone seems to be of the impression that the speed of a car into through and out of a corner is a function of its chassis alone.

Its laughably amature and not at all indisputable evidence.

Sorry to be so blunt but a lot of nonsense is being passed off as fact.

Anyway, we're drifting from the OP. Even if McLaren don't make significant gains next season, and don't score any podiums even, McLaren are in no mortal danger. 

[Marklar]

If by 'add knowledge' you mean 'pretend to know stuff', 'claim to know what other people are thinking' or just 'make stuff up' then no, sorry.

 

I don't think Alonso knows how good the car will be next year.  I don't think RD or PP or JB know either.

I don't think Honda know how good the power unit will be, and I'm damn sure that nobody at McLaren knows either.

 

I don't know how strong McLaren's financial position is, but I can see a team that's continuing to invest heavily.

 

Next year's car / engine combination might be a rocket, might be a p.o.s., might be midfield.  For me midfield would be a cause for optimism - at least  I think I think so, obviously I'll have to check that with Ferrari2183, maybe I really think something else.

So, we are not allowed to collect certain informations, rumours and facts together and draw a conclusion where we are trying to predict what might be next for McLaren/Honda? Otherwise we are getting accused of "making up stuff". So what is the sense of this discussion then?

Edited by Marklar, 20 November 2015 - 12:46.

[trogggy]

So, we are not allowed to collect certain informations, rumours and facts together and draw a conclusion where we are trying to predict what might be next for McLaren/Honda? Otherwise we are getting accused of "making up stuff". So what is the sense of this discussion then?

Why do you keep asking me what you're allowed to do?  You do what you like within the forum rules.

As far as I know there's nothing to stop Ferrarithingybob claiming to know what I think.  Just as there's nothing stopping me from commenting on the quality of that claim.

[Rinehart]

That unlike Red Bull, McLaren don't make sufficient progress up the grid at circuits that aren't very power hungry like Monaco, Hungary and Singapore.

McLaren's performances as opposed to Red Bull (also with a power deficit) at those tracks are not born from hope or opinion.

 

Power track or not the gap to pole has been between 2 - 3 seconds consistently.

1. Err, relatively, they do.

2. What

3. No it hasn't.

 

So 2 completely made up facts, 3 that can't be used in isolation to extrapolate chassis performance and one that isn't even in the form of proof,  Yup, quality evidence there... 

 

I completely get where Trogggy is coming from, you're presenting opinions as facts. There's nothing pedantic about that. 

[Marklar]

The GPS data debate, for a start it originated early in the summer, the car has improved since then.

The second part is that frankly, I'm yet to be convinced that anyone on here really knows what they are looking at or talking about when it comes to analysing GPS data. Pretty much everyone seems to be of the impression that the speed of a car into through and out of a corner is a function of its chassis alone.

Its laughably amature and not at all indisputable evidence.

Sorry to be so blunt but a lot of nonsense is being passed off as fact.

Anyway, we're drifting from the OP. Even if McLaren don't make significant gains next season, and don't score any podiums even, McLaren are in no mortal danger. 

The GPS stuff was in Hungary and was confirmed before Singapore by Boullier. I didnt saw much improvements since then tbh.

 

Alosos claims are as much evidence as the GPS story, so I can also call it laughable amateure. I can also say that Boullier was lying, but why should he?

[Raziel]

Yeah that same 'the end' that Ferrari faced in their winingless 80-90's...

[Rinehart]

So, we are not allowed to collect certain informations, rumours and facts together and draw a conclusion where we are trying to predict what might be next for McLaren/Honda? Otherwise we are getting accused of "making up stuff". So what is the sense of this discussion then?

The distinction between bs, information, rumours and facts is my issue (and Trogggy's I should imagine). Here are some examples.

 

"The Honda PU is significantly down on power as evidenced by speed trap figures" = fact.

 

"The chassis should be good next year" according to Alonso = rumour 

 

"The car is improving, I can see we are competitive" according to Alonso = information

 

"The McLaren is not a good chassis as evidenced by the GPS data/Red Bull/laptime = nonsense 

[Marklar]

1. Err, relatively, they do.

2. What

3. No it hasn't.

 

So 2 completely made up facts, 3 that can't be used in isolation to extrapolate chassis performance and one that isn't even in the form of proof,  Yup, quality evidence there... 

 

I completely get where Trogggy is coming from, you're presenting opinions as facts. There's nothing pedantic about that. 

Well, Alonsos opinion is also not a fact

 

I also dont get his points though.

[Rinehart]

The GPS stuff was in Hungary and was confirmed before Singapore by Boullier. I didnt saw much improvements since then tbh.

 

Alosos claims are as much evidence as the GPS story, so I can also call it laughable amateure. I can also say that Boullier was lying, but why should he?

You seem to be missing the scope for misunderstanding and misrepresenting between Boullier and Alonso's comments. 

For a start EB said early in the summer that McLaren was the 3rd or 4th best car. He did NOT give any sense of the distrubution of performance between those 4 or any others. Also, as I've said, the opinion is now dated.

[CountDooku]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is never enlightening really, and has kinda dragged things off course.

[Marklar]

The distinction between bs, information, rumours and facts is my issue (and Trogggy's I should imagine). Here are some examples.

 

"The Honda PU is significantly down on power as evidenced by speed trap figures" = fact.

 

"The chassis should be good next year" according to Alonso = rumour 

 

"The car is improving, I can see we are competitive" according to Alonso = information

 

"The McLaren is not a good chassis as evidenced by the GPS data/Red Bull/laptime = nonsense 

And why it is nonsense? The judgement of the whole paddock on the quality of the chassis is based on that. Red Bull found based on that out that the Renault engine is worse than last year. Mercedes got scared by the GPS data when they saw that Red Bull was faster in Pouhon than them. And so on. Of course you cant include all circumstances because a engine which is down on power will also have impact on the cornering speed, but more or less it will be accurate. Otherwise McLaren would not have better results than Williams in these GPS tests, who have an mediocre chassis but a superior engine.

 

And on what is the claim "The car has improved since Singapore" based on? On Alonso talking? There is no chance for you that this is simply PR talking, simply more hope than knowing? Or they have improved, but the others are also improving on the same time? Doesnt change the whole point.

 

Based on all these criteria nothing can be passed as fact. We can say 'Ok, lets wait for next season' and/or we are trying to make our conclusions (speculations) based on these things (I mean thats a forum...), even if they are not positive for McLaren. I have no idea what Ferrari2183 means with his claims, I've never heared them before and they dont sound valid. But in F1 lot things are based on GPS data, so there is no reason why you cant start to discuss there instead of calling it nonsense.

Edited by Marklar, 20 November 2015 - 13:20.

[trogggy]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is never enlightening really, and has kinda dragged things off course.

Who do you think's using it? 

 

 

Edit: could it be that you've misunderstood what Argumentum ad ignorantiam actually is?

Edited by trogggy, 20 November 2015 - 14:32.

[Marklar]

However, we are massiv astray now: McLarens future depends for me on many things. In the current system of F1 with the current lack of sponsors for McLaren it would be close to the end if Honda is quiting. Thats the main point. Then it depends on the system of F1. With the current regulations you cant catch up (even if McLaren is managing for the first time in 2 decades to build the best chassis and even if Honda is managing big improvements). In my opinion not 2016 is crucial, but 2017 with the new regulations. If they dont get a good package (chassis+engine) together until then, than we could see Honda to consider to to exit and this would be the point where we can start to discuss whether it is the end for McLaren, because then they have the Williams story. But if its remaining a long term relationship and at one point they might get it all together, than I see no reason why McLaren cant fight for the championship again. At least I hope so, it was already painfull for me to watch what happened with Williams.

[Ferrari2183]

I base my claims on lap times. You know those numbers that determine the competitive order, and compare them with a team who have a proven chassis and are suffering from a power deficit too. That very team halls itself out of the midfield and becomes a hinderance to teams like Ferrari and Williams at tracks that are not power dependent.

I haven't seen McLaren do that despite this amazing chassis they're supposed to have and if my memory serves me correctly their best performance relative to Mercedes in qualifying came at a power track in Canada. But yes, the gap to the fastest qualifier has remained between 2 - 3 seconds with Australia and Spa being the outliers regardless of whether it was a power or chassis circuit. I can't be bothered to list the qualifying gaps here. But if I'm wrong you do it and prove me wrong.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 20 November 2015 - 14:14.

[trogggy]

I base my claims on lap times. You know those numbers that determine the competitive order, and compare them with a team who have a proven chassis and are suffering from a power deficit too. That very team halls itself out of the midfield and becomes a hinderance to teams like Ferrari and Williams at tracks that are not power dependent.

I haven't seen McLaren do thy despite this amazing chassis they're supposed to have and if my memory serves me correctly their best performance relative to Mercedes in qualifying came at a power track in Canada. But yes, the gap to the fastest qualifier has remained between 2 - 3 seconds with Australia and Spa being the outliers regardless of whether it power or chassis circuit. I can't be bothered to list the qualifying gaps here. But if I'm wrong you do it and prove me wrong.

You seem to be under the impression that people are claiming McLaren's current chassis is amazing.

Who are these people?

Do they know they think this?

Where are they making these claims?

Come on, I can handle the truth.

[Ferrari2183]

You seem to be under the impression that people are claiming McLaren's current chassis is amazing.
Who are these people?
Do they know they think this?
Where are they making these claims?
Come on, I can handle the truth.

Hyperbole.

[trogggy]

Hyperbole.

No ****.

[Disgrace]

Guys I realise the performance of the chassis is a potential indicator for McLaren's future form, but let's keep the thread from turning into the MP4-30 thread.

[chrisj]

If Red Bull get the Honda engine, then McLaren is f***ed. Paragon will be converted to an Ikea by 2020.

[FredF1]

Guys I realise the performance of the chassis is a potential indicator for McLaren's future form, but let's keep the thread from turning into the MP4-30 thread.

 

 

Quite ironic that a thread about McLaren's woes breaks down.

[Disgrace]

Perhaps we should label this subforum "Racing Comments powered by Honda."

[oetzi]

If they achieve nothing else, they've certainly generated some noise.

[BillBald]

I'm afraid Ron Dennis has really lost the plot.

 

He's wasted money on recruiting top people like Prod, when any number of helpful posters could tell you it's not going to be possible for them to build a decent chassis with good aero.

 

We can be sure of that, because in 2013 and 2014 they built a rather poor car. 

 

What's that you say? It was a different team of engineers? Look, I know what I think, please don't use facts to confuse me.

[oetzi]

I don't think they're necessary

[Owen]

More statements that lowering your rate card is not the answer at McLaren.
http://www.eurosport...518/story.shtml