14 replies to this topic

[Louis Mr. F1]

Today, F1ers always refer Honda to their glory days of between 86 and early 91. While before, I have no problem with it and truly believe Honda is one of the best engine company in the world, judging by their performance during that period. But as I think more about it, it came to my mind that during that period, there's no real competition from other manufacturers.

Let's take a quick look:
Ferrari was nowhere after mid 85, and we all know how long it took Barnard to produce a semi-competitive car.
Porsche-TAG, it's development has slowed down since the mid 86, i believe, after they have won 3 back-to-back-to-back titles and they pulled out after 87.
BMW, 86 was their last year and Megatron wasn't a full effort.
Renault, 86 was their last year before they re-entered in 89, but it took a couple years (and a 1st ranked driver) to make them fully competitive again.
Alfa Romeo, forget it.
Lamborghini, low budget effort by Chrysler.
Ford, always reliable, but where's the power?

Also, Honda basically grabbed all the top drivers of the time: Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet......
So, at that time, I didn't realize it. but while I was wondering why Honda could be so dominant during those 6 years, and it's no where in the 2002 championship. I suddenly realized where was the competition? today, we have full effort by Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyota, Jaguar, suddenly, Honda is not able to respond to the tidal waves despite their experience and money.

Please don't take this thread as a knock on Honda, I like them alot back in the early 90s, which led to the buying of a 90 Honda Accord which still runs reliably. Berger recently asked a Japanese journalist why Honda didn't get their act together, and the journalist has no answer. Well, I think, maybe just maybe, the competition is just too tough, esp when you are teamed with BAR and Jordan, and splitted up your effort/resources.

[Cobra]

I can see where ya coming from! I'm sure that most of Honda's engineers from their glory days have moved on. The new crop of youngens seem to have trouble coming to terms with the competition. Not only does Honda have to improve or get more aggressive with their engine designs, BAR and Jordan really have to rework their cars. The last thing they want happening is Toyota to start out scoring them Oh, wait, they already have!

[MN]

One thing I know about Honda F1 programme is that all engineers recruited for the F1 programme are new to any kind of racing engines.

Yet this year it seems they broke the rule a bit.
Remenber him?

http://www.news-pub..../r01/030104.jpg

[MN]

Same man in 1999. (in Mugen uniform ;) )
http://www.news-pub....es/99052706.jpg

[John B]

Points taken. I'd say reason #1 = Because BAR and Jordan aren't and have never been on the same planet as Williams and McLaren.

Lotus in 1988 and Benetton 1996 proved that a dominant powerplant is only a part of the equation when it comes to success. They couldn't win a single race while the same engine was powering two of the most dominating seasons in other chassis.

[Dudley]

Honda didn't get all of those teams or clear the way like that by accident though.

And maybe the TAG dev did fall off after 1986, but that was 2 years after Honda became the best.

--

You could possibly use the same arguement for Renault in the 90s, after all Honda didn't appear to be trying in 1992 and the only competition up to about 1997 really was Ford in V8 form.

[Schummy]

I don't think if a maker has a great success in one period of years it automaticly translate in that they HAVE to have another one in other later period of years. Things go up and down for makers, for designers, for drivers, etc.

BMW tried it and never really fully mastered it (at Renault, Honda, etc level) , although it had a powerful engine (and a WCC) around 1983, and now BMW is probably the star in engine department. Ferrari engines has had so many ups and downs thru the years that I cannot count them.

Surely this is not one of the most brilliant periods for Honda but it doesn't diminish its earlier achivements

[FredF1]

I always reckoned that Honda had better fuel consumption compared to their rivals in the turbo days.

[random]

Back then, the teams weren't tied to engine manufacturer as they are today. They could pick and choose from a variety of motors. The top teams choose Honda for a reason, Honda supplied the fastest, most reliable motors available.

Of course the top teams with the best motors would attract the highest quality drivers. This combination allowed the Honda powered teams to do things like win 15 of 16 races in a season.

Having attended some turbo era races, IMHO, those Honda motors were in a world of their own.

[Wouter]

IIRC Prost (driving a McLaren-TAG Porsche) was lapped twice by the Williams-Honda's in the GP of France at Le Castellet (a power circuit) in 1986. Says something about the honda for sure. Amazing that Prost still manged to win the WDC that year, aided by Piquets and Mansells rivalry. Willimas did win the WCC though.

[kouks]

Quote

Originally posted by FredF1
I always reckoned that Honda had better fuel consumption compared to their rivals in the turbo days.

Yeah, I remember this as well. I remember one race where Berger went hell for leather in the Ferrari knowing full well he couldn't keep it up but was having a bit of fun anyway. McLaren knew at the time that he was no threat in that race.

[Slyder]

Quote

Originally posted by Schummy
I don't think if a maker has a great success in one period of years it automaticly translate in that they HAVE to have another one in other later period of years. Things go up and down for makers, for designers, for drivers, etc.

BMW tried it and never really fully mastered it (at Renault, Honda, etc level) , although it had a powerful engine (and a WCC) around 1983, and now BMW is probably the star in engine department. Ferrari engines has had so many ups and downs thru the years that I cannot count them.

Surely this is not one of the most brilliant periods for Honda but it doesn't diminish its earlier achivements

You're so right. The TAG-Porsche's had their heyday with Prost and Lauda in 1984-1987. But then came the disastrous 1991 effort from Footwork, A season which practically ended Porsche's run in F1

[taran]

You have raised a strong and interesting point.
In the end, it is the quality of the rivals that determines the reputation of a winner (just look at the Schumacher "giant amongts dwarves" bashing).

The TAG-Porsche was never meant to be an all powerful engine. It had two things going for it. It was the first engine designed/built to the chassis maker's spec's. Barnard wanted an engine that would fit in his wunderchassis MP4/2 and Porsche was willing to build it. Secondly, in an effort to control rising speeds, the FIA introduced fuel rationing. This played in the hands of Porsche to an unprecedented degree. Porsche were old hands at endurance racing and had the electronics for it (Bosch). All the others were caught unawares.

Renault caught up in the end (85/86) but had Senna driving for them. Senna had an technique of blipping the throttle in the curves to stay on the revs. This was detrimental to fuel economy. As the Renault sports chief said years later..."Our reputation as non fuel efficient was mostly due to Senna. His driving style was 20% more wasteful. But how could we complain when he was getting poles and wins?".

Honda went for power and economy instead of economy and power. However, for 1987 they added cheating to win the title. The FIA introduced the pop-off valve to control power. At 4 bar, the pop-off valve leaked the turbo boost. Honda created an engine that overwhelmed the valve. It was a minor scandal at the time but the FIA decided not to prosecute after Honda promised not to do it again. Several Williams insiders have acknowledged it over the years and Alan Hendry has written about it.

For 1988, Honda won by default. They had good economy but were not decisive. Juts look at the Lotus-Honda. But McLaren built a new car for the final year of the turbo era while all the others didn't.
Ferrari had an update, Benetton went non-aspirated, Williams had a judd etc. There were no real rivals....

Despite a certain amount of luck, Honda was the dominant performer. Partly due to a lack of strong competitors. The same could be said of Renault in the 90's.

[Breadmaster]

Quote

Originally posted by taran
Honda went for power and economy instead of economy and power. However, for 1987 they added cheating to win the title. The FIA introduced the pop-off valve to control power. At 4 bar, the pop-off valve leaked the turbo boost. Honda created an engine that overwhelmed the valve. It was a minor scandal at the time but the FIA decided not to prosecute after Honda promised not to do it again. Several Williams insiders have acknowledged it over the years and Alan Hendry has written about it.

Have you got any more information about this?

[Frank de Jong]

Quote

Originally posted by taran
But McLaren built a new car for the final year of the turbo era while all the others didn't.
Ferrari had an update, Benetton went non-aspirated, Williams had a judd etc. There were no real rivals....

IIRC one was not allowed to compete with a new turbocar in 1988 - the McLaren must have been an "update" too. Probably a very good one though...