I'd personally argue that it was McLaren R+D that delivered his titles.
I'd personally argue that it was McLaren R+D that delivered his titles.
I am the Stig
You need to grasp the nettle. McClaren is now a household name young people throw around cheaply but in those days Ron Dennis was a small struggling chassis maker (NOTE "maker" not designer) himself and it was the power unit who brought the reliability on which it is commonly known races are won. I saw most of those races but I do understand though historical TV coverage could have been confusing for TV spectators.
Last edited by v.6; 03-23-2008 at 09:03 AM.
I tend to disagree. McLaren was by no means small in the late 80's. They'd been winning races for many years by then, even titles. The engine of course is an important part of the performance of the car, moreso back then due to the high levels of drag, but McLaren were responsible for alot more than Honda. The reliability may have been a key issue, but thats something that has become more important these days. From 84-91, the points system even factored in poor reliability by only counting the best 11 of 16 finishes.
I am the Stig
If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.
(Ted Joans)
Furthermore the chassis of the Honda engined McLarens were designed by Gordon Murray, who had previously designed championship winning Brabhams and of course the McLaren F1 road car. The Honda engines were good, but the chassis, drivers and management made the difference. In fact Senna hated the Honda V12 engine of 1991.
Last edited by Wouter Melissen; 03-23-2008 at 08:37 AM.
If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.
(Ted Joans)
Rest assured F1 has never factored anything in to compensate for unreliability, quite the opposite, they punish unreliability, and so there your credentials as a contributor to this string end as its commonly understood in racing that from engine reliability you win world titles - cars that don`t finish races don´t win. But the final point, we may remember, was Honda...and their power unit was winning perfectly well under the Williams chassis in F1 too. The point being a bike manufacturer from Japan dominated the global motor racing scene and that is not the mark of an "underachiever" as suggested by the author.
We are of course grateful for the veiled credit you give to Honda F1 engines (they were "good") although I am not sure of your qualifications in F1 engine blueprint. Sorry also if I said Dennis was the designer, I cant remember using that word. Ron Dennis signed the cheques and so McCLaren was still indeed the "maker" but the thread is about Honda being described as an "under achiever". Incidentally, its globally accepted that slow reliable cars can win races too but very few fast ones that break down win world titles. NOTE Just checked and I did not describe Dennis as the designer..."maker" as I thought.
Last edited by v.6; 03-23-2008 at 09:06 AM.
Yes Honda has not been very impressive since 1991. So they underachieved. Even more so if we follow your logic that the previous championships were down to the mighty Honda R&D department. Honda have been trying on their own for several years now and have absolutely nothing to show for. They are either underachieving or not capable of producing a championship winning machine.
If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.
(Ted Joans)
Thats because they never even compted in F1 from then until 1998. Anyway, by your logic anybody who is not on the podium next F1 race is under achieving and not capable of producing a winning car? Your other piece of logic was the chassis was more important than the engine. Ask Prost, Piquet, Senna, Mansell and even Button who says they are back on track-forgive the pun) My question to you is would Mr. Dennis prefer then to loose Mercedes power next year or his faithful chassis designer. No, actually competing in F1 is in itself a major achievement and a massive commitment my friend, winning is only the pinnacle of a very steep hill which Honda are happy to continue to climb, and what they have to show (nothing according to you) are developments transferred to their production vehicles.
Last edited by v.6; 03-23-2008 at 10:05 AM.
As i stated, F1 for many years didnt count the championship on every result as they do now. Those years included those of the turbo era, where the engines had a striking similarity to a hand grenade, especially at Monza or Hockenheim! If unreliability is to be punished, then why allow for 4 results not to count, yet still have them as championship rounds?
Excuse me?and so there your credentials as a contributor to this string end
I'm not attempting to dispute that, i simply stated that until the 90's unreliability wasnt punished as it is today. From 1950-53, the best 4 scores only counted to the championship for example. '54-'57 the best 5. '58-'66 it changed between 5 and 6 scores for different years. The number of scoring races continued to fluctuate through the 70's and 80's, with between 2-4 races never counting to the championship.as its commonly understood in racing that from engine reliability you win world titles - cars that don`t finish races don´t win.
As did the Renault engine between Williams and Benneton, or the Cosworths that once stood opposed only by the V12 Ferrari's. Good engines mated with good chassis' usually remain as good packages. Not since the 60's has a good engine or a good chassis overcome a poor equivalent and made an overall good package.But the final point, we may remember, was Honda...and their power unit was winning perfectly well under the Williams chassis in F1 too.
Honda as an engine supplier had their success. Theres alot of conjecture over how strong the influence Honda had with Williams and McLaren, but the engine was clearly their R+D. Honda as a manufacturer have been nowhere, with 1 solitary win and a string of podiums.The point being a bike manufacturer from Japan dominated the global motor racing scene and that is not the mark of an "underachiever" as suggested by the author.
I am the Stig
Only the loss of inertia from their withdrawl from F1 in 1993 for over five years were they absent from the podium but my interest is only in discussing the original authors thread (not mine) and that was that Honda was an "underachiever". Any motor company who can put a man on an F1 podium cannot be described as an underachiever. Remember for those McLaren buffs that even Ron Dennis himself poached Honda power from William in 1988 as it was Honda who had broken the new McLaren/TAG/Barnard power monopoly in the 1986 and 1987 seasons.
Just tell me then that a power unit which Ron Dennis himself poached then won 15 of the next 16 F1 races with (and one which lead in all but 27 laps something thats never been equalled!!!!) and powered Senna, Prost and Piquet to F1 World Crowns is an under achiever and I will happily cancel my new membership to this muppet show?
Last edited by v.6; 03-23-2008 at 10:47 AM.
Both Williams and McLaren have won many, many races and championships since they parted ways with Honda. Honda has won one race since they parted ways with these two highly regarded teams / chassis manufacturers.
Today Ferrari won the race, but the Ferrari engined Force India and Torro Rosso teams were nowhere to be found. Engines are vital, but a lot more is required to create a winning car.
If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.
(Ted Joans)
NO...
List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In fact after six straight back to back world titles for Williams/Honda, McLaren have won only ONE constructors championship since parting company with Honda (1998 season) and Williams have won FIVE constructors world titles since (Thats since 1991.....17 years) I rest my case.
Anyway maybe this is like trying to reason with my five year old dog.....pointless and futile...I throw the bone and he keeps just bringing it back.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)