[Team] Honda in F1

[Richard C]

Since Honda's return to F1 the topic has lived initially in the context of McLaren and then last year STR. This year they supply both STR and RBR. Even with McLaren being a year removed from Honda the topic still gets discussed there. I think mostly as there is just no single place to talk about "Honda"

So I wanted to start a thread specific to Honda in F1.

Regardless of your thoughts as to how and why their return has been rocky, it's hard to not feel they are making real progress. They are now supplying two teams. With RBR being one of the three that seems to have any real hope of winning races (outside of fluke occurrences by the midfield). They have been low drama during 2019 testing and was on the podium for the first time since 2008 and the first since their re-entry into the sport in 2015.

Honda remains the odd man out. A power unit supplier without a factory team. If Mercedes, Renault or Ferrari have a bad result, they handle that as a team. While internal finger pointing sometimes happens with them (particularly Ferrari), it is much more rare. While the RBR and Honda partnership is rosy at the moment, RBR is a known tough to please customer.

At the moment RBR and Honda are trying to temper expectations given the gap to Mercedes. They seem to be getting along swimmingly (so far). I am always very doubtful of anything Helmut Marko says, but this quote is interesting...

And Red Bull chief Dr Helmut Marko says there is more to come. For that, he admitted that Red Bull has work to do. "The best part of the package is the Honda engine," he said. "For our part we need to improve the chassis. "We have too little downforce, but that's born of the philosophy of the last five years where we had to constantly compensate for the lack of performance."

https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/3...ull-car-marko/

Now, the cynical (and probably correct) interpretation is that this is a chance for Marko to snipe at Renault. But either way, I find it interesting that while they are very positive about the performance of Honda they point the finger at themselves as to the current pace of the 2019 RBR with respect to Mercedes. How often do we see this from RBR in general and Marko in particular?

I will also say that as much as we on this forum like to attribute the domination by Mercedes to their power unit (and it is likely still the best), it's clear that the overall package matters. Clearly we have multiple teams now running all four power units and there is clear performance differences between them on track. My point here is that are we starting to see a glimmer of parity from power units? With Honda just starting to get into the mix?

Richard

[S griffin]

Well it’s good to have Honda back in F1. It didn’t work with McLaren, it didn’t quite work with STR. Now they have a chance to redeem themselves, but will it last? Certainly I hope they stay for a little while

Certainly they did well pre season and the podium was welcome it’s been too long for them, especially since they came back to F1. Helmut Marko should consider himself lucky they have Honda. They were almost left high and dry by Renault. Of course it was a good start, but will they be able to sustain it. Other teams could catch up and put them under threat if they are not careful. RBR have kept Honda in the sport, but how well will the relationship continue? Certainly Merc have the right ingredients, they have their own engine and have run rings round the opposition and despite everything, continues to bear fruit

We’ll see how well this RBR-Honda relationship continues

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It didn’t work with McLaren, it didn’t quite work with STR.

I would say that it went well with STR, but with the caveat that Red Bull (not RBR) deemed 2018 to be a bridge year to allow Honda to prepare for 2019 with RBR and STR. So one one hand STR was screwed, but on the other it was a success for Red Bull and Honda, because it gave Honda the time to get it together.

Originally Posted by S griffin

RBR have kept Honda in the sport, but how well will the relationship continue?

Outside of providing a home post McLaren there is a deeper meaning to your comment. Given it seems that only McLaren, Ferrari or RBR are the three teams that are used to delineate the boundary of "everyone else" RBR is the ONLY place that Honda could have gone to be successful and ultimately remain in the sport.

Imagine Honda being linked to anyone else that is not a B-team already (or nearly so) for one of the manufactures. Honda with one of those few would be a death sentence. McLaren or can you imagine... Williams? Honda would make zero movement forward (held back by the team) and would then eventually quickly leave the sport.

If things sour with RBR... where would Honda go? Problem is, RBR is in the same boat. Without being the #1 team for a PU manufacture, RBR would decline and Mateschitz would probably decide to exit F1.

Richard

[ApexTurtle]

I'm not so sure there is cause for optimism. I remember last year the Red Bulls being in the podium fight with the Renault engines too. Tracks like Bahrain and China are going to be the real test, and I don't think it's going to have a very happy outcome...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

I'm not so sure there is cause for optimism. I remember last year the Red Bulls being in the podium fight with the Renault engines too. Tracks like Bahrain and China are going to be the real test, and I don't think it's going to have a very happy outcome...

Regarding optimism, I guess it depends upon individual expectations. During the last year with McLaren many were writing off Honda completely. Last year as performance and reliability made significant improvements many continued to only talk about the McLaren experience.

In the end, we have to wait and see. I have no expectations that RBR/Honda will be fighting for the title. I think they will fight for race wins and am optimistic that they may see a race win or two (even if I picked a higher number for my predictions). Which is on par with 2018 performance. In short, not going backwards and maybe moving forwards.

I am curious to thoughts about Marko saying it is RBR that needs to improve at this point.

Richard

[S griffin]

Well I wouldn’t count the chickens yet. It was clear the McLaren relationship was doomed to fail and I think Honda has to take some blame for that

Certainly it was a good result, but I wouldn’t predict a title for them either. And wins will be tough against Ferrari and Mercedes, especially as they still have a relatively inexperienced lineup. Last year showed things can get better

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Well I wouldn’t count the chickens yet. It was clear the McLaren relationship was doomed to fail and I think Honda has to take some blame for that

Certainly it was a good result, but I wouldn’t predict a title for them either. And wins will be tough against Ferrari and Mercedes, especially as they still have a relatively inexperienced lineup. Last year showed things can get better

For sure Honda carries most of the blame for their performance (good or bad). McLaren had a large hand in it as well. That is much more clear in hindsight at this point. Honda via an underestimation of the challenge and McLaren via hubris, a big mouth and treating Honda like a part supplier vs. a partner.

Regarding wins for Honda? As you say it's dependent upon how well Mercedes and Ferrari perform. We are only one race in. Mercedes looks VERY good at this point. Regarding relatively inexperienced lineup for RBR. True, but also remember that RBR won three races last year. Two by Max who remains with the team. While not a Max fan, he has one more year under his belt and hopefully will both get better and wiser.

Regardless... Time will tell. Anyone counting chickens at this point is nuts.

Richard

[S griffin]

Honda were in with the wrong crowd and McLaren didn’t help matters. Honda probably though it would be easy with McLaren, while McLaren placed all it’s blame on the engine. Good job Honda were given another chance in the sport

As for wins, I feel it will be tough. Merc have got the car sorted and Ferrari are a bit behind, but still there. We’ll see how reliable the car is. For sure both drivers are good, but haven’t yet shown world beating ability. Max is probably the more talented of the two and as long as he has a decent car underneath him, he can do a good job. This could be the season he arrives. I think he is a talent who people want to see do well

Still early days though, everything can go wrong in a heartbeat

[Casper]

I am still amazed that Honda did not run the motor in a test mule before it was an official F1 homologated PU. The thinking behind that would be an interesting read.

[morninggents]

A difficult one to decide at the moment though the Australia result certainly seems encouraging.
Looking back to the 2017 and 2018 seasons when McLaren and Torro Rosso swapped engines both teams improved with the 'new' engine! McLaren's improvement a little better than TR and giving Alonso a better chance to fight nearer the front than in 2017. And this with an engine deemed by many to be inferior.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am still amazed that Honda did not run the motor in a test mule before it was an official F1 homologated PU. The thinking behind that would be an interesting read.

Do we know this?

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am still amazed that Honda did not run the motor in a test mule before it was an official F1 homologated PU. The thinking behind that would be an interesting read.

There are / were all sorts of testing restrictions in place, so it might not even have been an option for them. Some of the restrictions are fair and are required to keep costs down, but for a brand new manufacturer it really hamstrung them.

There was also the overly restrictive "token" system that was in place regarding development of engines, which for the existing manufacturers with an establish product was not the end of the world, but for the exploding and slow Honda engines, must have been the most frustrating thing in the world.

After just one race, it looks like RBR are more or less in the same relative position as they have been in the last 3 or 4 seasons. I'm sure we will have a clearer picture very soon though.

McLaren have paid the pain, and RBR will get the gain.

If Honda engines start going bang or they lose out on straight line speed at some tracks this year, it will be very interesting to compare RBR's reaction, bearing in mind the silly finger pointing against Renault of recent years.

[greentrumpet]

It seems very positive that the speed trap info from Australia supports Marko. I feel sad that McLaren gave Alonso a second chance after his behaviour during the first stint, and wonder if Honda would still be with them if it weren't for the "GP2 engine" type quotes that were bandied about.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am still amazed that Honda did not run the motor in a test mule before it was an official F1 homologated PU. The thinking behind that would be an interesting read.

I seem to recall rumours they did do, running the engine in a converted car based on the NSX GT500 to use as a running test bed. I recall rumours a few years ago Ferrari had engaged in a similar practice, lapping Fiorano in a specially adapted GT car. Of course as I say this may be rumour more than fact.

Mind you today's technology and dynos may be able to replicate the loads of track use without leaving the test bed.

[GingerPixel]

Ferrari ran a La Ferrari with a big wing and a roof scoop, but I'm not ever sure it was confirmed what they were testing.

[chillibowl]

it was just one race but i was very encouraged with what i saw.

if Honda have in fact turned a corner then they have finally delivered on a long held promise...a successful engine made by a manu but not linked to that manu's factory team...another way to say this is that we could now have viable independent engine provider.

i just hope Honda dont screw it up by thinking they can go full works again!

i also hope that RBR dont sour the relationship with public proclamations about how great they are and how bad their partners are..

