- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 2,124 comments
- 136,315 views
Pete05
Premium
- 7,100
- Melbourne, Australia
McLaren haven't been in such a dismal position since circa 1979/80.
Even the disastrous Peugeot partnership of 1994 gave more hope than the season they're currently having.
![[Nor]MclarenF1](/forum/data/avatars/m/169/169289.jpg?1413287138){kind=avatar}
- 2,281
- Moss
- hoydeskrekk
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict a break up announcement by SPA.
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
I bet even before that during the summer break itself.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It seems that the threats earlier in the season were more veiled... and Honda haven't seemingly brought any improvements. If they have brought improvements then the strength of those has exposed new weaknesses (that can happen in a floor-up piss-poor system). McLaren need guarantees that 2018 will bring them some success, or even that they could just be competitive. It's hard to imagine what Honda assurances would be any more believable than the ones they've given over the last three years.
McLaren aren't playing nice any more.
McLaren aren't playing nice any more.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
From all I've read they brought band-aids to the Bahrain testing, and that was the last thing they did engine wise. Since then it's been talk about a complete revamp scheduled for later that they're working on.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The sad thing is that despite being down on power an engine that was at least reliable would have got McLaren some points this season. I think the killer blow to the relationship is an engine that is once again slow but now also seems to want to eat itself.
- 38
- Sweden
If it's actually legally possible for McLaren to change engine manufacturer during the ongoing season I don't get their media strategy, I do not understand why they are as harsh as they are in their criticism towards Honda. I've not read every single article or statement on the topic, far from it, but to me McLaren seems desperate and nothing but a passenger in the relationship. I can understand why you would use media to put pressure on a business partner but to repeatedly communicate as viciously as McLaren and its contracted drivers are doing is questionable in a position in which they have the choice of using another manufacturer's engine since it does not make McLaren look good in the eyes of potential future partners. I mean, why would you supply a team with engines (or anything to a reasonable price really) when it's obvious they're fine with dragging their partners through the mud making its name and product look bad? It's a risk that every partner of McLaren will have to take into consideration from here on and I'm sure it will not benefit McLaren when future agreements are to be signed.
On the other hand, if it's not legally possible for McLaren to change engine manufacturer during the ongoing season I can definitely understand their media strategy. Either Honda gets their engine going or McLaren ends up talking their way out of the miserable partnership that McLaren-Honda is by damaging Honda's reputation to the point where continued collaboration is economically impossible, whenever that is. It will still come at a cost for McLaren but all things considered it might be worth it in the long run.
On the other hand, if it's not legally possible for McLaren to change engine manufacturer during the ongoing season I can definitely understand their media strategy. Either Honda gets their engine going or McLaren ends up talking their way out of the miserable partnership that McLaren-Honda is by damaging Honda's reputation to the point where continued collaboration is economically impossible, whenever that is. It will still come at a cost for McLaren but all things considered it might be worth it in the long run.
- 2,281
- Moss
- hoydeskrekk
It's not like they can just plonk any engine into their current car. The mcl32 is designed around the Honda power unit. Changing engine supplier mid season just isn't technically feasible due to the massive changes required to be done on the chassis. And that's even before we start with the electronics.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That seems to be a ridiculous view, almost as if McLaren rang Honda and said "You couldn't send us two engines for every race could you? To fit a McLaren?".
I'd say that any partner who understands F1 would not envy McLaren's position right now... and the media pressure hasn't been "repeated", in fact it's been incredibly muted for the first couple of years. Even in the beginning of this season Brown and Boullier were standing by Honda and simply stating the obvious: "improvement is necessary". The statements that you've seen in the last week are unprecedented.
Of course, it may well be that they've been quite happy to let Alonso vent - after all everybody expects that from a driver - or it may be that they simply can't stop him.
We're talking about a situation where the Honda has been significantly down on power for 50-odd races and where it's been too unreliable for much meaningful testing or to finish practices/qualis/races. Honda are arguably denting their own image and, as I've said, McLaren have been very restrained on the issue up until now.
We don't know, it's contractual.
Nope, no "talking their way out of it", the split will be according to the proper contractual break clauses. Anything else could be very expensive and genuinely damaging.
It seems as though you're defending Honda at any cost and painting McLaren as the agressor when in fact the last two-and-half seasons show you to be wrong.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
In their defence, they were always up-front about it being difficult to have the upgrade ready in time for Canada.
- 38
- Sweden
Exactly, and that makes their media strategy seem desperate to me. If you can't switch manufacturer, for whatever reason, why would you bad-mouth your partner the way McLaren does? I'm sure there has been harsh critique internally for a long time, which is totally fine, but looking at some of the statements McLaren has released throughout this season I can't figure out how their media strategy would benefit them when remaining calmer and more neutral probably would be less costly for themselves in the long run. Honda already does a good job looking like a bunch of amateurs amongst professionals, why ridicule them even more?
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm aware that is most likely not how the agreement is set up.
I probably should have been more clear on this. The communication I question is the communication they've gone ahead with this year, which I've interpreted as pretty harsh. I don't understand why you would suddenly change your media strategy the way McLaren has when their position hasn't really changed. McLaren is still in a uncompetitive partnership with Honda, just like during the past seasons, and if there would be a somewhat easy way out of the partnership (an idea that has been expressed earlier in this thread in various forms, and which my post was thought to give an alternative view on) then what is there to win for McLaren to start communicating this way now? Yes, you could argue that "they've had enough" but from a long term business perspective I fail to see how that would make sense if there would be a reasonable way out of the agreement for McLaren.
I agree, Honda is hurting themselves. But why does McLaren feel its necessary, right now, to potentially also hurt them when it comes at a cost for themselves? Why not take a step away, maintain a neutral stance, and let Honda damage their own image? What is there to win for McLaren to suddenly, after years of rather muted criticism, start being louder now? This is what confuses me and I'd love to hear other's view on this topic since it might make me a little bit wiser.
That is why I wrote my initial post the way I did, with my ideas presented out of two perspectives (McLaren has/has not a reasonable way out of the partnership).
Do we have an idea of how these break clauses are set up? Agreements in sports are generally very flexible and can vary quite a lot depending on the involved parties and the situation in which it's established. Since we don't know (or I don't know, maybe someone else does) how the agreement between McLaren and Honda is written we can, if anything, just speculate. I speculate about the agreement maybe being hard for McLaren to get out of, with the help of break clauses, which in my opinion would explain why McLaren has switched up its media strategy. If there is a reasonable way out of the partnership for McLaren, with the help of break clauses, I fail to see how this strategy would be beneficial.
I am not defending anyone. If that is how my post come across then I've done a bad job of writing it, sorry. I speculate about why McLaren has changed its communication, a change I have a hard time seeing as random since everything in the business of F1 usually tends to be part of a well thought-out strategy, to hopefully create a discussion in which I might find ideas I've not taken into consideration before and therefore learn something. I'm not trying to paint the involved parties as either aggressor or victim.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I suggest you read up on it then either in this thread or last year's thread where there are tons of links through the pages showing you the trip ups Honda has done nearly every three steps it makes. What RBR did to Renault, just because they weren't leading out the gates in the new engine era, is akin to a child throwing his toys about cause his parents don't have chocolate milk for the week.
McLaren has an obligation to its share holder, fans/supporters, and potential interested viewer and investors to actually explain the situation when asked in the public eye. For three years they've been nice supportive and excited to bring back the McHonda legacy that was last enjoyed in the early 90s, and it hasn't happened or come even close. Now they've gotten stern about the situation, this is the first time I've seen McLaren as a group (not just Alonso) come out and say "this is getting old and enough is enough". F1 is a billion dollar sport, with that to be spread about through tv revenue, sponsors, investors...when your car is at the back of the grid or not even finishing...you get the scraps that remain.
The difference between second to last and last cash wise in the WDC is pretty significant, if McLaren can't even finish ahead of Sauber because of the engine in the back, that is a massive massive issue. So Honda deserve what they're getting.
- 38
- Sweden
Oh yes, Honda deserves the criticism. Once again; I'm not trying to paint McLaren as the bad guy and Honda as the sad victim, I think most people can see who is the weak link in the partnership. Just because Honda deserves being dragged through the mud doesn't mean it's a wise business decision by McLaren to do it though, unless they've signed an agreement that is hard to get out of somewhat unhurt without the help from Honda. McLaren should be able to force that helpful hand from Honda with the use of media.
This brings us back to my initial post, looking at the communication by McLaren during the past weeks I think they show signs of being rather desperate and in a worse contract situation than many seem to expect, because otherwise I find their media strategy questionable. I don't see the reason why McLaren would communicate (possibly to satisfy people with interest in their company, as you point out) as harshly as they do if they can get out of the agreement by themselves since their communication comes at a cost, a cost that they'll have to pay from here on every time they sign agreements with impact on the car's performance. If the partnership is beyond rescue and they can get out of the agreement, let's say for Spa, why not continue with the more muted criticism? They'll keep the image of being a trustworthy company with long term goals which stays loyal and supportive of their partners, and avoid the previously explained future costs that appear because of the elevated risk when partnering with McLaren.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Yet you described McLaren as "harsh", "desperate", "vicious" and "questionable". You then claim that they're "dragging Honda through the mud" and making them "look bad". The results of testing and race weekends have been there for everybody to see - one might even argue that Honda have done more damage to McLaren's image than some carefully worded McLaren statements have to Honda's.
I think you're talking out of your hat. Nobody is going to blame McLaren for parting with Honda after three years of increasingly poor performance and reliability, not even Honda.
- 38
- Sweden
Exactly, so why does McLaren feel the need to openly and rather harshly bash Honda right now? Even before this season I believe anyone who's interested in F1 knew that McLaren was not happy about the results from the ongoing partnership with Honda, it's something you get by looking at the results and by reading between the lines in prior more muted criticism, and it's enough for people with interest in McLaren to realise that the partnership is heading towards the bin unless Honda steps up its game. It's is not a secret and that's why I find their media strategy questionable, it seems unnecessary unless they're in a bad position contract-wise.
True, no one will blame them for parting with Honda. Future business partners will take their ongoing media strategy and communication into consideration when they sign agreements though, and McLaren's approach at the moment does not benefit them in this regard. Why make things harder and more expensive if you don't have to?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I already explained why, which you completely ignored. Once again people want answers this isn't just about McLaren or Honda, this is about legacies, reputation, image and so on. If fans don't believe in McLaren they don't support McLaren thus investors wont see a reason to join a well known team and sponsors go else where. All because there was no reason due to lack of performance due to Honda. It's a cut throat business and worth as I said Billion(s) all together and hundreds of millions for teams alone. That's not a joke, when your annual budget is 215 million to begin with and you finish dead last with no return. McLaren has to go forward at some point and inform the world what is the issue, and that dirty laundry is going to be on display cause that's the type of world F1 is.
It's not a media strategy it's the honest truth to salvage some kind of image. Honda has made promises and failed and there is no sight of them figuring it out in the near future. You can't go three years come late into the sport's new regs, scrap your first design that was finally working after two years and then fail worse on the second design and expect happiness from anyone.
No they wont, they'll wonder why it wasn't done sooner and if McLaren had any part in their prolonged failure with Honda and if so is it viable to invest or sponsor them. If your point made any sense then William, Red Bull and even Ferrari wouldn't have nearly as many sponsors coming their way, hell BWT should have avoided Force India purely based on questionable business practices from Vijay.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's far more likely that Honda will be recompensing McLaren than the other way around. The rest of the pecuniary damage that you're trying to persuade us of is, in my opinion, bollocks. It won't harm McLaren's standing at all that they eventually split with Honda (if indeed that's what happens). If anything their stock will go up as a partner who you can trust to stand by an agreement until it's sunk below the waves.
If you've watched the sport for a few years then you'll know. If you have watched the sport for a few years then it's astonishing that you could ask that.
See that car that retired in Montreal on Sunday? That's a $100 million car with another $200-300 million of development in it. Impressive work by the engine supplier, no?
Where should McLaren draw the line? They have a contract for 2018 with Honda (and maybe beyond), should they just keep sucking up the failure so that nobody's rocking the boat? Where does that put their value?
- 2,281
- Moss
- hoydeskrekk
There is no doubt they'll only benefit on a breakup with Honda. The fanbase will be satisfied, the investors will probably draw a sigh of relief, and they'll then stand a chance of actually getting back to the front of the pack. No matter which other engine they'll end up with.
- 38
- Sweden
Great answer, thanks. There are some good points in there I haven't thought about which makes part of my argumentation invalid. I might have overestimated the immediate value of staying calm which in turn exaggerates the negative long term effects of bad-mouthing a business partner. Just a small thing to add though: I believe a team like Red Bull does experience an added cost when signing agreements with suppliers of parts with direct impact on the car's performance (these are the type of partners I care about, not BWT-like partners) because of their previous behaviour against Renault. As you point out, I might overestimate that particular cost in relation to other factors though.
I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying, or I've misunderstood you. To my knowledge McLaren's situation has not changed, the partnership has not been successful and continue to not be successful. What makes me confused is why McLaren chooses to switch up their communication at this particular time. I'm not saying they should stay in the partnership, obviously it is not working for any of the involved parties. What I don't understand is why they've started being loud now and why they would speak the way they do when people in general, for example on this forum, seems to think that McLaren are the ones who can get out of the agreement whenever it suits them (yes, that is a slight exaggeration but you get the point). I do not agree with that view because to me their communication then would seem unnecessary since I believe, but I might be wrong as LMSCorvetteGT2 kindly points out above, that their more tough approach comes at a substantial cost. I think (and speculate) that Honda has a stronger formal position within the partnership than some of us think, which is a potential reason for McLaren to switch up their communication with the press since it might help them to get out of the partnership.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 38
- Sweden
That quoted part does not reflect what I actually wrote in that sentence though?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What do they suffer from exactly? Because from my understanding it seemed Renault had idealized to do updates for the engine, RBR seemed to be on a notion they'd get bigger updates in the season like past seasons, and instead the motion was for Renault to just do smaller improvements. With the reasoning being quite simple, which is they just do not have the money or minds to come up with new innovations at the rate Mercedes has. I don't see it being a fault on RBR and Renault that info was given incorrectly and then correctly to the media.
The only thing that would give this idea is that when updates do come, RBR get them later than the works team, because there is a works team.
I'd have to know what he means by the party suffering substantial cost, if it's McLaren then no I don't see it being a substantial cost other than the suffering they're going through right now. That is a substantial cost, a team that was easily top five or four in the WCC now being reduced to the tail end is a substantial cost. Honda without McLaren if it happens, is a bigger issue for Honda. Reason's being, one no other team will join them, I guarantee you Williams aren't going to, and Sauber only did so because what have they got to lose. And it's probably easier to negotiate a deal when you're claim is "we're taking a risk with you guys, so let's talk price".
- 38
- Sweden
When I write "I believe a team like Red Bull does experience an added cost when signing agreements with suppliers of parts with direct impact on the car's performance (these are the type of partners I care about, not BWT-like partners) because of their previous behaviour against Renault." the behaviour I'm referring to is mainly what happened during the 2015 season, i.e. when Red Bull (Mateschitz) ridiculed Renault as an engine manufacturer even though their partnership just a few years earlier was very successful. This should be an indication for any potential supplier of parts for RBR that they run the risk of getting the same potentially harmful treatment if things don't go RBR's way when an agreement is signed. Doing business with RBR should therefore equal more risk and if there's more risk to an investment you should demand better return, because of this I expect suppliers of RBR to demand more advantageous agreements than they would for a slightly more muted customer. All other things being equal these agreements are an added cost for RBR, a cost that could display itself financially. Since we don't have access to any contract details we can only speculate about the size of these costs, but looking back at the last posts in this thread I seem to estimate them to be a lot higher than other writers here. On top of that, as you have pointed out, there a lot of other factors to take into consideration as well and each one of those factors might have a larger impact financially than the above explained costs (potentially even make the above explained costs insignificant).
The added cost above is the same added cost I've been referring to when writing about McLaren, their partnership with Honda, and their "new" media strategy in which they are less muted. By being harsh in their communication about the partnership with Honda I think McLaren run the risk of being subject to the added cost when signing agreements with other suppliers in the future, hence why I expect there to be a reason for why McLaren has decided to change their displayed approach towards Honda at this particular time. The added cost is a financial burden which affects the day to day activity and in an industry like motorsports where everyone always need more funds, this can cause problems. Once again; I seem to estimate this added cost to be a lot higher than other writers here, and from reading your replies I've realised that I might be completely wrong.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Meanwhile, Honda say that their dyno gains - the work that they've done on the RA617H while preparing the new upgrades - aren't translating into on-track performance:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/130115/honda-dyno-gains-not-working-on-track
I did find it curious that Alonso was optimistic after Montreal qualifying, but critical after the race
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/130115/honda-dyno-gains-not-working-on-track
I did find it curious that Alonso was optimistic after Montreal qualifying, but critical after the race
Pete05
Premium
- 7,100
- Melbourne, Australia
I'm guessing Alonso's criticism relates to what number the little dial on his steering wheel was on.
"Embarrassing power" was one of his quotes & I suspect that was when they had the thing turned onto 'limp home mode', knowing it was dying.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I can't find the clip right now but I think he finished the statement with "in this mode"?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I waa going by an Autosport article where he slammed the speed deficit as being dangerous.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
At this point it would make sense for Mclaren to just turn to a customer engine supply with Mercedes and hold out until Liberty fixes the financial payout structure after 2020 and or when the new engine regs eventually come and join a works supplier then, this just hasn't worked out, and it's better to be in a position where Williams and Force India have been for the last few years then risk their entire operation and costing them massive money in both sponsorship and result payments pushing something that hasn't looked like it will ever work.
- 2,281
- Moss
- hoydeskrekk
