Honda coming back to F1?
Discussion
Redlake27 said:
But WEC (excluding Le Mans) gets around 1% of F1's tv audience. It is a great championship, and has enormous potential. However, it only really works as a marketing platform if you have something really innovative and unique (Toyota Hybrid, Nissan DeltaWing, Audi Diesel and now quattro). Honda could 'own' Hydrogen, linking to the clarityFCX road car, but there are few other unique things to communicate. I see F1 as Honda's destiny again, but as an engine supplier to McLaren.
With Button and Kamui as drivers, this would be my ultimate F1 team Life Saab Itch said:
Even if the Brawn had been a honda, it would have still had the Honda engine,,,,which would have lumbered a sublime chassis with an old boat anchor.
you want to say that merc engine has been stronger than Honda? Check your facts straight, as Honda is the company that produces(or at least produced) high-rpm reliable road cars, what merc does when they want more power is...putting the turbo on it.
AreOut said:
you want to say that merc engine has been stronger than Honda? Check your facts straight, as Honda is the company that produces(or at least produced) high-rpm reliable road cars, what merc does when they want more power is...putting the turbo on it.
Nice, well informed post there...It's well documented that putting the Mercedes engine in hindered the Brawn car. Simply, it wasn't designed for that motor. Life would've been much easier with the engine it was originally designed for. Your attempt to compare relative strengths and weaknesses of road engines is hilarious, seeing as Mercedes' F1 engine operation is an entirely different unit altogether, born out of the company formerly known as Ilmor... an F1 engine specialist.
AreOut said:
Life Saab Itch said:
Even if the Brawn had been a honda, it would have still had the Honda engine,,,,which would have lumbered a sublime chassis with an old boat anchor.
you want to say that merc engine has been stronger than Honda? Check your facts straight, as Honda is the company that produces(or at least produced) high-rpm reliable road cars, what merc does when they want more power is...putting the turbo on it.
AreOut said:
and what relevance is comparing two tightly specced engines which can differ 1% in power at most? Btw the most dominant F1 car in its history had Honda engine in it.
And that was a turbo 1.5 V6. Take the dust sheets off, bore it out a bit, win all the races in 2014. Shouldn't cost more than a tenner or so. AlpineWhite said:
AreOut said:
and what relevance is comparing two tightly specced engines which can differ 1% in power at most? Btw the most dominant F1 car in its history had Honda engine in it.
And what relevance is an engine from nearly a quarter of a century ago? AreOut said:
and what relevance is comparing two tightly specced engines which can differ 1% in power at most? Btw the most dominant F1 car in its history had Honda engine in it.
Rofl. Apologies for feeding, but the engine of which you speak was successful 21 years before Button won the title in a Merc powered Brawn.
Also your ascertain of 1% is not quite right. The Honda unit was rumoured to be about 40hp down on it's rivals, not to mention the extra weight. So (for arguments sake) 700hp-Ish that the Merc was producing, this makes it nearer 6%.
Life Saab Itch said:
Also your ascertain of 1% is not quite right. The Honda unit was rumoured to be about 40hp down on it's rivals, not to mention the extra weight. So (for arguments sake) 700hp-Ish that the Merc was producing, this makes it nearer 6%.
I'm sure Ross said it was 70hp down on the Mercedes, and you're right it was certainly much heavier. In all probability if Honda had stayed in F1 in 2009 that season would have seen a Red Bull walkover.Teppic said:
I'm sure Ross said it was 70hp down on the Mercedes, and you're right it was certainly much heavier. In all probability if Honda had stayed in F1 in 2009 that season would have seen a Red Bull walkover.
If it was 70hp down that makes the Maths that much easier. I can believe it though, a friend of mine at Brackley referred to it as the "boat anchor".
Edited by Life Saab Itch on Saturday 13th October 07:49
what? we are talking NA engines here and unless merc was squeezing 10% more rpm I can't see how they could get 10% more power from the same displacement...
now I see they were both limited to 19K rpm so I don't know where could extra power come from? Also weight difference was maybe 10-15 kilos at best, and the car had to match its minimum weight anyway. I know that lighter engine gives you more possibility for putting ballasts where needed but its maybe a few hundredths per lap if so..
now I see they were both limited to 19K rpm so I don't know where could extra power come from? Also weight difference was maybe 10-15 kilos at best, and the car had to match its minimum weight anyway. I know that lighter engine gives you more possibility for putting ballasts where needed but its maybe a few hundredths per lap if so..
AreOut said:
what? we are talking NA engines here and unless merc was squeezing 10% more rpm I can't see how they could get 10% more power from the same displacement...
now I see they were both limited to 19K rpm so I don't know where could extra power come from? Also weight difference was maybe 10-15 kilos at best, and the car had to match its minimum weight anyway. I know that lighter engine gives you more possibility for putting ballasts where needed but its maybe a few hundredths per lap if so..
Do you know what? Just like you, I have no idea of the exact figures, what I do remember though is Ross Brawn saying about a big power difference between the two engines and I remember reading about it too. The fella who kept referring to the weight of the Honda unit has no reason to lie and can look on it objectively as he now works at a different F1 team using a different engine. now I see they were both limited to 19K rpm so I don't know where could extra power come from? Also weight difference was maybe 10-15 kilos at best, and the car had to match its minimum weight anyway. I know that lighter engine gives you more possibility for putting ballasts where needed but its maybe a few hundredths per lap if so..
So, do I trust Ross Brawn, MotorSport magazine and a fella who built the Brawn BGP001 or do I trust you?
I see now that merc was rated at 730 HP and Honda at more than 700 HP, dunno what "big" means to him but if it was 10-15 HP(if so) it was probably enough of difference for him to call it big.
simply two NA engines with the same displacement and all other specifications cant differ more than 1-2% in power even if so much
simply two NA engines with the same displacement and all other specifications cant differ more than 1-2% in power even if so much
As I have already said I read at the time of figures of 40hp mentioned, another poster recalled 70hp.
There is rumoured to be a 25hp difference in the Mercedes engine to the current renault engine. The advantage comes in it's need for less cooling etc. I don't think the Honda had any advantages to cover it's weaknesses.
There is rumoured to be a 25hp difference in the Mercedes engine to the current renault engine. The advantage comes in it's need for less cooling etc. I don't think the Honda had any advantages to cover it's weaknesses.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff