4086 replies to this topic

[shonguiz]

If they plan to extend the partnership with AVL to include design consultancy, then that's great news. What is that bit about FIA banning chips btw ? Also they kept saying that in order to surpass the competitors, they needed to innovate, otherwise they risk always trailing back, and they repeated this very recently so i am surprised they decided to go full on Merc way.

[TakataDomeNSX]

Which a much better scenario in many ways. For example, it's much better for health to pollute in an isolated place than in the middle of a dense city, inhabited by elder people, kindergartens and so on. Also, on a poweplant you can apply scale economy benefits for pollution recover that's not feasible on your average car. And more things I'm lazy to write about lol

 

But isnt non polluting transport and power sources the whole point?  We should arrive at non stop gap technologies right?

 

Of course Hydrogen combustion isnt perfect as it also can produce NOx at high temperatures, so it requires R&D, for which F1 is the perfect fast development platform.

 

Then there is the hydrogen refueling network problem to solve, and how to store it properly. Honda had come up with the home refueling rig concept which I quite like as it eases the burden on normal refueling infrastructure.

 

Hybrids are a stop gap. Electric is boring, I want an ICE for the future and glorious high RPM F1 sound.

Edited by TakataDomeNSX, 08 January 2017 - 03:17.

[KnucklesAgain]

If they plan to extend the partnership with AVL to include design consultancy, then that's great news. What is that bit about FIA banning chips btw ? Also they kept saying that in order to surpass the competitors, they needed to innovate, otherwise they risk always trailing back, and they repeated this very recently so i am surprised they decided to go full on Merc way.

 

Tokens

[muramasa]

　

 

 series of season review articles on sportiva.com site 
dotted parts for Hasegawa quotes
 
*according to the author he (and possibly with some other press people) visited Aoyama (Honda's Tokyo HQ) on 21 Dec 2016 to interview Hasegawa, so seems many of the contents esp part 4 seems to be from that interview session, but quite a few are clearly from Abu Dhabi or any other GPs, so mish-mash of old quotes from Abu Dhabi etc and new quotes from 21 Dec session
**Also note (as always) that usually these articles are not full interview transcript but take quotes/remarks out of context to use for and construct articles so must take that into consideration heavily

 

 
============================================

 

pt.1
2016.12.30
https://sportiva.shu...split/index.php

 

• (on the turbo upgrade at Canada) That was extremely significant. Canada and the following race at Baku were power circuit so that it was hard to notice the effect of the upgrade, but if not for the upgrade we would've struggled much more. Actually that upgrade was the target figure we were aiming to achieve for the season opener, but at the point of the opening race we were only able to achieve half of that.

 

• With regard to reliability, i think we can give ourselves a passing mark for the present. We still had kind of trouble that stopped the session and race retirement about twice, but it was not severe enough to prevent us from race participation, so as 2nd year of participation I think we deserve the grade.
• However, in comparison with rivals, we are inferior in particular, so we must raise our game one more step. Next year, we'd like to start the season by securing more reliability than this year.

 

• Gain of spec 2 (the intake upgrade introduced at Silverstone) was big, enough to be an annual update if it was in previous era. Silverstone is power circuit as well, so it was difficult to acknowledge its effect, but we just caught up with others in a situation where there was already a good gap, hence not enough to surpass rivals, so it was just about closing the gap a bit.

• With spec 3 (Spa upgrade), we made further gain. Under the current format, it's "output = fuel consumption", so until we introduced spec 3, we struggled a lot with fuel consumption. From then on, fuel consumption during the race wasn't an issue anymore, so in that aspect it was quite positive.

 

• (According to analysis by teams, at the end of the season PUs by 4 makers are roughly on par, the margin converted in lap time is about 0.1-0.2sec/lap, what do you think?) Yes, that's about right, I think. The gap to Merc isn't as big as 1.0sec or 1.6sec, also of course no way we are behind by as much as 100hp. If there was such huge gap, such thing like beating Williams cannot happen at least. At the end of the season, we were in a position quite close to Renault.

• Regarding the performance gap, you measure it by difference in acceleration observed from outside, but after spec 3, we are not beaten by RBR in acceleration performance on straight. However, without a doubt they are superior to us in aero performance, so it's not possible to make simple comparison there, also you cannot know it for certain. One thing is that the gap between Renault works and RBR is too big so that it's hard to read, also it might possibly be that we are not inferior too much.

 

• (due to the delay in development) at the point of season opener, it was obvious that the weakest point in our package was PU. However we are conducting development at a speed faster than ordinary, also certainly speed of our evolution is faster than Mercedes, I suppose. I'm hearing that they had been developing for 4 years or so prior to 2014 season, and that's their big advantage, I think. The issue of time, that we were late to start the development, was the most significant issue.

 

• our structure is getting more and more competitive. Within both Mclaren and Honda, experience of each and single staff have grown, human relationship got better, so it's maturing as an f1 team.
• That Fernando pointed it out finally is one contributing factor, but Mclaren side admitted "after all chassis is problem too" at last. That was substantial advancement I think. There is no use in pulling each other's legs, and they are understanding that there is no point in being stubborn against Honda, I guess.  

 

 

 

 

 

=====================================================

 

pt.2
2016.12.31
https://sportiva.shu...lit_1/index.php

 

• In order to close the gap to Merc at the point of 2015, we drew up a blueprint of increasing the performance by gaining 1sec with chassis and 1sec with PU. Not just ICE but also TC included.
• But to be frank, we were not able to achieve none of them at the point of season opener. Deployment has improved a bit, but far from the targeted level. In reliability aspect, it has got a lot better compared to 2015 level, but was still having issues. There was no issue occurred in the race itself, yet lacking reliability in engine block itself, so there was water leak from there, turbo issue, and so on. In the early stage of the season, we often had water leak issues not only in MGU-H but also in the unit as a whole.

 

• At the point of pre-season,  I had a feeling that "as long as finish the race we can score". In fact looking at testing times it didnt feel like we were down at the bottom, and I was thinking we were around the position right behind top3. But ICE power was not good enough, deployment was insufficient, and at the long straight of Shanghai it has become evident that it was no good at all.

 

For Spec 1 (OZ version), airflow in intake system wasn't functioning as simulations and result of single cylinder evaluation, which was the cause for lack of power (info in the article)

 

• In terms of original/initial plan, we were supposed/intending to race the opening race with the power we had at the final race, in the first place. So, I have to say we failed big time there.

• (on spec 3 development) We struggled in confirming reliability. Even after the summer break began, the durability dyno was still in operation. At the stage of pre summer break, the spec itself was decided, so the rest was just about reliability confirmation, but if we encountered one single issue there, we wouldn't have been able to introduce spec 3, it was such tightrope situation, so I was kinda praying to wait for the outcome during the summer break. Ron-san was making phone call to us too (laughs).

• (Spec 4 that had to be given up) If we could introduce the spec 4, we wouldve been able to go beyond our target for this season a bit. Theoretically we were seeing that, but when we actually manufactured it and tested on dyno, we were unable to get the expected output.

 

• We have been improving our relative position obviously albeit gradually by the updates in TC and ICE intake and combustion, but I have to say that we were lacking technical capability to reach the level of Merc and Ferrari in the first place. Thus in the 2nd half of the season it was tough that we were struggling in a situation where we cant reach them no matter how hard we try.

• To be frank, we knew at quite early stage that we wouldn't be able to catch up with Merc. It is that, we must review ICE framework fundamentally to make something that surpasses them.

• I cannot disclose exactly what kind of technology in specifics, but we have already researched and considered all those new technologies being talked about publicly. Around early May (2016), we discussed about possibility that "how about putting 2017 development as the main task and introduce what can be used from there for 2016", but we reached the conclusion that we wouldnt be able to make it in time that way.  

(on MP4-31) Unable to press on throttle so that full throttle rate of engine gets lower by as much as several percent than simulation (unnamed Honda personnel quoted)
 
 

 

 

 

 

================================================================
 
pt.3
2017.01.08
https://sportiva.shu...01/08/f1_split/
 
 
At Spain Alonso misunderstood that there was issue happening in PU and switched off by himself to retire (info in the article)
 
 
 

 

 
================================================================

 

pt.4
2017.01.09
https://sportiva.shu...1/09/_split_f1/

 

 

• I often get asked this, "what have you changed?", but I'm not aware of making any particular changes by myself, and don't have any stance of "I've got to do things like this consciously".

• Through building the atmosphere that each and every staff can discuss what's happening at the venue and current subjects straightforwardly and by my own arrangement of understanding and giving priority order to those in order to be able to work on the tasks, we have been able to make steady, albeit still not enough, progress throughout this season

• In 00s, I was not in such a position (of leader/representative), so there were instances where I couldn't express/insist my opinion even if I wanted to, or my opinion wasn't accepted even if I spoke out. Ambiguity of whereabouts/location of problems, that it wasn't transferred/shared correctly within/as organization, that was the issue of that period.

• In 00s, we were told a lot that engine power was lacking. I don't know if that was indeed a truth or not, but in a position I was in at that time, I wasnt able to accept it. That was significant. But now I'm in this position (of leader), so I've said in the very early stage that "power is lacking, that's the major issue". There was a voice of "why do you have to say sth like that" among them, but you must start from sharing, infiltrating and accepting it as a team on the whole.

 

 

• (At winter testing in Barcelona) Every time we encountered initial teething troubles like water leak, we got told to death (by mclaren) like, "what the hell is going on?", "why cannot fix?", "let us fix together", etc. On Day 4 of testing where we have stopped after running mere 30km distance, we even got told that "please bring 5 engines for the remaining 4 days" (laughs) [according to the other article it was Ron who said this]. But we were intending to run with just 1 unit, so we told "No, that's unnecessary, it's alright", and articulated and made it clear "what's unacceptable is unacceptable", "regarding this area we can do it by ourselves", "regarding that area however we'd like your cooperation" etc (to mclaren).

• We have been telling mclaren extremely frankly matters like "we somehow managed to achieve", "what's impossible is impossible", "it's possible to introduce for next time" etc, also, there were things of not only "cannot do it" but also "can do it" occasionally, so (laughs). Through the process of managing to achieve what we promised to some degree, like turbo at Canada GP and Spec 3 for Belgium, we were able to build mutual trust.
• For example, regarding the subject of timing of introducing spec 3.5, we discussed each other frankly like "spec 3.0 dont last any more", "change here or at USGP, what should we do?" and so on, also involving drivers in the discussion, like "then we have no other choice but to take penalty here. Next engine is fine, right?" etc, so through these exchanges we got to trust each other more and more, and are able to perform decision making with everyone's consent.
• By which, the atmosphere within the team improved, and drivers were able to start the race from the back of the grid in/with agreement/acceptance as well. That's why we were able to leave good results in Malaysia and US too.

 

 

• What Jenson told me was, after my arrival "you now make it clear explicitly that you can do what can be done, cannot do what cannot be done, so it was helpful in that aspect". But I myself have been aiming to build organization like that from the very moment I came here, so rather than I changed or manipulated consciously, that's how it should be naturally, I reckon. Especially so as a race team.

 

 

• I say what I need to say in order for win.

• Ross-san (Brawn) was extremely unequivocal. We were told plainly "you are responsible for the lack of top speed, do something" (laughs), but it wasn't like he intended to put all blame for bad result on the Japanese or anything, rather he was like that indiscriminately no matter who it was, so if you get told by him like that, you have no option but to do it even if the request was a bit unreasonable.

• Ron-san as well, he was the type of person who put absolute priority on Mclaren winning rather than caring who's above and whatnot. Therefore there was zero instance where he didn't accept negative factors in themselves. Although I did get told "we are no good because it's weak on your side!" million times (laughs), he has never ever said like "we (mclaren) are not at fault at all", so.
• Just like giving us (Honda) stern words, he was telling a lot to the team as well. What was so good in Ron-san and Ross-san was that, winning is the absolute priority no matter what, and they were completely uninterested in such frivolous things as saving team's face and contesting to decide who's superior etc. I'm truly grateful about that, and felt comfortable in carrying out / working on the task.

 

• Regarding foreigner engineers too, we are adopting them by recruiting from across almost all makers thoroughly rather than in particular. Therefore PU technologies from Europe is flowing in one after another. Besides, this year we are using forces of not only Japan but also of mclaren's technology and engineers in UK quite a lot. That's the area we have changed in big way for this year.

Edited by muramasa, 13 January 2017 - 12:43.

[TakataDomeNSX]

overdramatic?

 

 

 

 

PGTech™ ‏@SmilexTech 1h1 hour ago

Tra la PU @HondaRacingF1 2015 e quella 2016 per quanto riguarda il turbocompressore non è cambiato il layout ma il dimensionamento #FUnoAT

Edited by TakataDomeNSX, 08 January 2017 - 13:23.

[shonguiz]

　

• albeit gradually by the updates in TC and ICE intake and combustion, but I have to say that we were lacking technical capability to reach the level of Merc and Ferrari in the first place. Thus in the 2nd half of the season it was tough that we were struggling in a situation where we cant reach them no matter how hard we try.

• To be frank, we knew at quite early stage that we wouldn't be able to catch up with Merc. It is that, we must review ICE framework fundamentally to make something that surpasses them.

 Ahemm ahemm.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

I don't know why but everytime I read Hasegawa interviews regarding 2017 powerunit, I get the feeling that Honda don't believe that Mercedes powerunit's advantage is down to TJI or HCCI or whatever technology.

[shonguiz]

Why is Brown still the chairman of the Motorport Network ?

[Lotus53B]

$£€¥

[TakataDomeNSX]

 Ahemm ahemm.

 

There are ahemm ahemm points in there for me too, but I'm more subtle.

[jwill189]

It's disconcerting to read that Honda lacks the technical capability to reach Mercedes or Ferrari.

[sdg]

It's disconcerting to read that Honda lacks the technical capability to reach Mercedes or Ferrari.

I read that somewhat differently. "Were" lacking.

 

Honda's 2016 PU was an uprated version of a PU concept agreed on in 2013-2014. For a number of different reasons I think it's fair to say that that concept failed. What's important is that Honda and McLaren now have two years of experience with the current PU formula. The 2017 PU will be the first one that reflects that experience, and I think we're going to see that Honda no longer lacks the technical capability to reach Mercedes and Ferrari. 

Edited by sdg, 09 January 2017 - 06:09.

[CPR]

http://www.autosport...gine-philosophy

 

This article seems more like "rumour reported as fact" and generally not very reliable. The turbine and compressor was split from the start, for example. And according to the quotes made by Hasegawa (kindly provided by muramasa, as quoted below), the overall size of the engine is going to get smaller rather than bigger.

 

 

 

　

• From 2015 to 2016, there are some components that got larger, like turbo for example, but in terms of volume of the whole package, 2016's unit has got more compact than 2015 unit. Furthermore, 2017 unit will be even more compact than the 2016 unit by quite a margin.

[Owen]

http://www.motorspor...pressor-864024/
 
Previous story 
"Honda set for Mercedes-style split turbine/compressor"
- now in English. Very similar to Autosport story above! 

Edited by Owen, 09 January 2017 - 11:04.

[blacky]

http://www.autosport...gine-philosophy

 

1)The turbine and compressor was split from the start, for example.

2)And according to the quotes made by Hasegawa (kindly provided by muramasa, as quoted below), the overall size of the engine is going to get smaller rather than bigger.

 

1) Article says nothing different, 

 

Although no details of the redesign have been revealed, sources have confirmed that Honda's F1 chief Yusuke Hasegawa has given the green light to move away from the compact 'size zero' concept that has been used for the past two years.

That design - aimed at making the engine packaging as tight as possible - featured a split turbine and compressor situated within the confines of the V-bank of the internal combustion engine.

