McLaren MP4-30

[jens]

Red Bull is indeed the "second best example" after Brawn GP, but as mentioned - also heavily aided by rule changes.

Plus Red Bull and Toro Rosso had the same chassis in 2008, and Vettel won a race in STR. So "promise" was there. They weren't a top team, but better than McLaren now.

But 2009 was a unique game changer. Unlikely to be replicated. It hasn't really happened in F1 in other seasons! It was a combination of front-runners (McLaren, Ferrari) also losing ground, because they did not have enough depth in the team. Not only 2009, but also subsequent seasons proved Ferrari and McLaren were not as strong as they were used to being.

Mercedes... Well, Ross Brawn & Co spent years to build up this team. In 2012 Mercedes already qualfiied very well. Rosberg won a race in China and was second at Monaco. They still had heavy tyre wear problems. 2013 was better on all fronts, let alone 2014, but it was not an improvement "out of nowhere". It was a gradual progress, just like Renault in early-to-mid-2000s, and McLaren in mid-to-late-1990s. Or dare I say Ferrari in mid-to-late-1990s. Plus Mercedes was never performing as bad as McLaren now does.

What are you trying to argue, by the way? That McLaren will be a title challenging team in 2016? I am pretty confident it won't happen. All evidence points against it, except the 2009 season with radical rule changes and unique competitive situation in F1. Plus McLaren does not show any strengths that you should back them. It may just as well be Lotus, who wins races and gets podiums soon. After all, by these arguments Lotus is also a "proven top team", who was at the front in 2012-13! But what does this past matter now...

[jens]

Now you could argue that they had been sowing the seeds of their ascension in the previous fallow years, but that's only apparent in retrospect. Whether it's really necessary to have those 3 or 4 mediocre years to build up, I don't know. If you're an existing team that has been successful in the past, I don't really see why.

Yes, it is apparent in retrospect. But looking at this, there is certain logic. Mercedes started to build up their team since 2010. Ferrari with Team Schumacher since 1996. Red Bull from 2005. Benetton/Renault from 2001.

McLaren-Honda has started just now. Why should they jump to the front out of nowhere? They just STARTED restructuring the team. And that they won in the past does not matter. Lotus won in the past, Williams won, Brabham won.

McLaren may have Ron Dennis, but Renault had Briatore, Mercedes had Brawn, etc. All experienced people. But building a house takes time regardless of who you have at the helm.

Does an existing team, who has been successful in the past, need to re-build? YES! Ferrari didn't win a thing in 1991-93, McLaren didn't win in 94-96. There are new people, new designers, new personnel, new sponsors, new background. Even if team name is the same. Depth in the team counts, and depth varies all the time. Name is just PR. Otherwise McLaren and Ferrari would win all championships, but no - 2010s has been the era of Red Bull and Mercedes.

[AndyL]

What are you trying to argue, by the way? That McLaren will be a title challenging team in 2016? I am pretty confident it won't happen. All evidence points against it, except the 2009 season with radical rule changes and unique competitive situation in F1. Plus McLaren does not show any strengths that you should back them. It may just as well be Lotus, who wins races and gets podiums soon. After all, by these arguments Lotus is also a "proven top team", who was at the front in 2012-13! But what does this past matter now...

I suppose the Cliff Notes version of my argument is that becoming a power in F1 is more about money than time. It's not the 3 or 4 years of working with insufficient budgets that made those teams successes, it was the fact that eventually their backers realised they would need to spend a lot more money to win, and did so.

If right now Honda are spending money at the rate they did during 2008, then yes I think McLaren could be a title challenging team in 2016. And if Lotus had a backer like that then I think they could also be a power in a couple of years. (Note could be, not would be - ref. Toyota.)

[N. Jones]

The story of Brawn GP is perhaps the most unique story that there can be. Very unique and doesn't happen every year! Combined with radical rule changes in many ways.

As far as I know, there are no significant rule changes next year.

My point is that the 2008 was so bad they started working on the 2009 very very early.
Considering McLaren has way more money than Honda/Brawn had I am confident that they will rebound next year.

[jens]

I suppose the Cliff Notes version of my argument is that becoming a power in F1 is more about money than time. It's not the 3 or 4 years of working with insufficient budgets that made those teams successes, it was the fact that eventually their backers realised they would need to spend a lot more money to win, and did so.

If right now Honda are spending money at the rate they did during 2008, then yes I think McLaren could be a title challenging team in 2016. And if Lotus had a backer like that then I think they could also be a power in a couple of years. (Note could be, not would be - ref. Toyota.)

Umm... But teams even with big budgets have been struggling. Certainly you don't consider Toyota, BAR-Honda, BMW as teams with "insufficient budgets". Hell, Ferrari gets 100 Million free money from Bernie and if anything, they have not been able to replicate their Schumacher era (2000-2004) prime form for a while already. So money may be there, but team is still lacking in performance, because pieces are not in place.

[jens]

My point is that the 2008 was so bad they started working on the 2009 very very early.
Considering McLaren has way more money than Honda/Brawn had I am confident that they will rebound next year.

Brawn may have been lacking money, but the 2008 Honda certainly did not and arguably the next car they were building was the "most expensive F1 car of all times" or so it was claimed.

[jens]

The budget talk is pretty relative. Sometimes we have seen teams with lack of funds creating good cars, i.e Lotus in 2012-13, because they had good depth and designers in the team. Renault's budget in 2005-06 arguably did not quite match some others on the grid either. We have seen teams with big budgets (even Ferrari/McLaren) struggling, because at that period they did not have enough depth in the team. Budget helps, but it is just part of the overall game.

By the way, I am not convinced budget-wise McLaren really is up there. They do not have title sponsorship still, do they? I suspect Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes may well be better-funded at this stage, though I think McLaren is probably ahead of Williams.

[Mintexmemory]

My point is that the 2008 was so bad they started working on the 2009 very very early.
Considering McLaren has way more money than Honda/Brawn had I am confident that they will rebound next year.

If you had heard that engine live (as I did last weekend) you'd know it isn't McLaren's development fund that's required. My belief is that the engine is a dog -it sounds rough and flat and both drivers were suffering problems feeding in the power at standing starts. Running in the race they were only really better than Force India and Manor, not really where you'd have expected them to be on chassis design history!

[AndyL]

Umm... But teams even with big budgets have been struggling. Certainly you don't consider Toyota, BAR-Honda, BMW as teams with "insufficient budgets".

Toyota certainly had a budget sufficient to be a consistent title contender, which is why I mentioned them in the last sentence of my post. BAR and BMW, I don't know about - were they the biggest spenders on the grid or very close to it? That's what I mean by sufficient to be a "power," i.e. a team that can regularly be a genuine title challenger, not just win a race or two now and then. Money doesn't guarantee success. But lack of it guarantees failure. I'm arguing that is why, for example, Mercedes were not a power in 2010-12. Not because they needed time to patiently build. If Mercedes had put big funding in from the start, they would have been contenders in 2011 in my view.

I think you are right that McLaren does not have that level of funding. That's why I said "If right now Honda are spending money at the rate they did during 2008..." I doubt they are, for the reason that I mentioned earlier - it takes a backer several years to come to terms with the size of the commitment they actually need to make. They always imagine that somehow a midfield budget coupled with their awesome management skill will do the job. Honda learned this lesson once already, but that was 7 years ago now and corporate memories are short.

[Tazio]

In the real world it's actually quite obvious that funding is not the issue for McLaren-Honda this season . The PU and many of it's ancillary devises are simply too compact. Expect to see major modifications with the use of all 9 development tokens by Austria, along with modifications by Prodromou on the aero side to accommodate them, as they are still coming to grips with the overall disadvantage of his original vision of the zero packaging concept.

Expect material changes in the:
Turbocharger
Valve train
Combustion chamber
MGU-H
MGU-K