Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
I have a question,
Since there's no token system and they're free to upgrade and they're so far behind why aren't they making huge inroads to the power and reliability deficit? Surely by now they should be catching up I mean their last upgrade they said was negligible so why aren't they making huge gains?
When Renault was so far behind I remember them bringing a spec B to Monaco maybe last year or year before and the engine was suddenly competitive why isn't that happening at Honda?
Since there's no token system and they're free to upgrade and they're so far behind why aren't they making huge inroads to the power and reliability deficit? Surely by now they should be catching up I mean their last upgrade they said was negligible so why aren't they making huge gains?
When Renault was so far behind I remember them bringing a spec B to Monaco maybe last year or year before and the engine was suddenly competitive why isn't that happening at Honda?
lee_fr200 said:
I have a question,
Since there's no token system and they're free to upgrade and they're so far behind why aren't they making huge inroads to the power and reliability deficit? Surely by now they should be catching up I mean their last upgrade they said was negligible so why aren't they making huge gains?
When Renault was so far behind I remember them bringing a spec B to Monaco maybe last year or year before and the engine was suddenly competitive why isn't that happening at Honda?
They are trying to.Since there's no token system and they're free to upgrade and they're so far behind why aren't they making huge inroads to the power and reliability deficit? Surely by now they should be catching up I mean their last upgrade they said was negligible so why aren't they making huge gains?
When Renault was so far behind I remember them bringing a spec B to Monaco maybe last year or year before and the engine was suddenly competitive why isn't that happening at Honda?
They haven't got the technical answer to the puzzle yet.
lee_fr200 said:
When Renault was so far behind I remember them bringing a spec B to Monaco maybe last year or year before and the engine was suddenly competitive why isn't that happening at Honda?
Because Honda want to do internally the Honda way, not the F1 way.I doubt if Honda will ever come good, its just a question of who pulls the plug first, McLaren or Honda.
Pressumably, if Honda do so, there will be a 4th team supply from one of the 3 manufacturers a la Brawn beforehand..........?
I'm guessing that's likely to be a Merc then, given the Reggie don't have the capacity to supply a 4th team, and a McLaren-Ferrari is about as likely as the Pope getting married.
I think Macca are stuck with Honda for as long as the deal lasts/Honda want to remain looking silly.
More potential manufacturers have been attending technical meetings, I think people generally want a simpler cheaper engine.
Porsche and Audi have attended and Aston Martin and Cosworth were at the meeting in July - https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/130554/aston-and...
I don't often agree with Christian Horner but a less complicated engine is what will get more manufacturers involved, if they could standardise other parts along with the current standard ECU then it would also prevent too much development and big power gaps.
F1 needs to market itself on the racing, design and speed, leave the power technology to Formula E.
Porsche and Audi have attended and Aston Martin and Cosworth were at the meeting in July - https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/130554/aston-and...
I don't often agree with Christian Horner but a less complicated engine is what will get more manufacturers involved, if they could standardise other parts along with the current standard ECU then it would also prevent too much development and big power gaps.
F1 needs to market itself on the racing, design and speed, leave the power technology to Formula E.
jsf said:
They were not subject to the Token system for the first year and ignored it in the 2nd year, the 3rd year it didn't apply.
Not correct. They were subject to the same rules as everyone else. In the first year after they homologated their PU they were given the average of unused tokens of the other teams to develop the PU through the year as it was deemed unfair that Honda could not develop in season whilst other manufacturers were allowed to with their remaining tokens. In season development was a loophole pushed for by Ferrari in an attempt to catch up to Mercedes. In the second year the token system was still used but changed slightly to allow in season development and still have 32 tokens instead of the decrease to 25 as planned. For the 3rd year it has been scrapped. So Honda were still hamstrung by the token system in the first two years; the upgrades to the PU had to be as per the token allowances and applied to the homologated engine from February 2015. 2017 is the first year they were able to swap to a new architecture from the initial flawed one.lee_fr200 said:
When Renault was so far behind I remember them bringing a spec B to Monaco maybe last year or year before and the engine was suddenly competitive why isn't that happening at Honda?
As others have said, initially Honda wanted to work their way without any outside help. Since it became obvious that they were not progressing they have hired Mario Illien to help with the design. The first PU that will have benefited from his input will be the version 4 PU due to be released at the Japanese GP.jsf said:
The token system was a nonsense ignored by everyone. They were testing whatever that wanted to in R&D.
All it did was complicate the introduction of parts, but when you have such a failure rate, it is completely meaningless.
That's why it was scrapped. It didn't save a penny.
The token system didn't apply to R&D, only to the PU introduced. For 2015 and 2016 the changes to the PU were in accordance with the token system. It was not ignored.All it did was complicate the introduction of parts, but when you have such a failure rate, it is completely meaningless.
That's why it was scrapped. It didn't save a penny.
jsf said:
The token system was a nonsense ignored by everyone. They were testing whatever that wanted to in R&D.
All it did was complicate the introduction of parts, but when you have such a failure rate, it is completely meaningless.
That's why it was scrapped. It didn't save a penny.
iirc it was scrapped as it stopped the less powerful PUs from catching up with the more powerful PUs.All it did was complicate the introduction of parts, but when you have such a failure rate, it is completely meaningless.
That's why it was scrapped. It didn't save a penny.
Jabbah said:
jsf said:
The token system was a nonsense ignored by everyone. They were testing whatever that wanted to in R&D.
All it did was complicate the introduction of parts, but when you have such a failure rate, it is completely meaningless.
That's why it was scrapped. It didn't save a penny.
The token system didn't apply to R&D, only to the PU introduced. For 2015 and 2016 the changes to the PU were in accordance with the token system. It was not ignored.All it did was complicate the introduction of parts, but when you have such a failure rate, it is completely meaningless.
That's why it was scrapped. It didn't save a penny.
te in the back of the car you don't take consideration of what penalty you will face, you change the unit. During such a major development stage where the design is wrong you change the unit design too. It was a silly system and was disposed of because it was a silly system.jsf said:
In any meaningful and practical terms it was totally ignored, especially by Honda. When you have a pile of steaming ste in the back of the car you don't take consideration of what penalty you will face, you change the unit. During such a major development stage where the design is wrong you change the unit design too. It was a silly system and was disposed of because it was a silly system.
When did they go over the token limit in 2015 or 2016? It's not like they had a choice, they could not use an engine modified beyond the number of tokens allowed, if a new engine was needed after that it had to be exactly the same and it was. Unless you can provide any evidence that they ignored the rules and the FIA ignored them and the stewards etc?te in the back of the car you don't take consideration of what penalty you will face, you change the unit. During such a major development stage where the design is wrong you change the unit design too. It was a silly system and was disposed of because it was a silly system.If they were ignoring the token system completely they would have ditched the architecture before 2017, the reason they didn't is because they weren't allowed to until 2017.
Nobody is arguing it wasn't a silly system, however the teams still kept to the rules at the time.
The FIA changed the token rules mid 2016 and decided that changes made for reliability reasons didn't count towards your usage count. That effectively ends the limit on tokens you can use as a failure or even a potential failure means you can make a change with no use of tokens.
It was what always happens, rules are fudged and called something else when the rule shows itself unworkable.
If you don't believe me, look at what happened in Malaysia 2016, when Honda changed the exhaust system design, that would have cost 2 tokens but because it was argued they did it for reliability, they had the two tokens reinstated into their available pool.
It was what always happens, rules are fudged and called something else when the rule shows itself unworkable.
If you don't believe me, look at what happened in Malaysia 2016, when Honda changed the exhaust system design, that would have cost 2 tokens but because it was argued they did it for reliability, they had the two tokens reinstated into their available pool.
The reliability loophole has always been there, even in the V8 era as used by Renault. However it has to be agreed to by the FIA (and other teams?) and any replacement part can only be redesigned to overcome the reliability issue and offer no performance improvement. It was also very rarely used. Once by Honda? It is hardly the hotbed of rule breaking you were describing.
That still doesn't get round the fact that everyone observed the token system for 2015-16. If you went over the the limit of development it wasn't a penalty you would get, the cars would not pass scrutineering and would not be allowed to race.
That still doesn't get round the fact that everyone observed the token system for 2015-16. If you went over the the limit of development it wasn't a penalty you would get, the cars would not pass scrutineering and would not be allowed to race.
Jabbah said:
The reliability loophole has always been there, even in the V8 era as used by Renault. However it has to be agreed to by the FIA (and other teams?) and any replacement part can only be redesigned to overcome the reliability issue and offer no performance improvement. It was also very rarely used. Once by Honda? It is hardly the hotbed of rule breaking you were describing.
That still doesn't get round the fact that everyone observed the token system for 2015-16. If you went over the the limit of development it wasn't a penalty you would get, the cars would not pass scrutineering and would not be allowed to race.
My point was that the token system didn't stop the R&D spend, which was unlimited. That meant there was nothing holding them back from making the engine work.That still doesn't get round the fact that everyone observed the token system for 2015-16. If you went over the the limit of development it wasn't a penalty you would get, the cars would not pass scrutineering and would not be allowed to race.
They eventually came to the conclusion what they were developing would never be competitive, so they started again. This realisation happened mid 2016.
jsf said:
My point was that the token system didn't stop the R&D spend, which was unlimited. That meant there was nothing holding them back from making the engine work.
Strange, because your comment that I picked up on was in response to someone saying Honda were hamstrung by the token system and you replied by saying they didn't adhere to it which they clearly did along with all the other teams.I think it is quite clear that Honda were adversely affected by the token system in 2015-16. Once the PU reg changes for 2017 were announced they tried to develop a whole new PU architecture in less than a year. No wonder they are in such a bad place. Without the reg changes for 2017 they would still be forced to use the old architecture. Hopefully with Illien's input they can come good.
Jabbah said:
Strange, because your comment that I picked up on was in response to someone saying Honda were hamstrung by the token system and you replied by saying they didn't adhere to it which they clearly did along with all the other teams.
I think it is quite clear that Honda were adversely affected by the token system in 2015-16. Once the PU reg changes for 2017 were announced they tried to develop a whole new PU architecture in less than a year. No wonder they are in such a bad place. Hopefully with Illien's input they can come good.
That's where I don't agree.I think it is quite clear that Honda were adversely affected by the token system in 2015-16. Once the PU reg changes for 2017 were announced they tried to develop a whole new PU architecture in less than a year. No wonder they are in such a bad place. Hopefully with Illien's input they can come good.
Honda had nothing stopping them doing as much R&D as they wanted to do, the token system didn't stop them experimenting with anything.
They decided late in the day that they had to scrap the current engine because they realised they would never be competitive with it.
I think its far more likely the reason the token system was abandoned was because Honda told the working group they have to scrap the concept and start again, and they will do it or walk away from the sport.
Even if the token system utterly handicapped Honda in 2015 and 2016, what's the excuse for the engine to still be failing as a matter of routine halfway through the 2017 season?
They can do whatever they like now, no restriction on development at all.
As for real-world usage, even if we assume they are not running units in test mules somewhere, they have actually raced at least 6 engines, 9 turbos, 9 MGU-H and 6 MGU-K per driver so plenty of opportunity to see how they work in the real world (on top of the number of units they worked through during testing and the number that would have only run on the bench). Effectively they have already had two season's worth of production units so are they anywhere close to the other teams position at the tail end of 2016?
They can do whatever they like now, no restriction on development at all.
As for real-world usage, even if we assume they are not running units in test mules somewhere, they have actually raced at least 6 engines, 9 turbos, 9 MGU-H and 6 MGU-K per driver so plenty of opportunity to see how they work in the real world (on top of the number of units they worked through during testing and the number that would have only run on the bench). Effectively they have already had two season's worth of production units so are they anywhere close to the other teams position at the tail end of 2016?
Jinba Ittai said:
That could lead to a huge problem then as Renault have stated they won't supply an extra team. This whole thing is a complete fk up. If I were McLaren I'd stick with Honda, fk Alonso out the building, take Sainz or Kubica as replacement and get a plan in place now to start making their own engines from 2021.
That's why you're not in charge =)k up. If I were McLaren I'd stick with Honda, fk Alonso out the building, take Sainz or Kubica as replacement and get a plan in place now to start making their own engines from 2021.What's the budget to make a new engine? 250m? That gets you to 4-5 years ago. To come in now and try to compete, you'd have to be mad in the heed. Honda aren't muppets, it's just the bar is so high. TVR once thought making their own engine was doable, it bankrupted em.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff