Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

McLaren Honda MCL32


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5035 replies to this topic

#5001 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 15:47

No it's not...

 

1. Need a better engine

2. Renault/Merc/Ferrari have better engines

3. Do this

 

Alternatively

 

1. Need a better engine

2. Wait for Honda to develop a better engine

3. Do this

 

Both are potential options, the first one isn't a logical fallacy, there's definite logic there.  

 

Only if you deliberately ignore all the obvious downsides staring you in the face. It's like saying

 

1. I am tired

2. One is not tired when dead

3. Shoot myself

 

There is definite logic there as well by your standards



Advertisement

#5002 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 2,916 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 March 2017 - 15:57

I must have lost all grip on reality and have no idea what is involved because I remember a team recently doing exactly that and winning a championship in the process.

 

Those were very different and much simpler engines and very different cars back then. And they had more much time to do the switch - the season starts in 20 days.

 

They would have to negotiate their way out of the current contract with Honda, negotiate a new contract with another manufacturer, modify their design to take into account different packaging needs for the new PU and batteries, build the new chassis, pass the crash tests, and build the cars. In the meantime, they would miss all the remaining testing time so their cars would have to do their system checks and shakedown during the Friday practice in Melbourne (if they even make it to Melbourne, more realistic target would be Sochi). And then they would have to start working on the setups and everything, so maybe they would have a basic understanding of the car by Silverstone.

 

And they won't have a benefit of a trick diffuser to give them an advantage over other teams.



#5003 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:04

It's not where the engineer comes from or the color of his (her?) skin that matters, it's how much recent experience they have with current F1 machinery.

 

Before 2015, Honda last built an F1 engine for the 2008 season. Since then, tech has changed (introduction of hybrid elements like KERS etc), and then there was the big engine format switch for 2014 with small V6 turbos and full hybrid.

 

There's no denying Honda did not do a good enough job for 2015. Realistically, nobody should have been expecting they would be winning races right away, but even the staunchest among the Honda supporters must admit that their 2015 campaign was disappointing. Even Honda people admitted in public that they underestimated how complex these contemporary F1 engines really are.

 

Is it then unreasonable to suggest Honda look elsewhere and hire help from people who have more experience with these, be them European, American, Japanese, Australian Aborigines...?

 

It is not. What is unreasonable is to repeat ad nauseam that they don't when we know for a fact that they do, and to ignore the difficulties that come with it, which are not made up and were explained by Hasegawa I think in one of muramasa's December translations. At the very least these posters should look up the interview, quote what he had to say, and try to dispute it with logical arguments


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2017 - 16:06.


#5004 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,116 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:15

Only if you deliberately ignore all the obvious downsides staring you in the face. It's like saying

 

1. I am tired

2. One is not tired when dead

3. Shoot myself

 

There is definite logic there as well by your standards

 

The logic that annoys me a bit more is the one that goes like this:

  1. The first test was bad
  2. Therefore the whole season is over
  3. Therefore any other option is better

Both 2 and 3 are flawed. For a start, it completely glosses over the fact that the first two days was very different to the last two days. I think that should make it obvious that it's too soon to rush to conclusions about the season, or even testing. Depending how week 2 goes, we might even change point 1 to "The first test seemed bad but ultimately all that was lost was laps / test coverage". Of course, it could be worse too. Overall, there's simply not enough information. Actually, it'll probably be about 2 months before we have a solid idea of where this season is going.



#5005 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:22

The logic that annoys me a bit more is the one that goes like this:

  1. The first test was bad
  2. Therefore the whole season is over
  3. Therefore any other option is better

Both 2 and 3 are flawed. For a start, it completely glosses over the fact that the first two days was very different to the last two days. I think that should make it obvious that it's too soon to rush to conclusions about the season, or even testing. Depending how week 2 goes, we might even change point 1 to "The first test seemed bad but ultimately all that was lost was laps / test coverage". Of course, it could be worse too. Overall, there's simply not enough information. Actually, it'll probably be about 2 months before we have a solid idea of where this season is going.

 

That as well. Anyway I was right now mulling over my post and being annoyed by my stupidity. HoldTheLine was right of course in part, because indeed they are both options when presented this way, just like mine also was. But the fallacy in fact is in the structure of the reasoning, which is the same for all three (all 4, including the one you gave) in as much as they ignore all context and other arguments for and against their assumptions and conclusions. Edit: Like you said


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2017 - 16:23.


#5006 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 1,448 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:23

One option for McLaren is to tell Honda to either build the post 2020 engines at a facility in the UK, maybe near the MTC or they will go somewhere else. As to where that somewhere else is, who knows.

#5007 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 4,158 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:24

So,any news about what went wrong with 2nd engine?



#5008 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:27

One option for McLaren is to tell Honda to either build the post 2020 engines at a facility in the UK, maybe near the MTC or they will go somewhere else. As to where that somewhere else is, who knows.

 

You are aware that they have been heavily investing in Milton Keynes for years now and that such facilities including the expert staff simply don't grow over night and it takes time? If they wanted to do this (build out of MK in 2020) it may well be too late to start building the facility now even if McLaren told them. But luckily they are smarter than this and already started 2 or 3 years ago.



#5009 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,116 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:54

So,any news about what went wrong with 2nd engine?

 

With regards to the engine that developed a real fault on Tuesday and got shipped back to Japan for investigation... nope, not heard anything official about it. I doubt Honda are going to issue some official statement about it in the meantime... so we'll probably have to wait for the 2nd week of testing to start next Tuesday.

 

Since they had nothing like it in internal testing, hopefully it will turn out to be something like external contamination or finger trouble or something like that.



#5010 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 1,425 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 March 2017 - 16:55

Only if you deliberately ignore all the obvious downsides staring you in the face. It's like saying

1. I am tired
2. One is not tired when dead
3. Shoot myself

There is definite logic there as well by your standards


The logic is there but you are right all parameters have to be considered.

I would build a multi-year model with variables for:

1. Each manufacturer's expected relative performance for a given year.
2. Any performance discount as a customer relative to a works team.
3. Direct cashflow from Honda as a result of the works deal.
4. Cashflow(+/-) from a customer PU supply. Some positive cashflow possible by selling naming rights--like Redbull.
5. Expected cashflow from prize money--tied to performance
6. Expected cashflow from sponsors--tied to performance
7. Contractual impact of Honda leaving early--cash payout?
8. Contractual impact of McLaren leaving Honda partnership--cash penalty?

The big decision points would be:
1. The size of the cash input from Honda
2. How easy it is (likelihood) for Honda to walk away
3. Expected future cashflow lost from continued underperformance.

Everything is ultimately tied to Honda's expected PU performance in the future.

The model would allow variables to be changed so that you can arrive at expected financial impact of choosing an engine provider.

To me the biggest question would be if Honda can achieve top two status. If not it would be hard/impossible for them to beat:

Mercedes
Ferrari
Redbull
Renault (within a year or two)

This would leave 5th and below up for grabs. Zak has already admitted that McLaren has a 100m budget gap (that's with Honda cash)--so unless there is an equal or better PU it will hard to see how McLaren out develops the aforementioned top 4 to break into that pack.

All that is to say that; choosing an alternative engine provider is not a logical fallacy.

I will put it to you like this, if McLaren could have a do over, which person would argue that they should have left Mercedes to go to Honda?

Within, the next 5 to 10 years the McLaren Honda partnership will be a case taught in business school. Everyone will then be a genius in hindsight.

#5011 Cacarella

Cacarella
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 March 2017 - 17:16

I'm throwing my hat in here after all this talk of switching to another supplier...

 

..I think the most awesome thing (story) that could ever, ever happen right now for Mclaren and Formula 1 would be if they dropped Honda at the end of

the year and with a surprise announcement joined forces with Toyota.  The incredible story-line twist would be they compete for the championship in 2018.

 

P.S.  I don't really have a preference of Toyota or Honda or whatever, just think it'd make for a cool story that we'd be telling our grandchildren about...



#5012 MPB

MPB
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: February 17

Posted 04 March 2017 - 17:20

I'm throwing my hat in here after all this talk of switching to another supplier...

