148 replies to this topic

[oetzi]

I'm genuinely curious as to what information could be gleaned from observing the Mercedes engine beyond layout/dimensions, cooling requirements and benchmarking for power output etc especially as it would appear Mercedes were doing their level best to shut out McLaren and by extension Honda out of the PU management process?

That's not bad info for starters, even if they got nothing more.

Sure, but what I meant was that just because the demonstrators can fly and have new technologies that will eventually find its way onto the final product it doesn't necessarily mean that those technologies are fully developed already.

F1 is a prototype series. Nothing is ever 'finished'.

[oetzi]

Firstly, of course you gain some insight in looking what the others are doing. Unfortunately, in spring 2013 there was nothing that could be seen....unless they have done some sort of industrial spy work.
And, on top of that, the 80/20 rule is still valid. I strongly believe that what Honda knew was the "easily" achieved 80%, be it from Simon or whoever.
They are now struggling with these last 20% who need 80% of the time. And these 20% are mainly refinement on existing things, evidence from testing....

The Mercedes engine worked fine out of the box with much less existing knowledge to lean on.

[taran]

What Honda fanboys seem to forget is that they have always had difficulty building good F1 engines.

 

BMW won a title in their 2nd year. TAG Porsche too in their second year. Ferrari won a title in their 2nd year. Honda only in their 4th year. It really took them ages to master turbo technology and fuel efficiency.

 

For the normally aspirated period, they outspent every other engine manufacturer to a ridiculous degree. It is said that they built 200 engines a year where others made less than 20. They weren´t smarter, just richer, chasing down multiple development angles to see which worked. Once Renault, on a fraction of that budget, got into its stride, Honda was nowhere. But at least they could look back on multiple titles by that point.

 

After that came the third Honda era and probably the less said the better. A lot of money was spent on building a weak engine and a slow car and to the very end, they were reluctant to acknowledge their engine was subpar.

 

So why do people expect Honda to do better this time around? Unless they can throw more money at the engine than all others combined, they don't stand a chance. And with Mercedes willing to go the distance, that option is off the table. So expect more mediocrity from Honda until the loss of face becomes too much.

Edited by taran, 01 July 2015 - 14:02.

[sopa]

BMW won a title in their 2nd year. TAG Porsche too in their second year. Ferrari won a title in their 2nd year. Honda only in their 4th year. It really took them ages to master turbo technology and fuel efficiency.

 

The fascinating thing to ponder about though is that the pioneers of turbocharged engines - Renault - never won a championship with turbocharged engines.

[sopa]

In terms of Honda & racing...

Once I read a claim on these forums that ever since Soichiro Honda's death in 1991 Honda has never been the same. Mr Honda himself was a true racer. This claim striked me as interesting and I have been remembering it since. Certainly in F1 Honda has never been the same again... in terms of competitiveness.

[totgate]

Honda should throw them self on their Samurai swords. They are absolutely awful.... And they have never been anything special in modern times (1990 >)

[Paul Parker]

I didn't expect them to be any better. While renault and ferrari were embarassing last year compared to mercedes, they could at leastrun their cars, renault even won 3 races. Honda hasn't built a decent f1 engine since 1991, when the technology was preety rudimentary compared to today, and their policy of using young engineers without enough eperience is definately showing this year. They might get the car more often to the finnish net year, but they'll stil be miles off. Time to spend some money on merc and ferrari personnel.

 

You should read the circa 1991 book John Surtees World Champion in which he relates that Honda gave him new engineers from the production side for the racing team on the basis that this would be good experience for them.

[Abranet]

They could have forgotten they had entered I suppose! 

[03011969]

The publicity is all negative and has damaged their brand reputation and image which are the two most important things for a car manufacturer.  

I'm not sure, on a global scale, it's had a very damaging effect. Even amongst F1 fans, you'd have to be something of a noobie to dismiss Honda as useless, given their rich F1 history. 

 

How many people were thinking of buying a Honda, and following this year's F1 so far have decided to buy another brand?

[Afterburner]

Yes, Button's engine could have failed in Monaco.

Winner.

[ardbeg]

Honda have just been shocking this year, in more sports than F1:

 

F1- We all know what's happened there

 

Indy - Made a worse Aero kit than Chevy, leaving them to be the underdog in this season

 

Sportscars - Oh boy did they screw this one up. Made a brand new LMP2 car for the new rules cycle, turned out to be OKAY, but the aero just did not work. So Honda withdrew it from hte rest of the season to do development work on it, after just one race at the Daytona 24. Fast forward 6 months, and they planned on entering Pikes Peak, with the same P2 car and Justin Wilson at the wheel. They pull out due to engine issues.

 

Honda/HPD need a serious look at their infrastructure, cause something clearly isn't right

Don't forget MotoGP. Marquez has gone back to last years bike. They should be concerned about the direction their development is going. Which I am sure they are

[FirstWatt]

The Mercedes engine worked fine out of the box with much less existing knowledge to lean on.

1. Mercedes had roughly 9 Months more than Honda until "unboxing", IF they started only when official rules have been settled
2. The greater "existing knowledge" for Honda started maybe with the first tests of McLaren, already 8-9 Months into their own development. Quite some important decisions surely have already been made.
3. We do not really know whether their issues are issues the others have already encountered (and they could have learned from) or whether they have them because of a different approach.

It seems difficult to understand that even with some more basic knowledge, development time for complex machines like a F1 engine is crucial and can only be shortened to a certain degree by highly paralleling development paths and lots self gained experience, but it is so.

If Honda, by the end of the season, hasn't catched up closely, then yes, they didn't made a good job.
For now, it's not possible to judge.

Edited by FirstWatt, 01 July 2015 - 14:46.

[f1rules]

What they delivered is pathetic, by far the worst of the 4 manufactors, even a baseline was already established for them, seems they greatly underestimsted the challenge, which is even worse looking back at how much they sucked the last time they where in f1, what a joke

Edited by f1rules, 01 July 2015 - 15:31.

[MaxScelerate]

You should read the circa 1991 book John Surtees World Champion in which he relates that Honda gave him new engineers from the production side for the racing team on the basis that this would be good experience for them.

I think it's company's philosophy that the racing department be a testing ground for their new engineers. They're cycling newcomers in and out all the time at the motorsport division. 

[Talisman]

That's not bad info for starters, even if they got nothing more.

F1 is a prototype series. Nothing is ever 'finished'.

 

Not bad info, doesn't tell them how to build a similar unit.  Again I think you're overestimating the usefulness of reverse engineering here.

 

Fighter jets are never 'finished' either.

[muramasa]

Honda have just been shocking this year, in more sports than F1:

 

F1- We all know what's happened there

 

Indy - Made a worse Aero kit than Chevy, leaving them to be the underdog in this season

 

Sportscars - Oh boy did they screw this one up. Made a brand new LMP2 car for the new rules cycle, turned out to be OKAY, but the aero just did not work. So Honda withdrew it from hte rest of the season to do development work on it, after just one race at the Daytona 24. Fast forward 6 months, and they planned on entering Pikes Peak, with the same P2 car and Justin Wilson at the wheel. They pull out due to engine issues.

 

Honda/HPD need a serious look at their infrastructure, cause something clearly isn't right

F1 - less lead time for development, maxing out the design/development phase (they only started running as whole PU in sept 2014. That was to stretching development phase to the max. you cannot mature what's not well designed and thought into sth competitive, hence compressing maturation phase to minimum). 2016 was their preferred timing but by doing so they would have less scope for development (tokens) for 2nd year. They took risk by sacrificing and minimizing maturation phase.

 

Indy - completely nothing to do with F1

 

Sportcars - ditto

 

not to mention MotoGP is irrelevant either winning or not (actually it's funny some people conveniently ignore their dominance for past several years. either short memory or what. )

 

 

No one talk about Merc in DTM to talk about Merc F1. If you do that you would be labelled as fool for sure. but somehow many people think such is relevant for Honda.

 

 

BMW won a title in their 2nd year. TAG Porsche too in their second year. Ferrari won a title in their 2nd year. Honda only in their 4th year. It really took them ages to master turbo technology and fuel efficiency.

BMW TAG Ferrari Honda of 80s are totally irrelevant to NOW. 

 

For the normally aspirated period, they outspent every other engine manufacturer to a ridiculous degree. It is said that they built 200 engines a year where others made less than 20. They weren´t smarter, just richer, chasing down multiple development angles to see which worked.

interesting point. Like Merc that is said to have spent hundreds of millions into it. they were just richer. Merc is generally outspending underachiever like Le mans where they gone airbourne.

oh wait.

 

 

Once Renault, on a fraction of that budget, got into its stride, Honda was nowhere. But at least they could look back on multiple titles by that point.

like Merc of V8 era, on a similar or bigger budget than RedBull but Merc were nowhere mostly.

or like Red Bull were just Newey and energy drink company after all. Once Merc, on a much bigger budget into PU, got into its stride, Red Bull was nowhere. But at least they could look back on multiple titles by that point.

 

After that came the third Honda era and probably the less said the better. A lot of money was spent on building a weak engine and a slow car and to the very end, they were reluctant to acknowledge their engine was subpar.

there was no such thing as weak engine in 00s.

 

So, Honda's past good results are just nothing and irrelevant to now while BMW TAG Honda forms (how many they took to win) of 80s is relevant to now? Logic is completely collapsed there. Amazing some people dont notice this utter discrepancy of their own.

Edited by muramasa, 01 July 2015 - 16:25.

[f1rules]

I would love to see them ditch honda, if there is no light at the tunnel soon, and bring bmw onboard, because they would definitly throw all they have to beat mercedes

Edited by f1rules, 01 July 2015 - 16:31.

[uffen]

What Honda fanboys seem to forget is that they have always had difficulty building good F1 engines.

 

BMW won a title in their 2nd year. TAG Porsche too in their second year. Ferrari won a title in their 2nd year. Honda only in their 4th year. It really took them ages to master turbo technology and fuel efficiency.

 

For the normally aspirated period, they outspent every other engine manufacturer to a ridiculous degree. It is said that they built 200 engines a year where others made less than 20. They weren´t smarter, just richer, chasing down multiple development angles to see which worked. Once Renault, on a fraction of that budget, got into its stride, Honda was nowhere. But at least they could look back on multiple titles by that point.

 

After that came the third Honda era and probably the less said the better. A lot of money was spent on building a weak engine and a slow car and to the very end, they were reluctant to acknowledge their engine was subpar.

 

So why do people expect Honda to do better this time around? Unless they can throw more money at the engine than all others combined, they don't stand a chance. And with Mercedes willing to go the distance, that option is off the table. So expect more mediocrity from Honda until the loss of face becomes too much.

You're right, maybe we expect too much, but you'd think even a Honda hater would expect the engine to at least run smoothly and complete a race a respectable amount of the time.

[FirstWatt]

[...]So, Honda's past good results are just nothing and irrelevant to now while BMW TAG Honda forms (how many they took to win) of 80s is relevant to now? Logic is completely collapsed there. Amazing some people dont notice this utter discrepancy of their own.

This is a hilarious thread anyway. Zero understanding what it takes to develop such a complex machine like a F1 engine today is, and less than zero ackowledgement that they need some more time. The others had it too.

Sure they would have looked better entering only in 2016. At the expense of much less development under real conditions, with much less corrective margin (tokens, forbidden components), losing the chance of learning to work together as a team at a race weekend, ....

The biggest mistake was that they didn't decide to enter into this hybrid formula as soon as in early 2011.
Deciding it in 2013 was leaving them with few options as when to start racing.

Edited by FirstWatt, 01 July 2015 - 16:46.

[oetzi]

1. Mercedes had roughly 9 Months more than Honda until "unboxing", IF they started only when official rules have been settled
2. The greater "existing knowledge" for Honda started maybe with the first tests of McLaren, already 8-9 Months into their own development. Quite some important decisions surely have already been made.
3. We do not really know whether their issues are issues the others have already encountered (and they could have learned from) or whether they have them because of a different approach.

It seems difficult to understand that even with some more basic knowledge, development time for complex machines like a F1 engine is crucial and can only be shortened to a certain degree by highly paralleling development paths and lots self gained experience, but it is so.

If Honda, by the end of the season, hasn't catched up closely, then yes, they didn't made a good job.
For now, it's not possible to judge.

Right now, with (iirc from earlier in this thread) 12,000km of real life experience, they are in a worse position than 2 of their 3 competitors were out of the box.

Where they'll end up is unknowable, but what they've done to date is deeply unimpressive.

[oetzi]

Not bad info, doesn't tell them how to build a similar unit. Again I think you're overestimating the usefulness of reverse engineering here.

Is not so much the reverse engineering, it's more having seen something that definitely works well. It allows you to understand 'a' solution. Also, seeing Ferrari and Renault's problems should have given them some ideas on how not to do it.

Fighter jets are never 'finished' either.

Never said they were

[Talisman]

I would love to see them ditch honda, if there is no light at the tunnel soon, and bring bmw onboard, because they would definitly throw all they have to beat mercedes

 

BMW?  You actually think there is a single manufacturer out there who will join F1 now?  Seriously?  If so no wonder you don't understand why Honda is in the straits it is in now.

 

I know people mock Honda and Renault but think guys, engage those brain cells.  Both of those companies have a long long history of involvement in F1.  They have longstanding facilities that are devoted to F1 or can be switched quickly to development, Viry Chatillon and Honda R/D.

 

Its obvious both are having difficulties.  Its also obvious that these Pus are a technical nightmare to build.  Most companies are not going to look at Honda and Renault and think "what incompetent idiots they are", they are going to be thinking "if those two are finding it difficult what chance do we have?".  Companies with plenty of money but no prior serious motorsport experience, those that F1 should be courting like Kia/Hyundai won't even consider F1.  There is a reason Mercedes recently spoke about Honda's F1 involvement with complete respect, they of all people know how hard a task it is to achieve even what Renault and Honda have managed.

 

Do you really think any other manufacturer is going to look at F1 and want to have an even harder time than those two?  Do you honestly think BMW will be utterly stupid enough to join so they could be humiliated more than Honda, paying $2-300 million a year for the privilege?

 

You are right about BMW wanting to beat Mercedes though, thats what DTM is for.

[Talisman]

Is not so much the reverse engineering, it's more having seen something that definitely works well. It allows you to understand 'a' solution. Also, seeing Ferrari and Renault's problems should have given them some ideas on how not to do it.
 

 

Why copy if you can innovate?  

 

Sure, Mercedes showed A solution but IMO it was far from clear that what to the layman seemed to be their secret trick (the split turbo or whatever it was) was the cause of their success, nor exactly why Renault and Ferrari were not competitive.  

 

Renault had the chance to race against and therefore monitor carefully both Mercedes and Ferrari for an entire season as well as develop their own PU through that time.  Despite this they ended up developing a less powerful but more unreliable unit.  Shows how much that information about their competitors could be worth...

[oetzi]

Why copy if you can innovate?

Sure, Mercedes showed A solution but IMO it was far from clear that what to the layman seemed to be their secret trick (the split turbo or whatever it was) was the cause of their success, nor exactly why Renault and Ferrari were not competitive.

Renault had the chance to race against and therefore monitor carefully both Mercedes and Ferrari for an entire season as well as develop their own PU through that time. Despite this they ended up developing a less powerful but more unreliable unit. Shows how much that information about their competitors could be worth...

There's also the fact that their suppliers had the extra experience (re split turbo etc) - they had a lot more knowledge available than the other builders at the outset, and have now has a lot of miles. They may have a trick up their sleeves, but right now they don't look good.

[Talisman]

There's also the fact that their suppliers had the extra experience (re split turbo etc) - they had a lot more knowledge available than the other builders at the outset, and have now has a lot of miles. They may have a trick up their sleeves, but right now they don't look good.

 

yes, I agree about the suppliers being an advantage.

 

I suspect by 2017 the disparity between the PUs will not be that apparent, Honda and Renault will get their acts sorted.  As others have said, the main thing for Honda is time.  Not so sure what the root cause of Renault's problems are.

[oetzi]

yes, I agree about the suppliers being an advantage.

I suspect by 2017 the disparity between the PUs will not be that apparent, Honda and Renault will get their acts sorted. As others have said, the main thing for Honda is time. Not so sure what the root cause of Renault's problems are.

If they have only managed to reduce the disparity by 2017 rather than demonstrate an advantage then, considering their extra knowledge and quicker movement to real life, if consider that (at best) par.

[WhiteSGPlayer]

 

F1 - less lead time for development, maxing out the design/development phase (they only started running as whole PU in sept 2014. That was to stretching development phase to the max. you cannot mature what's not well designed and thought into sth competitive, hence compressing maturation phase to minimum). 2016 was their preferred timing but by doing so they would have less scope for development (tokens) for 2nd year. They took risk by sacrificing and minimizing maturation phase.

 

Indy - completely nothing to do with F1

 

Sportcars - ditto

 

not to mention MotoGP is irrelevant either winning or not (actually it's funny some people conveniently ignore their dominance for past several years. either short memory or what. )

 

 

No one talk about Merc in DTM to talk about Merc F1. If you do that you would be labelled as fool for sure. but somehow many people think such is relevant for Honda.

 

First up, nobody said anything about strictly F1; implied in the opening post, sure, but not said.

 

Second, the entirety of what I mentioned could well be relevant, for if Honda is performing so badly across such a wide range of disciplines, it could be worth considering that they have screwed up on something internally.

 

<conjecture>

If I remember correctly, HPD have a partnership with Wirth Research, who were behind the Sportscars and the Indy body kits? Both of those ended up underperforming, to various levels, perhaps their partnership has not gone as well as hoped

</conjecture>

[Silverstone96]

I'm a McLaren fan to be fair abeit a frustrated one, just feel Honda have been caught with their pants down

[oetzi]

I'm a McLaren fan to be fair abeit a frustrated one, just feel Honda have been caught with their pants down

Not sure how much McLaren have helped, to be honest.

[johnnycomelately1]

Is it possible that there have been organisational changes within Honda that has caused the surprising lack of progress of Hondas current F1 engine?

The Japanese have a certain way of approaching results and have they not assigned some of their original engineers from past successful engine development.

if this is true that would be the result of organisational change, does anyone know anything along these lines?

[Quickshifter]

How many threads do we need?

[oetzi]

How many people were thinking of buying a Honda, and following this year's F1 so far have decided to buy another brand?

That's exactly the wrong question.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

From what I have heard, when Honda did their last engine supplier foray, they used fresh and bright engineers as a way to develop their skills in meeting performance goals under a tight time frame. If they did well, they were moved up to the really important stuff, designing the next iteration of Civic, or Prelude, or whatever, where the mistakes cannot be allowed. It was both a training and proving ground. So don't expect those people to go back to designing their current Formula One power unit, they are much too valuable to the parent company.

 

These things take time, and it is an exceptionally difficult thing. Last year, two manufacturers with fantastic credentials, resources, and experience (Renault and Ferrari) did not get it right, just Mercedes. That shows just how hard it is.

 

From what I have heard lately, Honda underestimated the difficulty, and are now throwing more people and money into the project.

 

In this world of 24 hours corner stores, banking machines and free pizza if not delivered in 30 minutes, many of us expect instant gratification. It just won't happen in this case, these things take a lot of time and money.

[taran]

 

F1 - less lead time for development, maxing out the design/development phase (they only started running as whole PU in sept 2014. That was to stretching development phase to the max. you cannot mature what's not well designed and thought into sth competitive, hence compressing maturation phase to minimum). 2016 was their preferred timing but by doing so they would have less scope for development (tokens) for 2nd year. They took risk by sacrificing and minimizing maturation phase.

 

Indy - completely nothing to do with F1

 

Sportcars - ditto

 

not to mention MotoGP is irrelevant either winning or not (actually it's funny some people conveniently ignore their dominance for past several years. either short memory or what. )

 

 

No one talk about Merc in DTM to talk about Merc F1. If you do that you would be labelled as fool for sure. but somehow many people think such is relevant for Honda.

 

 

BMW TAG Ferrari Honda of 80s are totally irrelevant to NOW. 

 

interesting point. Like Merc that is said to have spent hundreds of millions into it. they were just richer. Merc is generally outspending underachiever like Le mans where they gone airbourne.

oh wait.

 

 

like Merc of V8 era, on a similar or bigger budget than RedBull but Merc were nowhere mostly.

or like Red Bull were just Newey and energy drink company after all. Once Merc, on a much bigger budget into PU, got into its stride, Red Bull was nowhere. But at least they could look back on multiple titles by that point.

 

there was no such thing as weak engine in 00s.

 

So, Honda's past good results are just nothing and irrelevant to now while BMW TAG Honda forms (how many they took to win) of 80s is relevant to now? Logic is completely collapsed there. Amazing some people dont notice this utter discrepancy of their own.

 

 

Did I run over your dog? Or merely burn your Japanese flag?

 

And here I love Honda's, even had a Civic and an Accord Aerodeck...

 

My point (and here is why the 80's are still relevant) is that Honda has not had an easy time in motorsport. Even their vaunted late 80's/early 90's period of dominance was achieved by throwing money at the problem at a time when the competition was (financially) weak. BMW was dragged under by the flatline Brabham, otherwise it would have been the engine to have...Porsche was a small budget effort funded by TAG. Renault was wracked by labour disputes and on the way out in the 80s and on a limited budget in the 90s. Ferrari was funded by its own road car sales, no FIAT money yet. That came after 1988 when they started their long road back.

So Honda's superbudget allowed it to operate on an entirely different level.

 

Same with the normally aspirated engines. At least, until the Williams-Renault alliance got going.

 

Flash forward to the 00's and Honda never managed to build an engine worthy of its reputation. Which was largely that it would spend whatever was necessary to buy success. But that didn't work anymore since there were other manufacturers willing to either spend what was necessary (Mercedes & Toyota) or tech smart (Renault & BMW) to build competitive engines.

 

So one would expect Honda to realize the old dog doesn't hunt anymore in an age where others can and will spend as much as Honda, so it needs to come to the engine party with smarts and money.

 

Yet apparently, Honda "underestimated" the challenge. That spells stupidity in English as well as Jenglish.

 

And since Honda apparently has difficulty in practically every racing series it appears, that points to something fundementally wrong in the Honda organisation. Likely, its the lack of a strong manager and its desire to train young engineers by cycling them through the racing departments. Racing is so difficult, you need your a-team working on it, not your graduation class.

[Talisman]

And since Honda apparently has difficulty in practically every racing series it appears, 

 

Not really.

 

On two wheels Honda is strong on just about all tarmac racing and dominant in MotoGP.  The fact that you have pointed out that they have only had one victory this season in Motogp as evidence of failure points to their overall dominance.

 

While I agree that Honda is having difficulties in several formulae has it crossed your mind that few if any other makers are as committed to motorsport?

 

Ferrari races where exactly outside F1?  Mercedes is in DTM, F3, probably some tin top formulae elsewhere around the world.  What else?

 

Renault does a lot of single marque open and closed wheeled formulae where they obviously cannot lose.  Their tintops race in some closed wheeled formulae.  So even ignoring two wheels Honda probably races in more formulae than the rest of the grid put together.  They cannot be expected to win everything everywhere all of the time.  Shame on them for doing too much racing eh?

Edited by Talisman, 02 July 2015 - 08:07.

[taran]

Not really.

 

On two wheels Honda is strong on just about all tarmac racing and dominant in MotoGP.  The fact that you have pointed out that they have only had one victory this season in Motogp as evidence of failure points to their overall dominance.

 

While I agree that Honda is having difficulties in several formulae has it crossed your mind that few if any other makers are as committed to motorsport?

 

Ferrari races where exactly outside F1?  Mercedes is in DTM, F3, probably some tin top formulae elsewhere around the world.  What else?

 

Renault does a lot of single marque open and closed wheeled formulae where they obviously cannot lose.  Their tintops race in some closed wheeled formulae.  So even ignoring two wheels Honda probably races in more formulae than the rest of the grid put together.  They cannot be expected to win everything everywhere all of the time.  Shame on them for doing too much racing eh?

 

Not really. Honda has a motorsport heritage which is admirable.

But why should we cut them any slack because they are spread wide?

If they can't do it all properly (which is not the same as winning in my book), they shouldn't do so many different series.

 

The question in this thread is if Honda has done a poor job in F1 this year. I don't think anyone expected them to be winning out of the box. Just show a decent level and then improve from there. But instead, their performance has been dire with little signs of improvement. They are propping up the grid with Manor, for god's sake.

They have even managed to bring Boullier down and he is the poster boy for pie in the sky cheerleading.

 

If the McLaren-Honda was a rocketship but unreliable, people would be forgiving.

If the McLaren-Honda was slow but reliable, people would be forgiving.

But the McLaren-Honda is neither. 

Edited by taran, 02 July 2015 - 08:28.

[sopa]

I would love to see them ditch honda, if there is no light at the tunnel soon, and bring bmw onboard, because they would definitly throw all they have to beat mercedes

 

I think the standard Mercedes has set is so high that BMW would struggle to match it as well. Anyone would TBH. The ones I wonder about are VW Group and Toyota, who have lots of hybrid expertise and also field hybrid cars in WEC. However, even for them it may be too much of a task to match or even get anywhere near Mercedes. Let's not forget - Honda is a big company and was expected to do well, just like one would expect your other big companies to do well if they decided to join, but life isn't all like that.

[Talisman]

But instead, their performance has been dire with little signs of improvement. They are propping up the grid with Manor, for god's sake.

 

 

If this is your central premise its rather flawed simply by being untrue as CPR's exhaustive analysis on the McLaren thread has shown.  There has been considerable improvement over the year albeit from a very low baseline, though your perception is no doubt skewed by the last two races which were a) always going to be the most difficult races in the season, b) where unexpected technical problems were encountered and c) where the most competitive car McLaren Honda fielded with significant updates had to contend with a 25 place grid penalty before being almost snapped in half by an errant Ferrari on the first lap.  I would also add that Honda's (IMO rather too cautious) policy of retiring cars that show sensor data that is out of the normal range where there has been no actual failure contributes to the sense of unreliability.

[taran]

If this is your central premise its rather flawed simply by being untrue as CPR's exhaustive analysis on the McLaren thread has shown.  There has been considerable improvement over the year albeit from a very low baseline, though your perception is no doubt skewed by the last two races which were a) always going to be the most difficult races in the season, b) where unexpected technical problems were encountered and c) where the most competitive car McLaren Honda fielded with significant updates had to contend with a 25 place grid penalty before being almost snapped in half by an errant Ferrari on the first lap.  I would also add that Honda's (IMO rather too cautious) policy of retiring cars that show sensor data that is out of the normal range where there has been no actual failure contributes to the sense of unreliability.

 

Fair enough.

 

Yet there are two parts to the central question (IMO):

 

a) was the Honda engine a decent effort, considering they had a year in which to see what the others had done and what was working and what wasn't?

 

b) has Honda shown either progress or the ability to get on top of problems.

 

 

Regarding a, I think the answer is a resounding no. All the other engines did much better in their first year. More power and more reliability. And Honda was in the position to see how well Mercedes had done (benchmark figures) so while it may have been too late to change the basic architecture of their engine, there's no excuse for not having deployed more resources when it became painfully clear they were subpar.

 

Regarding b, I have yet to see this progress. While they have been creeping up the qualifying grid, it seems as if they have neither turned up the wick to go for power or improved reliability with a detuned engine.

 

YMMV

[Rurouni]

I would love to see them ditch honda, if there is no light at the tunnel soon, and bring bmw onboard, because they would definitly throw all they have to beat mercedes

You better hope that BMW already had a current F1 PU design so they can enter early, otherwise they need to make sure that their design is on par with Merc (speed and reliability) because they will have less scope and opportunity (tokens) to refine their PU if they enter late. If they only starts now, they most optimistic time is to enter in 2017 which would give them 1 1/2 year to design the PU. Realistically, 2018 is more likely if they want to enter with a mature enough PU. FYI. if you don't have in season development, that means if they (BMW) enter in 2017, they would have 20 tokens for 2018, 15 for 2019 and 3 for 2020. Considering that Merc had used 25 tokens, Ferrari 22, and Renault 20 on their 2nd year, then I wish BMW good luck because they are going to need it.

[Talisman]

Regarding a, I think the answer is a resounding no. All the other engines did much better in their first year. More power and more reliability. And Honda was in the position to see how well Mercedes had done (benchmark figures) so while it may have been too late to change the basic architecture of their engine, there's no excuse for not having deployed more resources when it became painfully clear they were subpar.

 

Regarding b, I have yet to see this progress. While they have been creeping up the qualifying grid, it seems as if they have neither turned up the wick to go for power or improved reliability with a detuned engine.

 

YMMV

 

Regarding your a) benchmarking is of little value if you do not have the resources to attain the same standards.  In Honda's case the biggest factor is time as repeated ad-nauseum.  If Honda are in a similar position in 2016 they will deserve all the derision aimed their way.  At the moment though, no.

 

Regarding b) it was clear that they had significant problems in the first few races which were ironed out by Spain, both the race and the subsequent test.  It was once token upgrades had been introduced in Canada that new problems emerged.  So it would appear they can resolve problems but new changes introduce new faults.  This is to be expected in any complicated system no?

[Talisman]

You better hope that BMW already had a current F1 PU design so they can enter early, otherwise they need to make sure that their design is on par with Merc (speed and reliability) because they will have less scope and opportunity (tokens) to refine their PU if they enter late. If they only starts now, they most optimistic time is to enter in 2017 which would give them 1 1/2 year to design the PU. Realistically, 2018 is more likely if they want to enter with a mature enough PU. FYI. if you don't have in season development, that means if they (BMW) enter in 2017, they would have 20 tokens for 2018, 15 for 2019 and 3 for 2020. Considering that Merc had used 25 tokens, Ferrari 22, and Renault 20 on their 2nd year, then I wish BMW good luck because they are going to need it.

 

On top of that lets not forget the wonderful message F1 sent out by its knee-jerk consideration of major engine changes by 2017 and the constant reminders by Bernie that the option to return to V8s was always on the table and could even become reality.  Nothing like stability to assuage potential investors eh?  No board is going to consider F1 seriously because of these constant potential changes.

[dierome1987]

Did I run over your dog? Or merely burn your Japanese flag?

 

And here I love Honda's, even had a Civic and an Accord Aerodeck...

 

My point (and here is why the 80's are still relevant) is that Honda has not had an easy time in motorsport. Even their vaunted late 80's/early 90's period of dominance was achieved by throwing money at the problem at a time when the competition was (financially) weak. BMW was dragged under by the flatline Brabham, otherwise it would have been the engine to have...Porsche was a small budget effort funded by TAG. Renault was wracked by labour disputes and on the way out in the 80s and on a limited budget in the 90s. Ferrari was funded by its own road car sales, no FIAT money yet. That came after 1988 when they started their long road back.

So Honda's superbudget allowed it to operate on an entirely different level.

 

Same with the normally aspirated engines. At least, until the Williams-Renault alliance got going.

 

Flash forward to the 00's and Honda never managed to build an engine worthy of its reputation. Which was largely that it would spend whatever was necessary to buy success. But that didn't work anymore since there were other manufacturers willing to either spend what was necessary (Mercedes & Toyota) or tech smart (Renault & BMW) to build competitive engines.

 

So one would expect Honda to realize the old dog doesn't hunt anymore in an age where others can and will spend as much as Honda, so it needs to come to the engine party with smarts and money.

