(11-03-2016, 12:02)ethernet escribió: Entrevistas traducidas por Muramasa de Hasegawa:


 Day 1      
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71377

• (on the coolant issue that occured on day 4 of last week's testing where they only managed 3 laps) We havent yet fully identified the exact cause of water leak last weekend, but we consider it's highly probable that vacuuming (air removal/extract/exhausting or whatever is called in the chamber) was not enough so some air remained inside it, which incurred damage to the sealing. Therefore, while we brought the same spec as last test, this time we made sure to pay extra care to conduct air extraction.
  

-------------------------------

• (on the stoppage just before lunch) Some trouble happened to control software so we sent out an order to stop the car to the driver from the pit.
  
  
• Of course the position in timesheet is encouraging, but we still dont know where we are. To be honest we wanted to run more today (day 1). With today's lap count (of 92 laps), we would only reach 2000km with 4-days total, so we want to run a lot more before the opening race.
  

 
     Day 2      
http://as-web.jp/new...fo.php?no=71410

• Today the driver wasnt satisfied with car. The chassis setting was out of shape so driver couldnt press throttle with confidence. It's testing so I dont think it's relevant to talk about car performance at this point, but we are disappointed at least with the fact that driver wasnt satisfied with today's car feeling.
  
  
• we made various data tuning works towards the opening race today as well, and I reckon we are reaching the final stage.
  
  
• We cant feel relieved with 121 laps today because one of rivals made almost 150laps. But at least we could confirm we made progress from last year.
  

 
      Day 3        
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71440

• When the chassis condition is not so good, even if we conduct evaluation on PU it's impossible to get precise feedback/evaluation. So we'd like to wait a bit on that.
  
  
• However with current situation, impression is that it's getting difficult to achieve the initial target of reaching Q3 constantly.
  
  
• We homologated PU on 28 Feb. So, it is ok to consider it very positive that the PU of homologated spec has been running without trouble so far since 1st March, I reckon.
  

 
      Day 4      
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71473

• The last 4 days I think we could prove reliability by being able to run properly
  
  
• It was crucial that we could prove it to the team and the drivers that Honda has improved PU not just by words but also by presenting it as tangible form.
  
  
• That I could find out that the members who developed this power unit are reliable enough, I'm frankly pleased about it. From now we go back to Sakura and want to proceed the task together by discussing with everyone
  

 
 
 
===============================================
 
 
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71496
Hasegawa interview conducted after finishing all the winter testing
(presumably at the end of Day 4 (of 2nd session) joint interview. some quotes are same as "day 4 quotes". Actually some are same as day 3's etc but article claims this interview is post 2nd session anyway. often you get asked same question and say same things, so shud be fine.)
 
----------------- how do you summarize/describe the testing sessions?

• I'm pleased frankly. Regarding power unit, it ran through the final 4 days properly. We still couldnt reach to the targeted mileage, but as long as the 2nd testing session is concerned, we could prove reliability I think.
  

---------------- how are you going to conduct verification for the mileage you missed to cover?

• We have already conducted reliability checks of power unit alone. But various unexpected troubles can occur when put on the actual car environment, so you have to run it on track to see what will actually happen, so we wanted to run as much as possible at the test. From now on, we will bring back this PU to Sakura and verify it again by running it on dyno simulating the condition in which the PU was run during testings.
  

-------------------- is it ok to consider that this PU is final spec for opening race?

• we already homologated on 28 Feb. This PU that's been running since 1st March is the same spec as that. Therefore we consider it positive that it went through the final 4 days without trouble.
  

 
-------------------------- are there anything you wanted to do more for Melbourne?

• The task on pu side at the final testing was to confirm reliability by actual on track running, and make final data setting for the race.
  
  
• Regarding reliability, we will continue conducting validation at Sakura as I just told.
  
  
• Regarding data setting, actually we wanted to make more adjustment for the opening race, but we discussed with the team and decided to not make the PU adjustment but prioritize and use track time for chassis setup instead, so we have some things unfinished.
  

---------------------- At the 1st session, you had an feedback that deployment has been improved. How do drivers evaluate other aspects of PU?

• For 2nd session, wind was strong plus we fell into a situation where chassis setup couldnt be settled, so it was difficult condition. In such situation, it's impossible to get proper evaluation/feedback on PU even if you want to, so we'd like to wait a bit about that.
  
  
• Still, drivers have understood that power output incl. deployment has increased on data. However laptimes arent good, and I guess drivers always want more power.
  

--------------------------- the delay in chassis setup is concern.

• In this time's testing, we are gathering data for various aero parts, so we havent reached the stage where we refine/mature setting yet. Therefore, Eric is saying "not worried yet" as well about not being able to make proper setting. Most likely we are set to introduce more new aero parts, and OZ package should be different from the package of this testing, so it's no use to strike precise setting at this testing.
  

 
---------------------------- any concern?

• to be honest, impression is that it's getting difficult to achieve the initial target of reaching Q3 constantly with this testing form. However, we could obtain a lot of useful data such as aero change/transformation and tyre degradation. McLaren is competitive team, so I'm sure they'll make good preparation taking good advantage of the data.
  

 
------------------------ For project leader Hasegawa-san, this testing was your first job as the project leader.

• Grasping the situation of team operation, how to progress it and technical matters was my important task for this time, so I could deepen my understanding about these quite a bit. For example, the power unit we run here has been developed by technicians at Sakura before I was appointed as this position, and I havent been involved with it at all. But I'm pleased to be able to find out that the direction we've been taking wasnt wrong and the staff are trustable enough. Now I'd like to go back to Sakura and proceed the task by discussing with everyone.
  

 
-------------------- could you tell us about the objective for this season

• Reaching Q3 constantly. That equals that you are in a position to be able to fight for points always. For a starter we have to target there. It's no way to say "we'll do our best for 14th". Of course, looking at timesheets at testing alone, I'm aware that it's not easy thing to achieve, but this machine has that much potential, also McLaren have excellent staffs who are capable of extracting performance to that level, so I believe they will do it.
  

 
--------------------------- what is the objective for Honda as power unit supplier?

• Of course want to beat the champion Mercedes. There is no point to participate in F1 as Honda unless you aim at that. After all, the target is to supply No.1 power unit, engine. However, it's not a realistic target that can be achieved immediately, but the target as an engineer. So, I do not intend to declare when we will surpass them.
  

 
 
 
=================
 
 
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71533
another Hasegawa interview, seems at the end of day 4
 
-------------------------- how much are you satisfied with the preparation for opening race?

• Regarding power unit, at least we could confirm reliability. It's crucial that it didnt hamper chassis development. Regarding chassis, looks like there is still quite a ways to go about setting, but mclaren is capable team, so i think we could gather enough data for updates and setup towards Melbourne
  

 
----------------------- who do you think will be rivals?

• All of them (laughs). Still all teams are rivals. Of course we are aiming for the top so we want to be rivals of upper teams as well.
  

 
----------------- what is your objective as individual?

• For now I cannot think of anything else than this job, so I want to grow up myself to be able to contribute to the team.....oh and I want to make my English better (laughs)
  

------------------------ as far as I see press conference etc, I think you are quite good

• not at all, I want to be able to speak in a way that British people wouldnt think I'm stupid.
  

 
------------ what would you like Japanese fans to look at?

• I wish they look at how Honda fight/challenge and cheer us.
  

 
-------------------- Can we see McLaren Honda that's different from previously?

• The term "different" is not correct/appropriate I reckon. This year's car has been developed based on the experience gained during last year, so we have this year only thanks to last year. I'd like you to watch Honda that's "further advanced", not "different from before". I believe the degree of advancement is bigger than other teams.
  

 
 
 
===========
 
 
 
http://sportiva.shue.../03/09/post_31/
Hasegawa quotes from testing summary article (so those quotes are from either of 8 days but seems mostly from 2nd session)
 
 

• We brought PU that's incorporated with the final spec of intake system. Thanks to that, we could run PU at full power quite stably, as well as progress data tuning quite a bit. There was no problem in hardware on power unit side. I find it positive in terms of trust with team as well as drivers that we could show Honda's progress and that it didnt hamper the testing on chassis side.
  

• Reliability first and foremost. No matter what the trouble is about, if you stop you dont have rights to participate in race.
  

• No point to be greedy too much, so we have to be content somewhat with the current situation in the sense that we go / take it step by step, but you can't help getting greedy gradually after all. Looking at today's performance, perhaps it's getting bit difficult to achieve our target of reaching Q3 constantly at least.
  

• It's difficult to talk about performance at this moment, but at least driver wasnt satisfied with car's feeling, so that is shame. The car was out of shape so much that drivers couldnt push / press throttle, so it's no use to ask for feedback on power unit to be honest. We were supposed to make more long runs, but looks like driver didnt like the car so came back to the pit early, so.
  

• We havent set good lap times yet, but mclaren is such capable team, so those data will be useful/helpful in the future i'm sure. The car that will run at melbourne will be of quite different spec, so we think we could gather enough data in order for optimizing it towards melbourne.
  
  

A mi lo que más me llama la atención es que ve un poco dificil lo de entrar en Q3 (estar entre los 8 primeros) de forma costante.

Menciona problemas del coche que no han dejado evaluar claramente la potencia de la PU, y que no han hecho vueltas rápidas ni simulaciones porque los pilotos no estaban a gusto con el coche.

La pelota ahora está en el tejado de los ingleses. Después de 2015, resulta que el chasis ha sido el factor limitante en estos tests de 2016. 

Eso es genial, porque Mclaren es supercapaz de solucionar los problemas de la suspensión trasera y de aerodinámica en muy poco tiempo. Y tenemos un equipo técnico excelente en ese aspecto.

Es dificil decir si será para Australia o llevará unos GPs, pero si ahora están dudando si lo de los tests da para Q3, en poco tiempo estaremos ahí instalados, y para la evolución de Barcelona y cuando sea la de la PU en base a las ideas de Hasegawa (y el supuesto secreto de Mercedes que ya conocen), el coche va a darle a Fernando la posibilidad de luchar con Ferrari, y seguramente en algunos GPs de chasis y piloto, con Mercedes.

Yo sigo optimista, y creo que si la suerte nos acompaña por una vez, para Melbourne hay un coche para pelear de tu a tú con Red-Bull y Williams.

optimista con razones ,, y lo mejor es que serà progresivo y que podremos disfrutarlo ,,, lo de ver a Mclaren por delante de los ferraris me hace *******   ,,,  ,,,

super-post  a una semana del inicio del campeonato ,,,esto va a ser la  Fête  Total  ,,,  o mejor  Mobil  ,,, por lo del sponsor   

Las espadas en todo lo alto. No hay que desfallecer. Después de haber llegado tan lejos, no.
Gracias Ethernet.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

(10-03-2016, 15:08)payoloco escribió:

(10-03-2016, 13:53)DE-ZETA-TE escribió: ...
La F1 necesita otro Golpe de Estado como el que dió Bernie en los 80. Urgentemente.

Te remarco tu último frase capi, porque no solo me parece que has dado en el clavo....es que tiene huevos que así sea....tiene narices que entendamos que nuestras esperanzas pasen porque alguién pare los pies a la FIA con estas estúpidas normativas que nadie entiende, y que alguién pare los pies a los equipos en esta lucha de todos contra todos por mantenerse en sus trece.

Me veo hace 8 o 10 años diciendo que Bernie puede ser la solución a los males de la F1, y yo creo que me abofeteo a mi mismo.


En serio....qué han hecho con la F1? Por qué??

Buenos días chicos; esto de reducir el poder de Bernie contrapesándolo con el poder de Jean ha resultado al final cagarla en el "Problema de Monty Hall".

Nos enseñaron una de las cabras y nos llevaron a todos al huerto para elegir a un cabrón. Y nos quedamos sin "coche"... SIEMPRE HAY QUE CAMBIAR... Ecclestone (y Red Bull, puede que ahora Ferrari) y Todt (y Mercedes) son dos caras de la misma falsa moneda...



Hay que cambiar. Y lo que hay que cambiar son sólo dos cosas, que son las que sistemáticamente están fallando desde hace por lo menos 9 años:

1) Hay que permitir, incluso obligar a, competir a los equipos y motoristas que hay detrás. De verdad y sin artificios. I+D+I vs. I+D+I; y esto sólo se puede conseguir deshaciéndose de esa maraña infecta y ridícula de normas restrictivas, que no permiten evolucionar un monoplaza y que perpetuan los períodos de dominio (que siempre los hubo en F1) por años incontables. Esto ha pasado siempre. Pero ahora es mucho más difícil contrarrestar los logros técnicos que le dan la superioridad a quien acierta (o le hacen acertar) en un cambio reglamentario grande. Y esto es porque no se permiten las pruebas qué o posibilitarían copiarlo al resto, incluso mejorándolo, o el poder explorar otras vías dentro del reglamento de referencia, que permitan anular esa ventaja. Y (PARA MÍ) NO HAY MÁS... ¿O SÍ?...

El resto cuentos chinos; el supuesto "control presupuestario" se vá al garete cada vez que ponen un nuevo parche o permiten una ilegalidad (dobles difusores, KERS, DRS, difusores soplados, TC encubierto, cambios de gomas injustificados e injustificables, normativa V6T desarrollada únicamente desde la propuesta tecnológica ya desarrollada de uno de los equipos, FRIC "descafeinado"...); la verdadera competencia tecnológica no existe....

Me pregunto si no influirá sobremanera en la actual situación que los fabricantes generalistas, ahora sí, obtengan un beneficio mucho más directo y evidente para sus cadenas de montaje, de las tecnologías aplicadas en esta nueva F1 Hybrid. En el pasado, con V10 y V8, incluso con V6T antiguos que superaban los 1000CV, no era tan sencillo trasladar los logros tecnológicos de la competición a los coches de calle. Simplemente muchas de las soluciones de pista eran técnicamente inviables, y económicamente prohibitivas, como para ser aplicadas en la fabricación masiva de automóviles. Y con todo y con eso había transferencia de tecnología (neumáticos modernos, discos y sistemas de freno de alto rendimiento, suspensiones pilotadas, controles electrónicos de tracción y estabilidad, cajas de cambio semiautomáticas o secuenciales, recuperadores de energía en frenada, soluciones aerodinámicas y materiales avanzados; fibra de carbono, duraluminio, composites...)... Pero creo que era mucho menor, en realidad, pues a nivel propulsores (lo más importante) es cierto que se obtuvo el turbo y las inyecciones modernas, el commom rail de alta presión, electrónicas más avanzadas, mejoras en combustibles y combustión... Pero actualmente las Hybrid desplegadas en la F1 son, literalmente, el futuro del automóvil. Una auténtica revolución. Tecnología directamente transferible. Al menos mientras el petróleo barato sea accesible. Y para un futuro más lejano, full electric, ya está la Formula E...

¿Si has logrado una tecnología Hybrid revolucionaria, que puede ser directamente aplicada en las cadenas de montaje de las que vives, y que supone una enorme ventaja comercial y de márketing... estarías dispuesto a que tus competidores lo tuvieran más fácil para investigarlas, copiarlas y anular tu ventaja? ¿y que pudieran rivalizar con tu predominio, en el escaparate de la F1? Está claro que tu competencia puede desarrollarlas en sus laboratorios ordinarios. Pero investigarlas en un entorno extremo como es la alta competición, con el retorno que supone la publicidad y difusión de la Categoría Reina, se me antoja sumamente apetecible. A esto probablemente responderán en los próximos años las cifras de ventas de Hybrid de Mercedes, frente a las de BMW, Grupo VAG, Toyota, Honda, Renault... etc.

¿Qué no estaría dispuesta a hacer una gran marca automovilística por ésto? ¿A quién, y con qué, no estaría dispuesta a corromper? Red Bull sólo es un fabricante de bebidas, y ha llegado a los extremos que ha llegado en F1 sólo por la imagen, el retorno de publicidad, y el ego de su fundador y presidente. Así que vosotros me diréis.


2) Hay que permitir, incluso obligar a, competir a los pilotos sólo con su talento y capacidades; y esto sólo se puede conseguir si las normas eliminan las excesivas facilidades que se dan actualmente. Los mejores, los buenos buenos de verdad, brillan sobre todo en la extrema dificultad, en las últimas décimas y centésimas.

Si tienes en cuenta lo anterior del punto 1 y lo sumas a que los monoplazas actuales son hasta 4 sg. más lentos que los de hace 10 años; que son físicamente mucho menos exigentes; que tienen muchas ayudas artificiales; que les teledirigen desde boxes; y que las diferencias debidas al coche son de segundos, cuando antes eran de décimas... ¿en qué lugar deja todo eso a un gran piloto en un mal coche? ¿y a uno normalito en un monoplaza apabullantemente dominante? Con menos diferencias abismales, debidas sobre todo a tu material, habría más pelea, tendrías que ser mejor para destacar. No te valdría ser bueno, conduciendo con un brazo fuera del copick, para ganar. No te valdría con saber gestionar, o ser gestionado, para vencer un GP; mucho menos todo un Campeonato.

Y luego está lo de los dobles raseros. Las cacicadas. En el escenario que os he dibujado... ¿se entiende mejor por qué putean tanto a Fernando? Alonso es el único factor desequilibrante que queda dentro de esta maldita ecuación; él es el único capaz de ganarte un campeonato con el tercer coche; es al único que tienen que tener atado con correa corta, para que no haya sustos tipo 2005 y 2006; además el tipo no traga y lo denuncia siempre que puede; es un rebelde, y a los rebeldes hay que domarlos o eliminarlos; y encima es muy bueno, el mejor con mucha diferencia... Si Alonso no hubiera sido laminado por su propio equipo en 2007 ¿qué habría pasado los años siguientes? ¿y si hubiera fichado por Red Bull, en vez de ir a Ferrari? ¿y si la Scuderia se hubiera modernizado de verdad, y hubiera peleado por Fernando como lo hizo por Michael? ¿o si hubiera habido trueque en 2014 con Hamilton? ¿y que pasará si Honda despierta, y esa maravilla de McLaren tiene una PU al nivel de Mercedes?

Osea que el tipo con el tercer coche puede joderte el montaje. Y además es español, dónde ni las audiencias, ni los contratos televisivos, ni mucho menos los patrocinios, llegan a la altura del zapato de los de UK o Alemania...

El que no lo crea que coja otros ejemplos: ¿cual fué el origen de las putadas que se comió Montoya? ¿por qué a Kubica nunca le dieron un buen coche? ¿y a Hulkenberg? ¿por qué están haciendo lo que están haciendo con Carlos?

Espero haber contestado a tus preguntas, payo...

No puedo, evidentemente, poner un emoticono alegre o cómplice... Menudo Panorama tíos...

JCastle .... muchísimas gracias por un aporte tan currado, tan gráfico y hecho con tanto talento y cariño!!

Es un lujo para este Foro este tipo de foreros y este tipo de colaboraciones, que suman con criterio en vez de restar con ignorancia.

A mí me parece una excelente iniciativa retomar aquel hilo y aquellos post de RFactor y colaboraciones con las vueltas virtuales a los circuitos. Sobre todo por dar a conocer al resto de Safetys, a aquellos más gamer, este maravilloso simulador.

Por mí toda tuya la iniciativa, campeón!! Hablaló con admin por mp.


Os dejo link aquí que he encontrado, a aquella primera iniciativa:

http://safety-car.es/Hilo-%C2%BFMono-de-...?pid=11640&highlight=RFactor#pid11640

El subforo de RFactor era http://safety-car.es/rfactor/index.php ... pero creo que se archivó o borró

De todos aquellos "locos gamer" de RFactor recuerdo a Mike DeTo, bostik, kokomo, fernando155... pero hace mucho que no les veo postear. Por supuesto a dazz, que nos sigue regalando con su compañía y sabias opiniones. Te recomiendo comentarlo también con él.

Gracias de nuevo tío...

(11-03-2016, 12:02)ethernet escribió: Entrevistas traducidas por Muramasa de Hasegawa:


 Day 1      
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71377

• (on the coolant issue that occured on day 4 of last week's testing where they only managed 3 laps) We havent yet fully identified the exact cause of water leak last weekend, but we consider it's highly probable that vacuuming (air removal/extract/exhausting or whatever is called in the chamber) was not enough so some air remained inside it, which incurred damage to the sealing. Therefore, while we brought the same spec as last test, this time we made sure to pay extra care to conduct air extraction.
  

-------------------------------

• (on the stoppage just before lunch) Some trouble happened to control software so we sent out an order to stop the car to the driver from the pit.
  
  
• Of course the position in timesheet is encouraging, but we still dont know where we are. To be honest we wanted to run more today (day 1). With today's lap count (of 92 laps), we would only reach 2000km with 4-days total, so we want to run a lot more before the opening race.
  

 
     Day 2      
http://as-web.jp/new...fo.php?no=71410

• Today the driver wasnt satisfied with car. The chassis setting was out of shape so driver couldnt press throttle with confidence. It's testing so I dont think it's relevant to talk about car performance at this point, but we are disappointed at least with the fact that driver wasnt satisfied with today's car feeling.
  
  
• we made various data tuning works towards the opening race today as well, and I reckon we are reaching the final stage.
  
  
• We cant feel relieved with 121 laps today because one of rivals made almost 150laps. But at least we could confirm we made progress from last year.
  

 
      Day 3        
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71440

• When the chassis condition is not so good, even if we conduct evaluation on PU it's impossible to get precise feedback/evaluation. So we'd like to wait a bit on that.
  
  
• However with current situation, impression is that it's getting difficult to achieve the initial target of reaching Q3 constantly.
  
  
• We homologated PU on 28 Feb. So, it is ok to consider it very positive that the PU of homologated spec has been running without trouble so far since 1st March, I reckon.
  

 
      Day 4      
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71473

• The last 4 days I think we could prove reliability by being able to run properly
  
  
• It was crucial that we could prove it to the team and the drivers that Honda has improved PU not just by words but also by presenting it as tangible form.
  
  
• That I could find out that the members who developed this power unit are reliable enough, I'm frankly pleased about it. From now we go back to Sakura and want to proceed the task together by discussing with everyone
  

 
 
 
===============================================
 
 
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71496
Hasegawa interview conducted after finishing all the winter testing
(presumably at the end of Day 4 (of 2nd session) joint interview. some quotes are same as "day 4 quotes". Actually some are same as day 3's etc but article claims this interview is post 2nd session anyway. often you get asked same question and say same things, so shud be fine.)
 
----------------- how do you summarize/describe the testing sessions?

• I'm pleased frankly. Regarding power unit, it ran through the final 4 days properly. We still couldnt reach to the targeted mileage, but as long as the 2nd testing session is concerned, we could prove reliability I think.
  

---------------- how are you going to conduct verification for the mileage you missed to cover?

• We have already conducted reliability checks of power unit alone. But various unexpected troubles can occur when put on the actual car environment, so you have to run it on track to see what will actually happen, so we wanted to run as much as possible at the test. From now on, we will bring back this PU to Sakura and verify it again by running it on dyno simulating the condition in which the PU was run during testings.
  

-------------------- is it ok to consider that this PU is final spec for opening race?

• we already homologated on 28 Feb. This PU that's been running since 1st March is the same spec as that. Therefore we consider it positive that it went through the final 4 days without trouble.
  

 
-------------------------- are there anything you wanted to do more for Melbourne?

• The task on pu side at the final testing was to confirm reliability by actual on track running, and make final data setting for the race.
  
  
• Regarding reliability, we will continue conducting validation at Sakura as I just told.
  
  
• Regarding data setting, actually we wanted to make more adjustment for the opening race, but we discussed with the team and decided to not make the PU adjustment but prioritize and use track time for chassis setup instead, so we have some things unfinished.
  

---------------------- At the 1st session, you had an feedback that deployment has been improved. How do drivers evaluate other aspects of PU?

• For 2nd session, wind was strong plus we fell into a situation where chassis setup couldnt be settled, so it was difficult condition. In such situation, it's impossible to get proper evaluation/feedback on PU even if you want to, so we'd like to wait a bit about that.
  
  
• Still, drivers have understood that power output incl. deployment has increased on data. However laptimes arent good, and I guess drivers always want more power.
  

--------------------------- the delay in chassis setup is concern.

• In this time's testing, we are gathering data for various aero parts, so we havent reached the stage where we refine/mature setting yet. Therefore, Eric is saying "not worried yet" as well about not being able to make proper setting. Most likely we are set to introduce more new aero parts, and OZ package should be different from the package of this testing, so it's no use to strike precise setting at this testing.
  

 
---------------------------- any concern?

• to be honest, impression is that it's getting difficult to achieve the initial target of reaching Q3 constantly with this testing form. However, we could obtain a lot of useful data such as aero change/transformation and tyre degradation. McLaren is competitive team, so I'm sure they'll make good preparation taking good advantage of the data.
  

 
------------------------ For project leader Hasegawa-san, this testing was your first job as the project leader.

• Grasping the situation of team operation, how to progress it and technical matters was my important task for this time, so I could deepen my understanding about these quite a bit. For example, the power unit we run here has been developed by technicians at Sakura before I was appointed as this position, and I havent been involved with it at all. But I'm pleased to be able to find out that the direction we've been taking wasnt wrong and the staff are trustable enough. Now I'd like to go back to Sakura and proceed the task by discussing with everyone.
  

 
-------------------- could you tell us about the objective for this season

• Reaching Q3 constantly. That equals that you are in a position to be able to fight for points always. For a starter we have to target there. It's no way to say "we'll do our best for 14th". Of course, looking at timesheets at testing alone, I'm aware that it's not easy thing to achieve, but this machine has that much potential, also McLaren have excellent staffs who are capable of extracting performance to that level, so I believe they will do it.
  

 
--------------------------- what is the objective for Honda as power unit supplier?

• Of course want to beat the champion Mercedes. There is no point to participate in F1 as Honda unless you aim at that. After all, the target is to supply No.1 power unit, engine. However, it's not a realistic target that can be achieved immediately, but the target as an engineer. So, I do not intend to declare when we will surpass them.
  

 
 
 
=================
 
 
http://as-web.jp/new...c_id=1&no=71533
another Hasegawa interview, seems at the end of day 4
 
-------------------------- how much are you satisfied with the preparation for opening race?

• Regarding power unit, at least we could confirm reliability. It's crucial that it didnt hamper chassis development. Regarding chassis, looks like there is still quite a ways to go about setting, but mclaren is capable team, so i think we could gather enough data for updates and setup towards Melbourne
  

 
----------------------- who do you think will be rivals?

• All of them (laughs). Still all teams are rivals. Of course we are aiming for the top so we want to be rivals of upper teams as well.
  

 
----------------- what is your objective as individual?

• For now I cannot think of anything else than this job, so I want to grow up myself to be able to contribute to the team.....oh and I want to make my English better (laughs)
  

------------------------ as far as I see press conference etc, I think you are quite good

• not at all, I want to be able to speak in a way that British people wouldnt think I'm stupid.
  

 
------------ what would you like Japanese fans to look at?

• I wish they look at how Honda fight/challenge and cheer us.
  

 
-------------------- Can we see McLaren Honda that's different from previously?

• The term "different" is not correct/appropriate I reckon. This year's car has been developed based on the experience gained during last year, so we have this year only thanks to last year. I'd like you to watch Honda that's "further advanced", not "different from before". I believe the degree of advancement is bigger than other teams.
  

 
 
 
===========
 
 
 
http://sportiva.shue.../03/09/post_31/
Hasegawa quotes from testing summary article (so those quotes are from either of 8 days but seems mostly from 2nd session)
 
 

• We brought PU that's incorporated with the final spec of intake system. Thanks to that, we could run PU at full power quite stably, as well as progress data tuning quite a bit. There was no problem in hardware on power unit side. I find it positive in terms of trust with team as well as drivers that we could show Honda's progress and that it didnt hamper the testing on chassis side.
  

