347 replies to this topic

[Prelude]

We don't have any clue at all.

 

Kvyat was pretty slow in the speed traps in qualifying, but had a great tow and top speed in the race. 

 

That's all we know so far. 

 

Honda themselves noted they were happy and that Spec 4 performed as expected....

 

I'm also curious for some more details to be honest. My first and tentative impression is that Spec 4  likely isn't a 25HP gain.

 

1. If so. you'd expect Kvyat to be at least higher in the Q speed traps then Gasly

2. If it was 25HP, you'd expect Kvyat to have much easier overtakes than Gasly in the race. Sure, he had some good overtakes, but visually it didn't seem that he gained massively on the DRS straights compared to what Gasly was gaining.

 

All very subjective of course and perhaps they are running the Spec 4 a bit cautious now to get some data...

I would be surprised if they pushed the engine to the max in first race after introduction of an upgrade. The spec3 introduced in France GP, for ex. wasn't much better, if at all than the spec2 in that race, but after that they started extracting more each subsequent race.

 

I don't know about the other 3, but for Honda it always takes them 2 or 3 race weekends of calibration /finetuning /optimizing everything before they start extracting the full potential of PU/upgrade. If it is a 25hp upgrade the spec4, I'm sure they didn't extract even close to that in spa. In Monza I'm sure they will start to unlock more potential of the upgrade (which is an ICE/combustion upgrade btw).

Edited by Prelude, 04 September 2019 - 10:37.

[Ackhernar]

Yes I'm a pessimist.  I've followed and supported Honda for over 30 years.  I followed them through every twist and turn of their current and previous eras and I've taken a lot of flak and outright abuse on the McLaren threads as a result.  Having followed them so closely I know they have weaknesses that I don't believe have necessarily been addressed that aren't the ones others usually focus on.  So forgive me if I'm going to be hard on Honda.

 

I want them to be challenging for the championship next year and that is not an easy ask.  Mercedes and Ferrari are and will continue to be extremely unforgiving competitors.  They will both be looking VERY hard at their PU failures this year and will be adjusting their 2020 project to suit.  Its noticeable that for both of them their 2019 failures are an outlier, both have had near bulletproof reliability over the past few seasons.  It is also noticeable that most of their failures have been in their customer cars.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I'd add that in a championship challenge whether a Ferrari or Merc blows up in an Alfa or Williams doesn't really matter, its when it blows up in the works cars that it counts.  And it hasn't.  Why?  I have no idea.  Maybe its just random but maybe its the way the engines are set up differently in a customer car that contributes to unreliability and not the PU itself.

 

As I said I am delighted that Honda are on par with their stated objectives pre-season and that development is going to plan, but as Honda themselves would readily admit 2020 is going to require yet another step up.  I hope they do it but they can't merely repeat this season's performance and expect to challenge.

Honestly, I don't know what more Honda could do in less than one season to earn the praise it deserves. "I'm a pessimist", sure but you're highly negative of only them, not so much anyone else, curious... what are your thoughts on the Renault PU, I'm assuming you'll be equally pessimistic, if not worse considering this seasons track record..

And I'm sorry, but I'm really not on board with this "it only counts if it's a failure on the works team cars", how is that a valuable measure of ones reliability or performance? Unless you are suggesting they are not equal, which would be a violation of regs. Every installation is approved by Mercedes anyway and yet their engine has popped across two completely unrelated teams... And I would bet my last dollar that if a Honda pops on track this year, this whole thread will erupt with harsh criticism and scrutiny, even though they'd still have the title of most reliable.

Again, I find myself mentioning this a a worrying amount of times.. it's like people are only half watching the season or deliberately evading points that are highly relevant, only to emphasise their own point of argument. Honda's element usage bears no relation to failed components (this cannot be said for all)... please note all used items are a direct result of upgrades due to accelerated development, this was communicated in 2018 by RBR, again in pre-season this year by both RBR and Honda and MULTIPLE times throughout the season. They are pushing development hard this year in an attempt for solid 2020 season, and yet despite this, they have still proven reliability is solid and they are not deficient on power, at least to Renault. We'll see what the latest Spec's can do in the coming races.

I think it's well established and understood on this forum that no competitor will stand still, Honda's actions and honesty regarding their current position imply they definitely know that to be the case, hence the aggressive development strat. I think it's obvious they are aware of the step necessary for a 2020 challenge. So far RBR, notoriously vocal are still very happy with Honda's progress and I think on more than a few occasions have mentioned what they see in the pipeline is highly promising, and each step is delivering. There is reason to be excited for the second half and 2020. That much is starting to become clear.

And yes, there is pessimism but there is also selective disregard..

Edited by Ackhernar, 04 September 2019 - 23:46.

[taran]

Thought this might be interesting considering the recent talk about VTT...

 

From the proposed 2021 regulations (as mentioned by the Racefans website):

A new article (9.4) relates to Power Unit Bench Testing, and restricts both power unit bench testing and complete power train tests according to complex formulae based on number of test benches, run time over 7,500rpm and operation hours.

 

While summer factory shutdown regulations are only marginally changed, power unit suppliers will in future be subject to the same shutdown period as teams save where local laws or unions demand otherwise, in which case the weeks may be replaced by the same number of shutdown days during which no development activities are permitted.

[shure]

Thought this might be interesting considering the recent talk about VTT...

 

From the proposed 2021 regulations (as mentioned by the Racefans website):

A new article (9.4) relates to Power Unit Bench Testing, and restricts both power unit bench testing and complete power train tests according to complex formulae based on number of test benches, run time over 7,500rpm and operation hours.

 

While summer factory shutdown regulations are only marginally changed, power unit suppliers will in future be subject to the same shutdown period as teams save where local laws or unions demand otherwise, in which case the weeks may be replaced by the same number of shutdown days during which no development activities are permitted.

I don't get this, really.  The budget cap should make all these various restrictions redundant and I don't understand what they are trying to achieve by this.  I read an interview with Seidl recently - which of course I can't find again - where he said the something similar, that teams should be able to choose where they spend their money under the budget cap and further restrictions are unnecessary.

[taran]

I don't get this, really.  The budget cap should make all these various restrictions redundant and I don't understand what they are trying to achieve by this.  I read an interview with Seidl recently - which of course I can't find again - where he said the something similar, that teams should be able to choose where they spend their money under the budget cap and further restrictions are unnecessary.

 

Perhaps engine testing/use is not covered under the budget cap and thus requires additional limits?

[Clatter]

Thought this might be interesting considering the recent talk about VTT...

From the proposed 2021 regulations (as mentioned by the Racefans website):
A new article (9.4) relates to Power Unit Bench Testing, and restricts both power unit bench testing and complete power train tests according to complex formulae based on number of test benches, run time over 7,500rpm and operation hours.

While summer factory shutdown regulations are only marginally changed, power unit suppliers will in future be subject to the same shutdown period as teams save where local laws or unions demand otherwise, in which case the weeks may be replaced by the same number of shutdown days during which no development activities are permitted.

I can understand limiting some of the engine development time, but this will make it even more unattractive for a new supplier to join, in the unlikely event someone was interested.

[taran]

I can understand limiting some of the engine development time, but this will make it even more unattractive for a new supplier to join, in the unlikely event someone was interested.

 

I talked about this with some friends and we thought the best way for a new engine supplier to join was to build an engine and test it until it was competitive enough before officially entering F1. Maybe even buying a contemporary chassis from a team and test it on track too. You'd have to create your own test team because F1 teams can't test current or near-current equipment but it would beat limping around for a few years until you had enough experience under the current restrictive regulations to get close to Mercedes.

[SenorSjon]

So no one will enter F1 again. Combine it with the 200m entry fee.

[SarbaV]

This is the race that's gonna be more revealing of Renault vs Honda performance
If McLaren could get within 0.5 sec of RB I'm sure Honda would not have overtook Renault development.

[Talisman]

This is the race that's gonna be more revealing of Renault vs Honda performance
If McLaren could get within 0.5 sec of RB I'm sure Honda would not have overtook Renault development.

 

McLaren more than 0.5 s ahead of RB so that answers that question 

[SenorSjon]

Then you still have the difference between Q and Race. One lap is nice, but if you can't run a high power mode sustained, you still get nowhere.

 

Any news on the failed Renault units from Spa? Recoverable?

 

Edit

At least Norris is getting new parts since the Spa failure.

Edited by SenorSjon, 06 September 2019 - 11:46.

[Reddington]

Pace wasn’t bad! Especially race pace looked good. Nice to see the STR’s do well too. 4 Honda’s in the top 10 is nice to see. Even if it’s only Friday.

[Ackhernar]

McLaren more than 0.5 s ahead of RB so that answers that question

You were saying 😂. This, it's this nonsense. Now that the times are tumbling, even STR is punishing McLaren. I think it is becoming clear Honda have hit a milestone with this PU.

Edited by Ackhernar, 07 September 2019 - 07:01.

[Talisman]

You were saying 😂. This, it's this nonsense. Now that the times are tumbling, even STR is punishing McLaren. I think it is becoming clear Honda have hit a milestone with this PU.

Yawn...

Get a sense of humour.

[Ackhernar]

Yawn...

Get a sense of humour.

Sounds like you need one lol... At least now we know as soon as it goes completely opposite to some outrageous thing you say this is what you'll do.

Edited by Ackhernar, 07 September 2019 - 08:58.

[Talisman]

Sounds like you need one lol... At least now we know as soon as it goes completely opposite to some outrageous thing you say this is what you'll do.

You are of course 100% correct. I did indeed use McLaren’s pace over RBR in a single FP session which was mainly wet and highly variable to point out the difference in PU peak outputs. One where many of the Honda and Renault powered cars were probably not using the latest spec to save mileage.

Or I could have been having fun at your expense.

[SarbaV]

Honda have definitely done impressive engine development this year but still hasn't beaten Renault.
The race will confirm the efficiency part if it doesn't rain.

[BJHF1]

Honda have definitely done impressive engine development this year but still hasn't beaten Renault.
The race will confirm the efficiency part if it doesn't rain.

What will the race confirm though? I mean just look at Mclaren compared to Renault. Last race Renault had huge upper hand on McLaren in qualy then roles reversed in the race. Surely this can’t be down to the engine.

Also Renault did well in qualy today, but Max didn’t take part so we don’t have much of a solid benchmark to work with. I mean there were times when Gasly was outqualified by a McLaren or Renault on non power circuits...so who knows just how much Albon delivered. It’s very early days for him with this car anyway.

[lio007]

This is quite an interesting analyis from f1technical by user juzh:

Verstappen would have been on pole today had this been a normal qualifying for him, or at least be VERY close. I kid you not. If you look at albon's sectors just before the red flag, he was almost 0.4s ahead of his previous best lap (1:20.0). Had he been able to at least match his Q2 sector 3 time he would land somewhere around 1.19.6. We know verstappen is 0.5s faster, and we can be 100% sure he is at least 0.3s faster. Pole position was not out of the question for him. Q2 sectors - 1:20.0 laptime Q3 sectors - aborted lap

Edited by lio007, 07 September 2019 - 18:40.

[Heyli]

This is quite an interesting analyis from f1technical by user juzh:

Very interesting, but we cannot be 100% sure that verstappen would´ve been .3 faster...

 

Bodes well for Honda/RB that they would´ve been close though.

[shure]

This is quite an interesting analyis from f1technical by user juzh:

Interesting, but flawed.  We don't know Verstappen is 0.5s faster and we also can't be 100% sure he's 0.3s faster.  This is only their second race together!  Monza is generally a circuit where team mates are quite close to each other (not so many corners to separate them).  Hamilton is normally much further ahead of Bottas but today there was less than a tenth in it.  The Renault's were also extremely close, as were the Alfas (2 thousandths!).  Heck, the Ferraris were neck and neck when you consider that Vettel didn't get a tow but Leclerc did.  I think the article is making too many assumptions

[lio007]

Very interesting, but we cannot be 100% sure that verstappen would´ve been .3 faster...

 

Bodes well for Honda/RB that they would´ve been close though.

 

Indeed in terms of taking pole, but for sure better than the Renaults.

Edited by lio007, 07 September 2019 - 18:53.

[Ivanhoe]

Yeah, last 7 GP’s will be interesting, starting with Singapore.

[Heyli]

Indeed in terms of taking pole, but for sure better then the Renaults.

Honestly. RB should not care about the Renaults...

 

(regardless of which engine is better, I´m now talking about the package)

[shure]

I think it's pretty clear that both PUs are strong enough now that it's impossible to determine which one is more powerful overall.  A couple of years ago it was clear that the Honda was a weakling, but now they are comparable at the very least.  It's pointless to try and judge potential speed from differently-configured chassis, so really the debate is more one of reliability and flexibility now.  

[lio007]

Honestly. RB should not care about the Renaults...

 

(regardless of which engine is better, I´m now talking about the package)

 

Just wanted to answer the question from the thread-title, because the engine is pretty important on this track :-)

[Ivanhoe]

It looks like all 4 engines are pretty close now. Expected Ferrari to be miles ahead here, but it was very close in quali.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 07 September 2019 - 19:00.

[lio007]

Results under "normal" circumstances (no penalties, no red flags,...) would have been really interesting. Wish I could have a look at a parallel universe :-)

[Ivanhoe]

Results under "normal" circumstances (no penalties, no red flags,...) would have been really interesting. Wish I could have a look at a parallel universe :-)

We still have some races to go, you’ll get answers to your questions.

[lio007]

We still have some races to go, you’ll get answers to your questions.

 

I hope they'll meet my expectations.

[Fatgadget]

The answer lies in the fact that a Honda powered car has won GPs this season and ditto  Renault has not. Simples.

[Heyli]

The answer lies in the fact that a Honda powered car has won GPs this season and ditto  Renault has not. Simples.

Pretty sure races are not won just based on who has the best engine...

[ExEd]

What will the race confirm though? I mean just look at Mclaren compared to Renault. Last race Renault had huge upper hand on McLaren in qualy then roles reversed in the race. Surely this can’t be down to the engine.

Also Renault did well in qualy today, but Max didn’t take part so we don’t have much of a solid benchmark to work with. I mean there were times when Gasly was outqualified by a McLaren or Renault on non power circuits...so who knows just how much Albon delivered. It’s very early days for him with this car anyway.

 

So suddenly without any major aero upgrades Renault found the key to do magic. 

All that in Monza. Riiiiight ...because its well known that PU/power is irrelevant to Monza...lmao!

 

And have you not been comparing RBs results to the Renault teams so far? 

So when Mclaren and Renault cant top the mighty Max (all season long ) its not down to RB been superior to them as a chassis , and more importantly not down to Maxs' skills over delivering,(he has been lapping other Honda drivers over and over) its the Honda.

Now, in one of most if not the most PU performance related GPs, its not the PU, it must be something else?

[Clatter]

The answer lies in the fact that a Honda powered car has won GPs this season and ditto  Renault has not. Simples.

 

So on that basis Mercedes is the worst engine as it is consistently last.

[Requiem84]

So suddenly without any major aero upgrades Renault found the key to do magic. 

All that in Monza. Riiiiight ...because its well known that PU/power is irrelevant to Monza...lmao!

 

And have you not been comparing RBs results to the Renault teams so far? 

So when Mclaren and Renault cant top the mighty Max (all season long ) its not down to RB been superior to them as a chassis , and more importantly not down to Maxs' skills over delivering,(he has been lapping other Honda drivers over and over) its the Honda.

Now, in one of most if not the most PU performance related GPs, its not the PU, it must be something else?

So without any major aero upgrades Stroll gets a P9 instead of a Q1 exit?

Some cars work better in low df config. Renault also went really well in Canada, so it fits the pattern.

But luckily for us the whole field converged. There was 0,6 between P1 and P16 in Q1. We haven’t seen that for ages. Both Renault and Honda made massive inroads on the Fer/Merc advantage.

Which one is better? Still very hard to call. Personally, I think Renault is just ahead in Q mods. In race mode I find it hard impossible to call.

[Fatgadget]

Pretty sure races are not won just based on who has the best engine...

You don't win multiple races without a strong engine powering you i'm also pretty sure.

[eREr]

What will the race confirm though? I mean just look at Mclaren compared to Renault. Last race Renault had huge upper hand on McLaren in qualy then roles reversed in the race. Surely this can’t be down to the engine.

It seems you didn't follow so closely Renault's and Mc's last weekend. Renault beat easily the Mcs on Saturday, then they received their penalties falling back behind Norris. Then at the start Norris was a very-very lucky one while Dan got a huge hit from Stroll damaging his floor heavily, while Hulk had to avoid Kimi as a result loosing several positions. It is a different story when you are ahead and alone and when you are in heavy traffic.

You can not ignore these when you judge their performances.

[eREr]

You don't win multiple races without a strong engine powering you i'm also pretty sure.

RB won several races with the pos Renault PU in the past. So does this mean the Renault PU was a very powerful one, comparable to Merc and Ferrari units? In this year at least it has very competitive power output.