 

Yet apparently, Honda "underestimated" the challenge. That spells stupidity in English as well as Jenglish.

 

And since Honda apparently has difficulty in practically every racing series it appears, that points to something fundementally wrong in the Honda organisation. Likely, its the lack of a strong manager and its desire to train young engineers by cycling them through the racing departments. Racing is so difficult, you need your a-team working on it, not your graduation class.

 

 

Honda's 2004 engine was one of the best out there. Their 2006 V8 wasn't too bad either. It's just that they didn't manage to develop it further via "reliability updates" after the engine homologation later that year.

 

In addition, Honda's CART engines from the late 90s - early 00s were the class of the field. But I agree that they only seemed to have the edge when they were able to outspend their competitors.

 

I do not think that Honda will be able to build an engine to compete with Mercedes. It's frankly outrageous that the whole project is practically built upon the Senna-McLaren Honda nostalgia. I feel so sorry for Fernando and Jenson.

[V8 Fireworks]

 I feel so sorry for Fernando and Jenson.

 

Why so - it's a leading F1 team? At least on par with potential as Williams and Lotus.   

[oetzi]

I just saw a kind of TV advertorial for the new NSX on Bloomberg.

 

Its release has been delayed due to problems with its 6 cylinder turbo hybrid engine.

Edited by oetzi, 02 July 2015 - 10:01.

[MastaKink]

Could have been worse and could have gone better.

 

 

One thing i don't understand is the criticism aimed at them for not using the very limited knowledge of the Mercedes PU to come up with a similar design.  For one they had limited access to the PU and the software optimization.   And secondly, and most importantly, they never bloody tried to!.  It's a completely different philosophy they are trying to get working.

 

You can criticize them for being far too aggressive and question whether it was the right route to go down, I wouldn't personally as I'm glad they at least are trying to beat Mercedes and not just catch them up, but criticism of them for not being able to build a PU at all is a little silly as they never tried to just build a PU that could work but rather a PU that could surpass an already brilliant design.  

 

It will be interesting to see if they remain committed to the design they are trying to get to work or abandon it for a more conservative approach like Ferrari did over the winter. If they could get on top of the ERS which I feel is a problem then a quick turnaround like Ferrari achieved over the winter is a possibility so it must be very tempting under the weight of criticism to abandon the initial philosophy.

 

It's very interesting to watch anyway so I'm quite happy.

[Gareth]

You can criticize them for being far too aggressive and question whether it was the right route to go down, I wouldn't personally as I'm glad they at least are trying to beat Mercedes and not just catch them up, but criticism of them for not being able to build a PU at all is a little silly as they never tried to just build a PU that could work but rather a PU that could surpass an already brilliant design. 

Hasn't this been the story of McLaren chassis's for since 2008?  "Don't worry, we're having early teething troubles but we're confident this is the right concept and once we've got the teething troubles sorted we'll unlock the potential^TM and it'll be a winner.  We knew this would be an aggressive approach and we're confident it'll prove right in the end."

 

7 years on and we're still waiting for the potential to be unlocked.

 

And after those stellar 7 years of success, they've decided this is the right philosophy to apply to the engine too ...

[muramasa]

extremely basic, simple fact;

 

McLaren ≠ Honda

[MastaKink]

Hasn't this been the story of McLaren chassis's for since 2008?  "Don't worry, we're having early teething troubles but we're confident this is the right concept and once we've got the teething troubles sorted we'll unlock the potential^TM and it'll be a winner.  We knew this would be an aggressive approach and we're confident it'll prove right in the end."

 

7 years on and we're still waiting for the potential to be unlocked.

 

And after those stellar 7 years of success, they've decided this is the right philosophy to apply to the engine too ...

 

Well it's PR spiel isn't it, what else are they going to say.  I don't think you should stop trying to achieve the maximum just because you have failed a few times. They can end up looking silly sometimes of course but so what.  

 

There was nothing wrong with the chassis in the second half of 09,10,11 and '12, it won plenty of races. '12 in particular was a fine chassis to be able to fight with and sometimes be the best car against a RB that had Renault engine maps that were perfect for EBD to compliment a Newey chassis that was lauded by the masses.  That was quite impressive.   

 

'13 was a baffling decision to go for revolution rather than evolution and they payed for it. '14 was uninspiring also but a little more forgivable considering they were messed about by Mercedes with the dimensions of the PU and other things because of the impending break up.  I wouldn't know where to begin placing the '15 chassis so I'll let others if they wish.

 

While never class leading for a whole season in those 7 years it was the quickest car in plenty of them and the 2nd best car overall.