Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
dimma205 said:
My feeling is its bad for the sport as it will give no new manufacturers any incentive to enter f1. Now the cars as so fundamentally different i feel honda should be allowed to fit the engine to a 3 year car or similar and go testing as the rules in f1 are rubbish with no testing where as years ago you could start the sesson with a bad car and by the end have the best through developments.
This is a good point... any other major manufacturer will look at what Honda is going through and think is it really worth the investment? It certainly looks a very expensive and high risk way to promote your brand. The thing that I find most surprising is that they themselves always seem surprised by how badly things are going.
This goes right back to their first test, post-season 2014 after the Abu Dhabi GP, when it seemed to be the first time they had tried to fire up the engine in an actual car, ever, and they managed five laps over two days of testing. Maybe I'm missing something, but surely you'd do your basic installation and systems checks, things like basic starting and running up to temperature, back in the factory, and not in the full glare of the world's press at the track.
How much test running can they do back at the factory? Could they have an empty industrial building in which they just run the car up and down, obviously at much lower than racing speeds? Something like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RkfWYxgfU0 but run a figure-of-8 loop or something. Accelerate-brake-turn left-accelerate-brake-turn right. They wouldn't be able to do any meaningful performance running for the chassis/aero, but it would be enough to shake out the most basic installation bugs and get the thing to a point where it could do sustained running on a real circuit. That's probably against the rules, though, if they got found out. I'm surprised they don't have a big circular tunnel under the MTC, like a miniature CERN, for test running...
Then there's the argument of dyno testing versus in-car testing. I'm sure Honda have some nice dynos, but just how sophisticated are F1 engine dynos these days? Do they, or any of the teams, have the ability to mount their test engine into a real chassis, complete with bodywork, sidepod radiators, airbox etc, connect it to a hub dyno, then mount the whole lot on a shaker rig inside a wind tunnel?
With all the massive budget I'm sure they're throwing at this endeavour, I would have thought they would be doing everything possible to simulate real running, and not just test on a basic dyno and then throw it into a car without really really knowing how it will perform in the real world, but the evidence just doesn't point to this.
This goes right back to their first test, post-season 2014 after the Abu Dhabi GP, when it seemed to be the first time they had tried to fire up the engine in an actual car, ever, and they managed five laps over two days of testing. Maybe I'm missing something, but surely you'd do your basic installation and systems checks, things like basic starting and running up to temperature, back in the factory, and not in the full glare of the world's press at the track.
How much test running can they do back at the factory? Could they have an empty industrial building in which they just run the car up and down, obviously at much lower than racing speeds? Something like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RkfWYxgfU0 but run a figure-of-8 loop or something. Accelerate-brake-turn left-accelerate-brake-turn right. They wouldn't be able to do any meaningful performance running for the chassis/aero, but it would be enough to shake out the most basic installation bugs and get the thing to a point where it could do sustained running on a real circuit. That's probably against the rules, though, if they got found out. I'm surprised they don't have a big circular tunnel under the MTC, like a miniature CERN, for test running...
Then there's the argument of dyno testing versus in-car testing. I'm sure Honda have some nice dynos, but just how sophisticated are F1 engine dynos these days? Do they, or any of the teams, have the ability to mount their test engine into a real chassis, complete with bodywork, sidepod radiators, airbox etc, connect it to a hub dyno, then mount the whole lot on a shaker rig inside a wind tunnel?
With all the massive budget I'm sure they're throwing at this endeavour, I would have thought they would be doing everything possible to simulate real running, and not just test on a basic dyno and then throw it into a car without really really knowing how it will perform in the real world, but the evidence just doesn't point to this.
thegreenhell said:
Then there's the argument of dyno testing versus in-car testing. I'm sure Honda have some nice dynos, but just how sophisticated are F1 engine dynos these days? Do they, or any of the teams, have the ability to mount their test engine into a real chassis, complete with bodywork, sidepod radiators, airbox etc, connect it to a hub dyno, then mount the whole lot on a shaker rig inside a wind tunnel?
With all the massive budget I'm sure they're throwing at this endeavour, I would have thought they would be doing everything possible to simulate real running, and not just test on a basic dyno and then throw it into a car without really really knowing how it will perform in the real world, but the evidence just doesn't point to this.
A few years ago I went around the Lotus/Renault F1 HQ and they do have a suspension test setup that can mimic bumps and turns at various tracks to replicate an acutal race. At the time the Engineer in charge of it said that when Alonso was at Renault, he could sit in it and knew what track they had in the program from the movement of the car. Now the wheels were not fitted but possibly now they can do static, engine running and wheels turning with all the suspension movement and indeed do what you allude to.With all the massive budget I'm sure they're throwing at this endeavour, I would have thought they would be doing everything possible to simulate real running, and not just test on a basic dyno and then throw it into a car without really really knowing how it will perform in the real world, but the evidence just doesn't point to this.
This is a Honda problem rather than an F1 problem IMO. McLaren ran the hybrid Mercedes engine for a year before switching to Honda so they knew exactly what targets they had to hit, and had a very good idea of what sort of engine would do it.
They've been working on providing such an engine for three years and still haven't managed it. The rules around engine development can be ignored providing you don't actually run the engine during the season (homologate it again in the next year) so why they haven't turned up with a decent engine this year is baffling.
They've been working on providing such an engine for three years and still haven't managed it. The rules around engine development can be ignored providing you don't actually run the engine during the season (homologate it again in the next year) so why they haven't turned up with a decent engine this year is baffling.
DanielSan said:
Merc, Ferrari and Renault all managed it. They can use all the dyno time in the world, Christ they could even stick the donkey in the back of an adapted NSX GT3 car to pound round Suzuka day and night exactly like Ferrari did with the FXX at Fiorano and they chose not to. Every other engine manufacturer has managed to make a reliable engine under the same time constraints. The ONLY thing this highlights is the fact that Honda don't have a team of designers/engineers who are up to the job of creating a current era F1 power unit, and I'd be willing to to bet that they can't do it while having a budget considerably larger than what Renault have thrown at it so far given their engines are designed and made by Ilmor...
Slight confusion over your last line. Which F1 team are Ilmor designing and building engines for?HTP99 said:
thebigmacmoomin said:
rubystone said:
Which F1 team are Ilmor designing and building engines for?
Red Bull last season ?Ilmor engineering is Mario Illien, and they were consulting for Renault last year.
Ilmor & Renault - http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14738671/renau...
MartG said:
Well it looks like Honda's Indycar division hasn't had a problem improving their product - pole position and the win at St Petersburg today
Very different prospect - they're a relatively simple twin-turbo V6 running on high octane fuel. There's not a lot to get wrong. Plus, it's bolted into a standardised chassis, so there's no clever packaging going on.In some ways, it's more like what F1 should be - if we had simple engines like that, but mandated each team had to build their own chassis, it would be a much more competitive sport.
CraigyMc said:
Ilmor engineering is a separate company from Ilmor ltd, which is now called Mercedes Benz hpe.
Ilmor engineering is Mario Illien, and they were consulting for Renault last year.
Yep. Mario provided consultancy to Rob White last year but that's the nearest Ilmor got/get to the current era of F1. But for 2020? They have friends in high places....Ilmor engineering is Mario Illien, and they were consulting for Renault last year.
markcoznottz said:
Brutal sport, the amount of $$$$$$ that Toyota, BMW, and Honda must have spent since 2000 must have been enough to run a small country...
True, and especially Toyota!BMW were at least on the cutting edge of the motor - their problem was that at the time Ferrari had a tyre manufacturer to themselves, unlimited testing, and a massive budget, and that made more of a difference than anything else.
Toyota had excellent facilities - their Cologne tunnel is still in use to date in F1 (Force India use this, and others have, including McLaren). Their corporate ethos didn't allow the team to take advantage of that. Having your chassis guys in Germany doesn't help you use the talent pool from most of the field, which is obviously in England. Decent engines though [edited to add: designed by Luca Marmorini who worked in F1 for Ferrari before and again after Toyota]. Toyota spent more than anyone else and didn't even achieve a single win, despite being competent in just about every area.
Honda's abrupt cessation of F1 in 2009 could easily have been a first championship for Honda as a constructor, had they not pulled out at the last minute. You could argue that Brawn only won because of the Mercedes-Benz engine, which is pretty debatable. It was a little more powerful, but the aero concept of the Brawn car (double diffuser) was certainly the main reason for the success. They had at one time four windtunnels over several teams of people (HRD, Honda F1 UK, Aguri) developing that car under Ross Brawn because he successfully argued to stop developing the 2008 car very early and have a big push for 2009.
HRD actually kept developing the RA109 even after Honda pulled out from F1. This is a separate and distinct car from the Brawn, it never raced, but was built.
Of the three, Honda came closest to actual proper success. It was shortsighted cost-cutting for 2009 that stopped them from capitalising on it.
We all know what happened to the ex-Honda team under Brawn; it won the championship while being shrunk to fit into a meagre budget, then became the Mercedes-Benz F1 team, then had a Brawn-led hiring spree and now are utterly dominant. Don't forget that team was once Honda, and a lot of the staff are the same to this day...
Edited by CraigyMc on Monday 13th March 08:13
CraigyMc said:
markcoznottz said:
Brutal sport, the amount of $$$$$$ that Toyota, BMW, and Honda must have spent since 2000 must have been enough to run a small country...
Honda's abrupt cessation of F1 in 2009 could easily have been a first championship for Honda as a constructor, had they not pulled out at the last minute. You could argue that Brawn only won because of the Mercedes-Benz engine, which is pretty debatable. It was a little more powerful, but the aero concept of the Brawn car (double diffuser) was certainly the main reason for the success. They had at one time four windtunnels over several teams of people (HRD, Honda F1 UK, Aguri) developing that car under Ross Brawn because he successfully argued to stop developing the 2008 car very early and have a big push for 2009.
HRD actually kept developing the RA109 even after Honda pulled out from F1. This is a separate and distinct car from the Brawn, it never raced, but was built.
Of the three, Honda came closest to actual proper success. It was shortsighted cost-cutting for 2009 that stopped them from capitalising on it.
We all know what happened to the ex-Honda team under Brawn; it won the championship while being shrunk to fit into a meagre budget, then became the Mercedes-Benz F1 team, then had a Brawn-led hiring spree and now are utterly dominant. Don't forget that team was once Honda, and a lot of the staff are the same to this day...
Edited by CraigyMc on Monday 13th March 08:13
Fuel is also an issue, Mclaren have lost the backing of a major oil company and the R&D that goes with it.
I wonder if some of the problems might be down to that, we all know how shell & Petronas has helped Ferrari & Mclaren.
Its more likely the engine is a dud, just a shame as we want to see FA at the sharp end of the grid not buggering around in 15th.
I'd also say the hopes of picking up a big title sponsor will be gone until Honda turn it around, would you want to spend £40m a season to have your logo's in 15th or being seen with large amounts of smoke coming out of the car
I wonder if some of the problems might be down to that, we all know how shell & Petronas has helped Ferrari & Mclaren.
Its more likely the engine is a dud, just a shame as we want to see FA at the sharp end of the grid not buggering around in 15th.
I'd also say the hopes of picking up a big title sponsor will be gone until Honda turn it around, would you want to spend £40m a season to have your logo's in 15th or being seen with large amounts of smoke coming out of the car
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff