Honda - another disaster ?

[FourWheelDrift]

revrange said:

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

They'll probably get more TV time if they are breaking down than they would if they were trundling around at the back getting lapped.

They could get sponsorship with a major Vape company.

[MartG]

[rubystone]

revrange said:

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

Haven't McLaren inked a deal with Castrol (BP)?

[Sixpackpert]

rubystone said:

Haven't McLaren inked a deal with Castrol (BP)?

Yes they have.

[carinaman]

RGambo said:

I think it has been mentioned before in various publications and interviews , that Brawn actually won BEACUSE they didn't have the Honda engine. It was by all accounts a little underpowered and quite a bit overweight. Ross Brawns biggest piece of skill/luck was Mercedes offering the engine, which, whilst was set too high in the car to be ideal, was the engine to have and the rest as they say is History.

Reportedly Martin Whitmarsh went to Merc. to petition them to also supply Brawn with engines. Very sporting and altruistic conduct by Whitmarsh.

[rubystone]

carinaman said:

Reportedly Martin Whitmarsh went to Merc. to petition them to also supply Brawn with engines. Very sporting and altruistic conduct by Whitmarsh.

You're correct. He's been responsible for a lot more that isn't widely talked about. Even bankrolled the GP2 career of a current F1 driver too...top chap; too nice for the piranha club though.

[markcoznottz]

carinaman said:

RGambo said:

I think it has been mentioned before in various publications and interviews , that Brawn actually won BEACUSE they didn't have the Honda engine. It was by all accounts a little underpowered and quite a bit overweight. Ross Brawns biggest piece of skill/luck was Mercedes offering the engine, which, whilst was set too high in the car to be ideal, was the engine to have and the rest as they say is History.

Reportedly Martin Whitmarsh went to Merc. to petition them to also supply Brawn with engines. Very sporting and altruistic conduct by Whitmarsh.

More likely eccelstone told them to.

[Vaud]

markcoznottz said:

carinaman said:

RGambo said:

I think it has been mentioned before in various publications and interviews , that Brawn actually won BEACUSE they didn't have the Honda engine. It was by all accounts a little underpowered and quite a bit overweight. Ross Brawns biggest piece of skill/luck was Mercedes offering the engine, which, whilst was set too high in the car to be ideal, was the engine to have and the rest as they say is History.

Reportedly Martin Whitmarsh went to Merc. to petition them to also supply Brawn with engines. Very sporting and altruistic conduct by Whitmarsh.

More likely eccelstone told them to.

Listen to the podcast by Brawn. He told Luca di M just prior to the F1 strategy meeting (?) (as chair) in London, and he immediately offered Ferrari engines. When they told the rest of the members, they offered engines. Only Honda declined to continue an engine supply.

[revrange]

rubystone said:

Haven't McLaren inked a deal with Castrol (BP)?

Yes but Renault have the main deal? if you like works fuel deal, mclaren is a smaller deal. Thus i would expect far less technical support compared to what Renault are getting?

I could be wrong but that is what i read somewhere.

[FourWheelDrift]

Castrol and Honda are long term partners in Touring cars, JGTC, Superbikes or MotoGP (LCR). It probably makes sense commercially to be together in F1.

[Trabi601]

revrange said:

Yes but Renault have the main deal? if you like works fuel deal, mclaren is a smaller deal. Thus i would expect far less technical support compared to what Renault are getting?

I could be wrong but that is what i read somewhere.

Renault are (as ever in recent years) running Total fuel.

The interesting one is Red Bull, who have taken the Esso deal from McLaren. Not sure why they've done that with the factory team running Total fuel, as it's an instant disadvantage.

McLaren are the main Castrol / BP team - not sure anyone else has a deal with them?

[CraigyMc]

Trabi601 said:

revrange said:

Yes but Renault have the main deal? if you like works fuel deal, mclaren is a smaller deal. Thus i would expect far less technical support compared to what Renault are getting?

I could be wrong but that is what i read somewhere.

Renault are (as ever in recent years) running Total fuel.

The interesting one is Red Bull, who have taken the Esso deal from McLaren. Not sure why they've done that with the factory team running Total fuel, as it's an instant disadvantage.

McLaren are the main Castrol / BP team - not sure anyone else has a deal with them?

Afraid you have that wrong. BP/Castrol are sponsoring McLaren and Renault this year (Total are out of F1).

The bigger deal is with Renault. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127884

[Trabi601]

CraigyMc said:

Afraid you have that wrong. BP/Castrol are sponsoring McLaren and Renault this year (Total are out of F1).

The bigger deal is with Renault. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127884

Odd, I'd seen a photo of a 2017 car with Total branding. Must have been a mock-up.

ETA: Fecking google images, sticking Deviant Art mock-ups at the top of the image search for 'Renault RS17'.

Makes the McLaren and Red Bull deals look a bit silly, really! Neither is going to get the best fuel for their engine.

Edited by Trabi601 on Tuesday 14th March 20:53

[CraigyMc]

Trabi601 said:

Odd, I'd seen a photo of a 2017 car with Total branding. Must have been a mock-up.

ETA: Fecking google images, sticking Deviant Art mock-ups at the top of the image search for 'Renault RS17'.

Don't beat yourself up, we've all been there.

[CraigyMc]

Trabi601 said:

Makes the McLaren and Red Bull deals look a bit silly, really! Neither is going to get the best fuel for their engine.

I recon it won't make much of a difference in terms of the oil/fuel in use to date because the engine makers know precisely what that is (composition, even mass spectroscopy details) and that info can go to the new supplier. In terms of moving forwards with new concepts, who knows.
There are rumours floating about that have RBR protesting MB/Petronas because they suspect MB are doing something illegal with their engine oil (getting the engine to consume it on purpose, for more power, at certain points).
That would be totally outwith the rules, although arguable up to a point (you can't seal a cylinder perfectly so some lubricating oil will always be consumed from the piston rings, it's just a question of how much - and the oil flow for combustion would be totally unmetered, unlike the fuel flow).

Hell, it might even have something like tetra ethly lead in it (to control knock) for all we know.

That's the sort of shenanigan BP/Castrol probably won't be geared up for at all.

[Trabi601]

Well, in 2015, Ferrari reckoned that a quarter of all their in-season power gains came from fuel development. That's what you're unlikely to get if you're not using the 'factory' supplier.

You're probably also going to lose out on having a decently matched lubricant, too.

[thegreenhell]

Mark Hughes says the following about the alleged oil-burning:

"Burning oil within the combustion chamber was addressed in a technical directive by Charlie Whiting (which I have seen) and answers a question that Red Bull put to him. The oil was being used off-throttle so as to save fuel, allowing more power to be derived from the fuel allocation"

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/testi... in the comments section at the bottom, he mentions it in a couple of posts.

[CraigyMc]

Eurosport said:

With no resolution, it has emerged Red Bull wrote to the FIA to seek clarification on what was and was not allowed.

In a response from the FIA's technical department, it was confirmed that any burning of oil as fuel would be a breach of the regulations.

However, the FIA acknowledged that it was impossible to rule out some 'consumption' of oil to take place when the engine was used.

That last line reads like this "go for it, boys".

[carinaman]

Vaud said:

Listen to the podcast by Brawn. He told Luca di M just prior to the F1 strategy meeting (?) (as chair) in London, and he immediately offered Ferrari engines. When they told the rest of the members, they offered engines. Only Honda declined to continue an engine supply.

Thank you. Which podcast? Was it with Motor Sport magazine?

[anonymous-user]

thegreenhell said:

Mark Hughes says the following about the alleged oil-burning:

"Burning oil within the combustion chamber was addressed in a technical directive by Charlie Whiting (which I have seen) and answers a question that Red Bull put to him. The oil was being used off-throttle so as to save fuel, allowing more power to be derived from the fuel allocation"

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/testi... in the comments section at the bottom, he mentions it in a couple of posts.

That doesn't make any sense, because you don't use any fuel off throttle. Even my relatively simple race ECU cuts fuel off throttle if I want it to. The only time I switch off fuel saving off throttle is if I want big flames out the exhaust for some cool photos.