 

2)Well, maybe the changes for 2017 will make the WHOLE package more compact overall. It's not all about split-turbo at the back and front of the engine, there are also other things...

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Assuming all the guessworks and rumors to be true, what I am curious to know is what kind of technology Mercedes have used in their combustion. Is it TJI? Is it HCCI? Is it something else? Articles are almost sure that Ferrari are using TJI but apparently Mercedes are still a question mark.

Edited by RYARLE, 09 January 2017 - 11:47.

[muramasa]

　

original is the infamous it.motorsport article posted in prev page and the motorsport.com one is just translated article of that and autosport just overriding on it (maybe cuz now these 2 are under same umbrella..).

it's interesting in itself but merely a guesswork which is too obvious.

when the source is "sources" and contents strangely detailed it's instant dismissal (esp so from those media/journo who have poor track record).

[Rinehart]

Token system removed is advantage this time coz last time they could not bring all their winter developments to australia 

But you have to remember that this "advantage" is also enjoyed by Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault so the question is - can Honda benefit MORE? 

 

Does anyone know for sure that Mercedes aren't bringing even more engine developments to Australia? 

[CPR]

Assuming all the guessworks and rumors to be true, what I am curious to know is what kind of technology Mercedes have used in their combustion. Is it TJI? Is it HCCI? Is it something else? Articles are almost sure that Ferrari are using TJI but apparently Mercedes are still a question mark.

 

I believe that conventional HCCI would not be legal since it doesn't use a spark plug. TJI is something similar that does use a spark plug, so is legal.

 

Honda clearly want to leap-frog Mercedes in terms of combustion technology, though whether they'll be able to do that immediately or not is another matter. Mercedes have apparently been using a pre-combustion chamber of some form for some time so in theory they would have had more time to investigate and compare next-generation concepts.

[Quickshifter]

To simplify the whole thing, going by Hasegawa quotes and media murmurs

Honda's two biggest focus areas

1) Internal combustion engine efficiency

2) Bigger compressor

Compressor capacity and internal combustion efficiency were two things Honda were not able to deal with during the course of the 2016 season due to token restrictions and time constraints.

So i am hopeful that significant gains will be made cos these are two areas where Honda have a big room for improvement.

[BuddyHolly]

Not a McLaren fan but I really hope the new car/engine takes a huge step forward.   Its a damn crime that Alonso is wasting his last F1 years in that car.   I'd love to see McLaren fighting for podiums or hell, even wins. 

[David1976]

I have a feeling copying Mercedes engine architecture and layout isn't the hardest thing to replicate.  Improved combustion technology seems to have been the principal aim of Ferrari and Renault in order to catch Mercedes.  

 

I guess we'll see soon enough...

[Nicktendo86]

Interesting times ahead, I'm sceptical of rumours especially after repeated comments from Honda of not wanting to replicate others. unless of course they have come up with a unique solution, perhaps with the combustion. Who knows!

[rodlamas]

Word is efficiency. Cars in 2017 will have much more drag due to big fat tires and with increased downforce drivers will be spending more time 100% on the throttle. If your engine is too thirsty, bye bye

[Whatisvalis]

It's one thing to copy the Merc concept but can Honda make it work?

[blacky]

Word is efficiency. Cars in 2017 will have much more drag due to big fat tires and with increased downforce drivers will be spending more time 100% on the throttle. If your engine is too thirsty, bye bye

 

Well, fuel limit also raises 5%. What weighs more?

[loki0420]

But you have to remember that this "advantage" is also enjoyed by Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault so the question is - can Honda benefit MORE? 

 

Does anyone know for sure that Mercedes aren't bringing even more engine developments to Australia? 

 Mercedes would continue to develop, that's a given, but they hardly would/need to redesign the engine whereas Honda obviously got it wrong from the start and had no chance to catch up with token system. So changes at Ferrari and Mercedes will surely be not as dramatic as at Honda and Renault.

[CPR]

It's one thing to copy the Merc concept but can Honda make it work?

 

In performance terms or reliability terms?

 

I remember some comments from Hasegawa last year which was something like "we have one concept which should be reliable but might not be competitive enough and another concept which should be competitive but might not be especially reliable". My sense is that they've gone for the 2nd option. That being said, I think that overall they want to have better reliability than in 2016, at least in terms of DNFs - my feeling is that they'd rather take engine penalties over DNFs.

[Alonsofan007]

It's disconcerting to read that Honda lacks the technical capability to reach Mercedes or Ferrari.

tbf mahle has done for all 3 other engines too (including merc which was denied by them, but they deny everything so can't say for sure) so same goes to them as well.

[Tardis40]

I've never been a McLaren follower but I hope to God they can put a decent contender together for Fernando.  He has suffered mightily since the back to back championship years in that fantastic V10 Renault and none worse than the last two.  It's hard to believe it's been 10 years already.  I want to see Nando, Vettel, Max, and Hamilton all going at it hammer and tongs in the same season.  Come on, Honda, make it happen.

[Lotus53B]

 That being said, I think that overall they want to have better reliability than in 2016, at least in terms of DNFs - my feeling is that they'd rather take engine penalties over DNFs.

Aren't they changing the rules (again) over penalties for new engines - I think when Lewis took 2 new engines at Spa so that he'd only get the one penalty of going to the back of the grid, it was said that there were new rules in 2017

 

So taking engine penalties may not be a good idea.

[CPR]

Aren't they changing the rules (again) over penalties for new engines - I think when Lewis took 2 new engines at Spa so that he'd only get the one penalty of going to the back of the grid, it was said that there were new rules in 2017

 

So taking engine penalties may not be a good idea.

 

Correct, there will be a rule change to prevent stacking up engines but with tokens being removed as well there's less incentive to intentionally do that anyway.

 

There'll be 4 PU elements before penalties this year. If you wish to avoid engine penalties as much as possible, that implies a certain amount of mileage per PU and that each PU needs to do ~5 races. That also means you'll only run 4 specs of engines during the year. However, if you're willing to sacrifice one race you can go into the year planning to do 5 PUs that do ~4 races each and 5 different spec engines. 

[Lotus53B]

If you have 3 engines blow up in the first few races, you're utterly stuffed as you'll have to start at the back of each race you want to get an extra engine from.

It's not really to with tokens and development (as one team said last year, the tokens didn't stop folk spending shedloads on experimental upgrades, they only spent the tokens when they commited the upgrades to the engine spec), it's to do with reliability - if you haven't got it, no matter how good your engine is, no matter how many upgrades, you'll be stuffed.

[Alonsofan007]

But you have to remember that this "advantage" is also enjoyed by Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault so the question is - can Honda benefit MORE? 

 

Does anyone know for sure that Mercedes aren't bringing even more engine developments to Australia? 

they might be bringing some  but honda will bring more than them coz they have more to catch up just by TJI n layout change, they will close a huge gap and gap will be smaller as teams are allowed to catch-up, that has been the case every time, other PU's manufacturers are hitting threshold as admitted by renualt.

[Alonsofan007]

If you have 3 engines blow up in the first few races, you're utterly stuffed as you'll have to start at the back of each race you want to get an extra engine from.

It's not really to with tokens and development (as one team said last year, the tokens didn't stop folk spending shedloads on experimental upgrades, they only spent the tokens when they commited the upgrades to the engine spec), it's to do with reliability - if you haven't got it, no matter how good your engine is, no matter how many upgrades, you'll be stuffed.

If performance diff is big enuf to take reliability hits then i would take it, like merc/ferrari/RB showed many times before that they can start at back and still finish top 6. Rules doesn't make huge diff in that approach it j ust stops ppl from stockpiling to avoid penalties which is critical for championship contenders, it should not be concern for Macca if its competing for occasional podiums or top 6 places.

[rodlamas]

Well, fuel limit also raises 5%. What weighs more?

Let's say that every other parameter is the same (such as drag, downforce etc). Full throttle will increase from 50% to 70% in Barcelona. That is a 40% increase. If cars were doing the race with 85kgs in 2016, for example, they would need 119kgs (ignoring part throttle)...

[CPR]

Q&A with Zak Brown:
http://www.skysports...-with-zak-brown
 

What hope can you offer McLaren fans for 2017?

ZB: "Everyone is very excited. I've been walked through the car in detail, and now seen all the reports from the 2016 car and where they have found areas of improvement, so everyone is feeling very bullish.

"The last couple of years have been difficult, but [in 2016] they had a good race car. Honda is putting out some good power and if we can make the same leap that we made from 2015 to 2016, to '16 to 2017, we are well on our way."

It's more about things in general rather than the technical side.

[loki0420]

Q&A with Zak Brown:
http://www.skysports...-with-zak-brown
 

It's more about things in general rather than the technical side.

Its been said like a month ago. Wonder why they are sooo late with this.

[Lotus53B]

"Everyone is feeling bullish" - does that mean full of BS?

[Owen]

"Everyone is feeling bullish" - does that mean full of BS?

Aggressively confident and self-assertive. Apparently.

Sounds good. 

[Lotus53B]

Dang, I knew I should have used a smiley...

[Owen]

Dang, I knew I should have used a smiley...

  

[Rinehart]

 Mercedes would continue to develop, that's a given, but they hardly would/need to redesign the engine whereas Honda obviously got it wrong from the start and had no chance to catch up with token system. So changes at Ferrari and Mercedes will surely be not as dramatic as at Honda and Renault.

That's the obvious assumption, but how do we know that Mercedes won't pursue a new path of complexity in an area of the PU that is quite a departure from where they are now? It might not be as great a change in terms of the proportion of the PU that is being redesigned compared to say Honda... but that's a rather simplistic comparison. What it could be is a specific area of great complexity and technological innovation that Mercedes have been researching and developing for the past 4 or 5 years that could take a long time for others to replicate and could offer a significant jump in performance. It's obviously a bit difficult to put an example on the table, because the whole point is its an invention...  Suffice to say I think it's very dangerous to assume that Mercedes are close to an engineering ceiling. On the chassis side they seem to never run out of new ideas despite the rules seemingly being tight and stable... My recollection of F1 is that it never ceases to amaze where new pockets of performance can be found.

[Rinehart]

they might be bringing some  but honda will bring more than them coz they have more to catch up just by TJI n layout change, they will close a huge gap and gap will be smaller as teams are allowed to catch-up, that has been the case every time, other PU's manufacturers are hitting threshold as admitted by renualt.

The QUANTITY or SCALE of updates does not necessarily correlate with the performance GAIN. 

 

Mercedes could still find a performance gain in a single highly specific and complex area that is comparatively more beneficial than Honda changing their entire architecture. 

 

I'm repeating myself but I am not at all convinced Mercedes are necessarily near a performance ceiling. Honda are definitely still chasing a moving target IMO. 

 

I also beleive that Mercedes have some known unlockable performance that they haven't been under pressure to pursue/release. 

[CPR]

That's the obvious assumption, but how do we know that Mercedes won't pursue a new path of complexity in an area of the PU that is quite a departure from where they are now? It might not be as great a change in terms of the proportion of the PU that is being redesigned compared to say Honda... but that's a rather simplistic comparison. What it could be is a specific area of great complexity and technological innovation that Mercedes have been researching and developing for the past 4 or 5 years that could take a long time for others to replicate and could offer a significant jump in performance. It's obviously a bit difficult to put an example on the table, because the whole point is its an invention...  Suffice to say I think it's very dangerous to assume that Mercedes are close to an engineering ceiling. On the chassis side they seem to never run out of new ideas despite the rules seemingly being tight and stable... My recollection of F1 is that it never ceases to amaze where new pockets of performance can be found.

Yup. I've said similar things myself. Basically, for each engine maker, they have a choice of "evolution vs revolution", which has different risks. Renault and Honda are both in the "revolution" camp and have the least to lose from this.

 

For Mercedes, they might be close to maxing out their existing concept. Even so, they could probably still make a decent step by optimising everything - something that's actually much easier with the removal of the token system. It would be surprising if Mercedes have not been investigating other concepts. The question would them become is whether any of those are better than what they currently have and are ready to race.

 

I'm certainly don't think it's safe to assume that Mercedes will only be able to make a small step over winter on their PU. There's limits to what's physically possible and each step will bring them closer to that but I don't know when that will really start to bite. I seem to remember Hasegawa saying that Mercedes made a bigger step forwards on their PU in 2016 (over 2015) than they expected. Could easily happen again so for such reasons I'd be happy to see Honda take risks and be aggressive.

[Alonsofan007]

The QUANTITY or SCALE of updates does not necessarily correlate with the performance GAIN. 

 

Mercedes could still find a performance gain in a single highly specific and complex area that is comparatively more beneficial than Honda changing their entire architecture. 

 

I'm repeating myself but I am not at all convinced Mercedes are necessarily near a performance ceiling. Honda are definitely still chasing a moving target IMO. 

 

I also beleive that Mercedes have some known unlockable performance that they haven't been under pressure to pursue/release. 

well you can say that, but combustion update (TJI) is rumored to have brought 40-60hp to others, and merc has upped it turbo size 2 years in a row to bring more power, so they directly correlate to performance gain and advantage honda has is they are only ones yet to implement TJI, also they've all been inching closer to theoretical gasoline ICE energy limits, so they cannot take bigger leaps, not with current regulations at least IMO, i guess we'll know in Aus.

[Rinehart]

well you can say that, but combustion update (TJI) is rumored to have brought 40-60hp to others, and merc has upped it turbo size 2 years in a row to bring more power, so they directly correlate to performance gain and advantage honda has is they are only ones yet to implement TJI, also they've all been inching closer to theoretical gasoline ICE energy limits, so they cannot take bigger leaps, not with current regulations at least IMO, i guess we'll know in Aus.

No we won't know in Aus, these PU's are going to be around for years yet. They're going to have developments on them in 5 years from now that haven't been invented yet.

[Alonsofan007]

No we won't know in Aus, these PU's are going to be around for years yet. They're going to have developments on them in 5 years from now that haven't been invented yet.

lol.... whole point of removed token restrictions is to see how far honda will catch-up, so yes we will know in Aus not after 5 years.

Edited by Alonsofan007, 10 January 2017 - 17:45.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

The delay of McLarenHonda-BP deal announcement makes me to think about something positive 

 

Maybe and just maybe McLarenHonda haven't given up on BP title sponsorship deal and maybe there are some serious competitions between McLarenHonda and Renault to grab BP title sponsorship deal.

 

There is nothing yet I still make something positive out of it 

Edited by RainyAfterlifeDaylight, 11 January 2017 - 09:05.

[Owen]

The delay of McLarenHonda-BP deal announcement makes me to think about something positive 
 
Maybe and just maybe McLarenHonda haven't given up on BP title sponsorship deal and maybe there are some serious competitions between McLarenHonda and Renault to grab BP title sponsorship deal.
 
There is nothing yet I still make something positive out of it 

It is strange. I thought we'd know about it by now. Zak was very evasive about it when asked recently by Sky about it. Not sure what's going on. I'm visiting MTC next week so I will keep my ear to the ground
 

ExxonMobil have departed as fuel partner, how significant is that change over with fuel suppliers going to be?
ZB: "ExxonMobil have been a very long-time partner of McLaren, around 20 years, and then before that Shell. So obviously the fuel and lubricants category and partnership in motorsport is critical to your on-track success with how sophisticated these cars are.
"So it's unfortunate that ExxonMobil after that period of time has moved on. I wasn't involved in that and haven't been involved in that, so I don't know the complete background, but changes happen. We once had Shell and then it went to Ferrari, and others had ExxonMobil and then they came to us, so just working on solidifying our future partnership because it is an important partnership on and off the track."