 

..I think the most awesome thing (story) that could ever, ever happen right now for Mclaren and Formula 1 would be if they dropped Honda at the end of

the year and with a surprise announcement joined forces with Toyota.  The incredible story-line twist would be they compete for the championship in 2018.

 

P.S.  I don't really have a preference of Toyota or Honda or whatever, just think it'd make for a cool story that we'd be telling our grandchildren about...

 

"Yuck, Grandpa! Auto Racing is socially irresponsible!...."



#5013 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 17:24

The logic is there but you are right all parameters have to be considered.
(...)

 

Such a model is certainly helpful, but is also always in danger of overlooking some parameter or calibrating it incorrectly, of course. But the logic of the syllogism is also faulty in itself.  (Edit: like I said to CPR, this applies to all of the presented examples, the pro-change and anti-change). I could have saved myself the trouble of trying to think and just read Wikipedia which is always great in the discussion of logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia...ian's_syllogism

 

  1. All cats have four legs
  2. My dog has four legs
  3. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

This invalid form of argument, labeled AAA-2 among syllogisms, commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle: it says nothing about all things having four legs (the middle term) and thus the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, even if the premises are true. The politician's syllogism similarly says nothing about all known "somethings" that could be done. As is common with fallacious undistributed middle arguments, it can also be seen as the fallacy of affirming the consequent when restated as an equivalent hypothetical syllogism:[5]

 


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2017 - 17:30.


#5014 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 1,425 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 March 2017 - 17:56

Such a model is certainly helpful, but is also always in danger of overlooking some parameter or calibrating it incorrectly, of course. But the logic of the syllogism is also faulty in itself. (Edit: like I said to CPR, this applies to all of the presented examples, the pro-change and anti-change). I could have saved myself the trouble of trying to think and just read Wikipedia which is always great in the discussion of logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia...ian's_syllogism


I would disagree with your interpretation.

An example would be;
1. The Honda PU is awful
2. I will take the name Honda off the PU and put on the name Mercedes.
3. My PU is now a Mercedes.

In this example I am taking a generic, non-fundamental attribute of something and applying that to another separate thing and drawing a conclusion.

There is no logical fallacy associated which changing a PU for another which is known or expected to be more powerful. There are certainly factors to be considered--if you want to make a well considered and optimum decision.

#5015 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,944 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:05

Comments from Stoffel;
http://en.f1i.com/ne...FjNKZkE.twitter

#5016 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:19

I would disagree with your interpretation.

An example would be;
1. The Honda PU is awful
2. I will take the name Honda off the PU and put on the name Mercedes.
3. My PU is now a Mercedes.

In this example I am taking a generic, non-fundamental attribute of something and applying that to another separate thing and drawing a conclusion.

There is no logical fallacy associated which changing a PU for another which is known or expected to be more powerful. There are certainly factors to be considered--if you want to make a well considered and optimum decision.

 

There is no logical fallacy associated which changing a PU, but I still maintain that there is one associated with the middle term, "Renault/Merc/Ferrari have better engines". Agreed that it is not the exact same as your example,  and I don't want to wade through logic criticisms on wikipedia right now (and am too dumb to know these on my own), but "Renault/Merc/Ferrari have better engines" is also similar to your example in the way that it takes one (though fundamental) attribute, i.e. power/reliability, omits all other considerations, and draws a conclusion from it. It also tries to hide this by substituting an incorrect and loaded word to describe it, i.e. better - which for McLaren is not only defined by performance. A Ferrari or Merc PU has better performance right now, but this does not necessarily make it a better PU for the McLaren operation. For Renault even the performance improvement is a question mark.

 

Edit: Anyway, we can give it a rest if you are ok with it, as we are in agreement about what counts: shortsighted decisions without considering all parameters are not a good idea.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2017 - 18:35.


#5017 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:21

 

He looks upbeat and excited which is good. I have big expectations about him.  :up:



#5018 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,944 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:26

He looks upbeat and excited which is good. I have big expectations about him. :up:

You're not alone there.

#5019 Christophe77

Christophe77
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:28

He looks upbeat and excited which is good. I have big expectations about him.  :up:

me too!  



Advertisement

#5020 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,944 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:30

Big week coming up.

#5021 kissTheApex

kissTheApex
  • Member

  • 635 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:31

It took Merc 4 years to get their act together after they bought Brawn. Frustrating though it is, there's no real upside to getting a new supplier, Honda will sort it out sooner or later.

It's not an apples to apples comparison though, is it? Mercedes, after buying Brawn GP, never had a problem with the engines. What Ross Brawn had to do was to "re-assemble" a technical and design and manufacturing base to the team after the massive layout/exodus from the team following the pull out of Honda.

#5022 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 18:38

Big week coming up.

 

Uh-oh:

 

Mercedes driver Valtteri Bottas believes that Formula 1's 2017 cars will be more difficult to drive in windy conditions, which could lead to an increase in the number of spins.

 

 

http://www.autosport...her-in-the-wind



#5023 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,202 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 04 March 2017 - 19:06

One option for McLaren is to tell Honda to either build the post 2020 engines at a facility in the UK, maybe near the MTC or they will go somewhere else. As to where that somewhere else is, who knows.

No, that's same sort of nonsense/folly/arrogance as saying McLaren should build facility in Japan, near Sakura in Tochigi

Honda do F1 at Sakura in Japan just as McLaren do F1 at Woking UK, Ferrari in Italy, Apple in California etc etc.

MK facility is for grooming and poaching talents in Europe indefinitely and for broader terms than just F1 as well, to establish the foundation for fulfilling their objective of continuing F1 no matter what even if Lehman shock level economic turmoil happen again, and for technological synergy between Sakura as well as across their global operations.



#5024 F1Lurker

F1Lurker
  • Member

  • 1,425 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 March 2017 - 19:20

There is no logical fallacy associated which changing a PU, but I still maintain that there is one associated with the middle term, "Renault/Merc/Ferrari have better engines". Agreed that it is not the exact same as your example, and I don't want to wade through logic criticisms on wikipedia right now (and am too dumb to know these on my own), but "Renault/Merc/Ferrari have better engines" is also similar to your example in the way that it takes one (though fundamental) attribute, i.e. power/reliability, omits all other considerations, and draws a conclusion from it. It also tries to hide this by substituting an incorrect and loaded word to describe it, i.e. better - which for McLaren is not only defined by performance. A Ferrari or Merc PU has better performance right now, but this does not necessarily make it a better PU for the McLaren operation. For Renault even the performance improvement is a question mark.

Edit: Anyway, we can give it a rest if you are ok with it, as we are in agreement about what counts: shortsighted decisions without considering all parameters are not a good idea.


No worries. I am not a philosopher either, just expressing my views.

#5025 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,825 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 March 2017 - 20:50

He looks upbeat and excited which is good. I have big expectations about him. :up:

He should be. He has just started in F1. Give him a few years like JB & FA have had and he might not be so upbeat.

#5026 keshav

keshav
  • Member

  • 1,388 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 04 March 2017 - 20:55

Everything is quiet in Sakura, Japan. Have they not found the fault in the engine?



#5027 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,825 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 March 2017 - 20:56

No, that's same sort of nonsense/folly/arrogance as saying McLaren should build facility in Japan, near Sakura in Tochigi
Honda do F1 at Sakura in Japan just as McLaren do F1 at Woking UK, Ferrari in Italy, Apple in California etc etc.
MK facility is for grooming and poaching talents in Europe indefinitely and for broader terms than just F1 as well, to establish the foundation for fulfilling their objective of continuing F1 no matter what even if Lehman shock level economic turmoil happen again, and for technological synergy between Sakura as well as across their global operations.

If they had engine facilities in the UK they would have had an extra day to work on the broken test one. That day could be valuable. No matter how you cut it, having the engine facilities on the other side of the world isn't an advantage.

#5028 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,825 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 March 2017 - 20:57

Everything is quiet in Sakura, Japan. Have they not found the fault in the engine?

You expecting them tell you as soon as they do?

#5029 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 21:02

If they had engine facilities in the UK they would have had an extra day to work on the broken test one. That day could be valuable. No matter how you cut it, having the engine facilities on the other side of the world isn't an advantage.

 

 

Without putting too fine a point on the distances, I count:

 

5 races closer to Japan

8 races equal

7 races closer to UK

 

The first column shows my quick estimates:

 

J Australian Grand Prix
J Chinese Grand Prix     China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai     9 April
E Bahrain Grand Prix     Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir     16 April
E Russian Grand Prix     Russia Sochi Autodrom, Sochi     30 April
U Spanish Grand Prix     Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona     14 May
U Monaco Grand Prix     Monaco  Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo     28 May
E Canadian Grand Prix     Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal     11 June
E Azerbaijan Grand Prix     Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku     25 June
U Austrian Grand Prix     Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg     9 July
U British Grand Prix     United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone     16 July
U Hungarian Grand Prix     Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest     30 July
U Belgian Grand Prix     Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot     27 August
U Italian Grand Prix     Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza     3 September
J Singapore Grand Prix     Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore     17 September
J Malaysian Grand Prix     Malaysia Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur     1 October
J Japanese Grand Prix     Japan Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka     8 October
E United States Grand Prix     United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas     22 October
E Mexican Grand Prix     Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City     29 October
E Brazilian Grand Prix     Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo     12 November
E Abu Dhabi Grand Prix     United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi     26 November


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2017 - 21:56.


#5030 SpaceGhost

SpaceGhost
  • Member

  • 166 posts
  • Joined: February 17

Posted 04 March 2017 - 21:07

He should be. He has just started in F1. Give him a few years like JB & FA have had and he might not be so upbeat.

 

SV is more of a half full than half empty sort of guy. I have listened to him for years. Just like the poster Quickshifter who is more half full than empty. 



#5031 BernandoBolonso

BernandoBolonso
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 04 March 2017 - 21:40

Wow, what is this voodoo, 101 pages and yet no Part II?

#5032 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,825 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 March 2017 - 21:57

Without putting too fine a point on the distances, I count:

5 races closer to Japan
8 races equal
7 races closer to UK

The first column shows my quick judgments:

J Australian Grand Prix
J Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 9 April
E Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir 16 April
E Russian Grand Prix Russia Sochi Autodrom, Sochi 30 April
U Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona 14 May
U Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo 28 May
E Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal 11 June
E Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 25 June
U Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 9 July
U British Grand Prix United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone 16 July
U Hungarian Grand Prix Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest 30 July
U Belgian Grand Prix Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot 27 August
U Italian Grand Prix Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza 3 September
J Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore 17 September
J Malaysian Grand Prix Malaysia Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur 1 October
J Japanese Grand Prix Japan Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka 8 October
E United States Grand Prix United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas 22 October
E Mexican Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City 29 October
E Brazilian Grand Prix Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo 12 November
E Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi 26 November

Once the season starts they don't usually have to react as urgently as they do now. And I still think there would be an advantage if the facilities were closer to the race team.

#5033 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,418 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 22:01

Once the season starts they don't usually have to react as urgently as they do now. And I still think there would be an advantage if the facilities were closer to the race team.

 

But it is definitely not as stupid as it is being painted, it's not as if they were to supply the British Kart Championship from Sakura. The first race is in Australia, and if they actually had to fight for something they would have a reaction time advantage over the last 7 races on average and no disadvantage for the last 4.

 

Edit: And the testing track is not guaranteed to be only Barcelona forever (though admittedly the majority of teams prefer it for good reasons)

 

Edit: Facilities closer to race team yes, but this does not necessarily mean the shop floor or the x-ray microscope, laser endoscopes, or whatever voodoo. Obviously they see an advantage in proximity also, hence Milton Keynes, and one has to hope that they put the teams there that have to be close


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 March 2017 - 22:07.


#5034 Lotus53B

Lotus53B
  • Member

  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 22:29

Two threads...whoo-hoo...



#5035 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 6,470 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 04 March 2017 - 22:31

Merc had a functioning car with steady levels of progression and development. McLaren are starting from scratch after two years way off normal engine/ers performance and seem to be making the same mistakes again.

Of course, the problems are never the same, in each case it's an organisational issue that takes time to resolve.



#5036 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 28,471 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 March 2017 - 22:58

This one's full. Part II this way.