[Fatgadget]

RB won several races with the pos Renault PU in the past. So does this mean the Renault PU was a very powerful one, comparable to Merc and Ferrari units? In this year at least it has very competitive power output.

That Renault was a very efficient engine. What it lacked in outright grunt it made up in other areas. Something that was very important in that Atmo era.

[eREr]

That Renault was a very efficient engine. What it lacked in outright grunt it made up in other areas. Something that was very important in that Atmo era.

I was talking about hybrid PUs, not about championship winning V8s. Renault completely dropped the ball with their hybrids, still RB was able to won some races yearly with that inferior PU. These wins don't mean the Renault V6 hybrid was a powerful PU.

At the same time Williams has the best PU, the same one which helped Merc to win 5 titles, still they are dead last with that PU. Chassis also very-very important, not just the PU.

Edited by eREr, 07 September 2019 - 21:45.

[goldenboy]

That Renault was a very efficient engine. What it lacked in outright grunt it made up in other areas. Something that was very important in that Atmo era.

He's talking about red bull winning with a renault engine in the hybrid era.

[BJHF1]

It seems you didn't follow so closely Renault's and Mc's last weekend. Renault beat easily the Mcs on Saturday, then they received their penalties falling back behind Norris. Then at the start Norris was a very-very lucky one while Dan got a huge hit from Stroll damaging his floor heavily, while Hulk had to avoid Kimi as a result loosing several positions. It is a different story when you are ahead and alone and when you are in heavy traffic.
You can not ignore these when you judge their performances.

All I was implying is that 2 different cars can perform quite differently in terms of Qualy vs race pace....and this can be heavily influenced by the chassis characteristics (amongst many other aspects). On the basis of Renault having a 7-8 tenths advantage in Qualy over Mclaren, had this carried over to the race they would have had podium worthy pace (or thereabouts)? I think not.

Edited by BJHF1, 08 September 2019 - 05:00.

[BJHF1]

So suddenly without any major aero upgrades Renault found the key to do magic. 

All that in Monza. Riiiiight ...because its well known that PU/power is irrelevant to Monza...lmao!

 

And have you not been comparing RBs results to the Renault teams so far? 

So when Mclaren and Renault cant top the mighty Max (all season long ) its not down to RB been superior to them as a chassis , and more importantly not down to Maxs' skills over delivering,(he has been lapping other Honda drivers over and over) its the Honda.

Now, in one of most if not the most PU performance related GPs, its not the PU, it must be something else?

Lol You seem to have forgotten Albon didn’t even get a Q3 time in and Max didn’t even take part in qualy to begin with. Chill out. Of course I feel the Renault PU is quite strong in qualy, I think that is quite clear. It’s just that some of you are so ignorant when it comes to Honda’s qualy performance in particular. It’s almost like your instincts insist that Honda is clearly behind in qualy trim, and all other things and more nuanced details go out the window.

[ExEd]

Lol You seem to have forgotten Albon didn’t even get a Q3 time in and Max didn’t even take part in qualy to begin with. Chill out. Of course I feel the Renault PU is quite strong in qualy, I think that is quite clear. It’s just that some of you are so ignorant when it comes to Honda’s qualy performance in particular. It’s almost like your instincts insist that Honda is clearly behind in qualy trim, and all other things and more nuanced details go out the window.

I’ve explained my view a little further down.
All I’m saying is that you take “track characteristics” in account when Renault PU shows strength but conveniently leaving Max superior skills and RB chassis effectiveness out of the equation the rest of the season.
To me, that diminishes any meaning of argument.

Edited by ExEd, 08 September 2019 - 09:00.

[Risil]

I've removed and edited some recent posts in here. Please don't talk about other fans or insinuate that others have bad motives.

[Fatgadget]

He's talking about red bull winning with a renault engine in the hybrid era.

Is he? He came across like he was talking about the years Red Bull powered by Renault won 4 consecutive WCCs. Either way, the hybrid Renault was far from a slouch during the occasions  it powered Red Bull to wins.It certainly had the measure of the Ferrari And now I reckon the Honda has the measure of the Renault.

[Fatgadget]

So on that basis Mercedes is the worst engine as it is consistently last.

Mercedes consistently last?

[Clatter]

Mercedes consistently last?

 

The Merc lump is in the back of the Williams car isnt it?