• Reliability first and foremost. No matter what the trouble is about, if you stop you dont have rights to participate in race.
  

• No point to be greedy too much, so we have to be content somewhat with the current situation in the sense that we go / take it step by step, but you can't help getting greedy gradually after all. Looking at today's performance, perhaps it's getting bit difficult to achieve our target of reaching Q3 constantly at least.
  

• It's difficult to talk about performance at this moment, but at least driver wasnt satisfied with car's feeling, so that is shame. The car was out of shape so much that drivers couldnt push / press throttle, so it's no use to ask for feedback on power unit to be honest. We were supposed to make more long runs, but looks like driver didnt like the car so came back to the pit early, so.
  

• We havent set good lap times yet, but mclaren is such capable team, so those data will be useful/helpful in the future i'm sure. The car that will run at melbourne will be of quite different spec, so we think we could gather enough data in order for optimizing it towards melbourne.
  
  

A mi lo que más me llama la atención es que ve un poco dificil lo de entrar en Q3 (estar entre los 8 primeros) de forma costante.

Menciona problemas del coche que no han dejado evaluar claramente la potencia de la PU, y que no han hecho vueltas rápidas ni simulaciones porque los pilotos no estaban a gusto con el coche.

La pelota ahora está en el tejado de los ingleses. Después de 2015, resulta que el chasis ha sido el factor limitante en estos tests de 2016. 

Eso es genial, porque Mclaren es supercapaz de solucionar los problemas de la suspensión trasera y de aerodinámica en muy poco tiempo. Y tenemos un equipo técnico excelente en ese aspecto.

Es dificil decir si será para Australia o llevará unos GPs, pero si ahora están dudando si lo de los tests da para Q3, en poco tiempo estaremos ahí instalados, y para la evolución de Barcelona y cuando sea la de la PU en base a las ideas de Hasegawa (y el supuesto secreto de Mercedes que ya conocen), el coche va a darle a Fernando la posibilidad de luchar con Ferrari, y seguramente en algunos GPs de chasis y piloto, con Mercedes.

Yo sigo optimista, y creo que si la suerte nos acompaña por una vez, para Melbourne hay un coche para pelear de tu a tú con Red-Bull y Williams.

"Yo sigo optimista.... "
Y tanto.Más del 90% de los comentarios que leo al azar, incluso sin ver quién lo escribe, acierto. "Este debe de ser de Ethernet" Y no suelo fallar...jajaja  

Bestial ethernet....

... voy a leerlo en cuanto tenga un ratín, y luego comento...

NIVELAZO de POST y APORTES, SEÑORES.

NI-VE-LA-ZO

McLaren Soul ‏@McLaren_Soul 58 minil y a 58 minutes Voir la traduction
Exclusive Q&A with Honda's Yusuke Hasegawa http://en.f1i.com/magazine/46354-exclusi...egawa.html …

Muchísimas gracias ethernet por el curro, estaba deseando tener una perspectiva japo del tema

Yo creo que nos llevará igual un par de GP, sigo encabezonado. Pero antes de que nos demos cuenta nos hemos acostumbrado a entrar en Q3 de forma natural (ojo, que son 8 coches).

En Australia igual pagamos el pato, yo ya dije que creía que iba a ser una especie de súper test, pero al no ser un trazado convencional, etc... Veremos.

Compare every F1 car of 2016 from every angle http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/07/co...ery-angle/ …

(11-03-2016, 13:24)enrike hu fr escribió: McLaren Soul ‏@McLaren_Soul  58 minil y a 58 minutes Voir la traduction
Exclusive Q&A with Honda's Yusuke Hasegawa http://en.f1i.com/magazine/46354-exclusi...egawa.html …

Obviously you want more mileage, so did you approach testing in a way of getting mileage or did you try to explore the performance of the engine knowing reliability issues may pop up?

“The latter. Without using the full performance then it has no meaning. It is a balance, but it's a very important point finding out how much performance we have to produce but also keeping in mind the reliability.”