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

At the moment RBR and Honda are trying to temper expectations given the gap to Mercedes. They seem to be getting along swimmingly (so far). I am always very doubtful of anything Helmut Marko says, but this quote is interesting...



https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/3...ull-car-marko/

this claim deserve more consideration imo.

given that we think of RBR as already having the best aero package (particular under braking and through corners...Max and Dan - masters of the late breaking) its slightly mind boggling to think they were holding back while with Renault.

in other words whats going to happen when they let Newey Newey up their new car!

if thats not encouraging then i dont know what is!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am still amazed that Honda did not run the motor in a test mule before it was an official F1 homologated PU. The thinking behind that would be an interesting read.

A test mule may or may not have helped. These days, I think, that on track testing is more about correlation and validation of your prior test regime and less about being the primary way to expose issues.

What engineers need is a way to do very controlled testing BEFORE showing up on track (either at a race or a test session). Find issues before putting in the real car (or a mule). Engine dyno testing is an example. But, the dynamics of the solution is more complex these days. That is why most everyone do much more than just engine dyno testing, or even engine dyno testing that try to simulate g-loads. That "something" is a chassis dyno (such as what AVL provides). It is an absolute requirement these days. This combines everything (engine, gearbox, drive shafts, suspension) together and tests the whole integrated unit. If you are able to get good correlation between your internal testing regime (engine dyno, chassis dyno, computer simulation of the power unit, etc.) with the actual on-track performance, then you can do powertrain development nearly 24/7. This works because you can trust your test regime to provide reliable data. If the data tells you that the performance and reliability is there, then it probably is.

I haven't looked at the regulations, but is the CFD limits just on aero development? If so, power unit manufactures could run as much computer simulation on the engines as they wanted as well as nearly unlimited physical testing (dyno, not track testing). It would just be a factor of how large your budget is.

The HUGE miss by Honda is that they seemed to rely purely upon a combination of things like single cylinder test rigs to validate combustion concepts, classic engine dynos and probably computer simulations. They had no capabilities for chassis dynos that would fully integrate the entire powertrain. So they integrated it all together at the very last minute thinking they had it all covered.

I can imagine that McLaren probably had a combination of CAD files, expected performance data plus some type of boilerplate engine mockup that allowed them to design and test fit stuff everything else (gearbox, plumbing, etc.). And then as the season start approached, Honda shows up with a real engine, the put it all together, fire it up, do some quick shake down testing, put it on the truck and drive it to the first test session.

Then they found they had very poor correlation between their pre-integration testing and actual performance. Something was screwing up their combustion process, they had weird power train vibrations/oscillations that didn't show up until on track (those two issue may be related), the had unexpected lubrication issues, reliability issues on various stuff, etc. There was a long list of stuff that just didn't show up on the dyno back in Japan.

Eventually they figured out (probably from external experts) that how they were testing was wrong. I don't know how long it took for Honda to realize this, but then they had to both fix their process and fix the engine at the same time. Without being able to replicate issues on dynos, they had to rely upon forensic analysis to figure out what was going on. Even then, that may say "what" is happening, but not "why". Too many issues to resolve and not enough time. So that was a recipe for a downward spiral in the relationship between Honda and McLaren.

While the slow motion dissolution of the Honda/McLaren relationship was going on, Honda was likely figuring out how to address their testing issues. This probably accelerated once they had an agreement with Red Bull. They probably saw the light by then, and then Red Bull was able to offer additional help and Honda was probably more than willing at that point.

So... I tend to think that a test mule "might" have exposed some of this, but using a test mule is the wrong strategy these days. While some of the rules make it hard to use mules, the real reason is that there are better solutions. So that is why nobody else does it. The real miss by Honda was getting back into the game without having testing capability parity with the other manufactures.

There remains a number of untold stories that I hope come out some day.

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

Ferrari ran a La Ferrari with a big wing and a roof scoop, but I'm not ever sure it was confirmed what they were testing.

I kept thinking it was F1 related, and I think there is a narrow way this can be legally done, but Ferrari says "no" and I think I have seen a photo of that car on display somewhere with specific details as to what it was and those details didn't match the F1 specs. But who knows if that was accurate or not.

Originally Posted by steve_r

McLaren have paid the pain, and RBR will get the gain.

Yes

Originally Posted by steve_r

If Honda engines start going bang or they lose out on straight line speed at some tracks this year, it will be very interesting to compare RBR's reaction, bearing in mind the silly finger pointing against Renault of recent years.

Yes again!

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i just hope Honda dont screw it up by thinking they can go full works again!

I agree. I suspect the current scars run very deep. That Honda has learned a very hard lesson. I can only see them owning a team in the distant future and the regulations have resulted in radically simpler cars. To my point earlier... If we are starting to see hints of power unit parity, then we can also conclude that there remains plenty of secret sauce to making a fast car beyond having a good engine. And so far... nobody seems to be better than Mercedes at both. And that is not for a lack of trying by their opponents.

Richard

[wnut]

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_r
If Honda engines start going bang or they lose out on straight line speed at some tracks this year, it will be very interesting to compare RBR's reaction, bearing in mind the silly finger pointing against Renault of recent years.

I do think that Renault under delivered for years and got results that were far beyond the investment they were making, with RBR picking up the slack.

The relatively instant results that RBR have delivered for Honda pretty well confirms this.
Where were the Renault powered cars in Melbourne?

[S griffin]

Well Honda should be alright. RBR should consider themselves lucky they’ve got it, even if Renault delivered them enough titles

That is what RBR need to remember while they are criticising the Regie. The Honda engine is what got RBR up there though. And the other Renault engined cars were a bit behind, but we’ll see if they can improve. I’m not sure they can by enough though

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

A test mule may or may not have helped. These days, I think, that on track testing is more about correlation and validation of your prior test regime and less about being the primary way to expose issues.


Richard

I wish that was the case, sometimes you get lucky but the final absolute result as Honda found out and I have seen is the installed PU in the car and out on the track. So many things can go wrong with the installation and it is always the preferred method of validation. I mentioned this very early in the peace when they were having issues and Honda later confirmed that the behaviour of the PU was different once it was installed. Honda would have known straight away they had problems but for some reason they never went down that path. I speculate that McLaren were on a year end deadline with Mercedes and needed the Honda to fill the hole in the back of the car at any cost or risk as they had terminally ended the relationship with Mercedes. I also speculate that Honda vastly underestimated the task of producing a competitive PU for the new regs but so did everyone bar MB. Ross Brawn talks of the difficulties of his relationship with them in the Motorsport video he was part of.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

I wish that was the case, sometimes you get lucky but the final absolute result as Honda found out and I have seen is the installed PU in the car and out on the track. So many things can go wrong with the installation and it is always the preferred method of validation. I mentioned this very early in the peace when they were having issues and Honda later confirmed that the behaviour of the PU was different once it was installed. Honda would have known straight away they had problems but for some reason they never went down that path. I speculate that McLaren were on a year end deadline with Mercedes and needed the Honda to fill the hole in the back of the car at any cost or risk as they had terminally ended the relationship with Mercedes. I also speculate that Honda vastly underestimated the task of producing a competitive PU for the new regs but so did everyone bar MB. Ross Brawn talks of the difficulties of his relationship with them in the Motorsport video he was part of.

Never understood why Honda allowed their entrance into F1 to be so tightly controlled by vested interests. They should have spent the year previous to their F1 entry running the wheels off a super formula car in Japan.
They should also have embedded techs with McLaren to learn everything that they could from the Mercedes PU.

Do you have a reference for the motorsport video with Ross Brawn?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There remains a number of untold stories that I hope come out some day.

I don't think you mentioned it:

Red Bull has a full car dyno. McLaren does not (Reanult didn't have one until this season either).

Obviously since Honda signed with Toro Rosso, the Honda engine in a Toro Rosso (and now Red Bull car) has been running on the Red Bull full car dyno and this is very helpful.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

Where were the Renault powered cars in Melbourne?

At least one was parked in the pitlane...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I wish that was the case, sometimes you get lucky but the final absolute result as Honda found out and I have seen is the installed PU in the car and out on the track. So many things can go wrong with the installation and it is always the preferred method of validation.

So i will admit to being overly enthusiastic as to the "ideal" scenario of internal testing replacing on-track. I think that would be everyone's goal if it could be done reliably and cheaply. But in the end, and as you say, you still have to do physical on-track testing because you continue to expose issues that were not found previously. But in general I think what I talk about works (+/-). It is why we see such high reliability in cars today. Overall my point was more about the quality of your correlation (between internal design/testing and on-track performance). I expect someone like Mercedes has it and someone like Williams (chassis) and Honda (power unit) does not (Honda might now).

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I don't think you mentioned it:

Red Bull has a full car dyno. McLaren does not (Reanult didn't have one until this season either).

Obviously since Honda signed with Toro Rosso, the Honda engine in a Toro Rosso (and now Red Bull car) has been running on the Red Bull full car dyno and this is very helpful.

My post already was a novel and didn't know the full picture. I didn't have the details you mention. I had read previously about the RBR vs. McLaren situation. I wasn't sure (still not) if McLaren and Honda tried to get one prior to the divorce or not. I know that Honda staffed up in the UK while trying to fix the engine and I wondered if that is where they may have tried that type of integration testing. I expected Mercedes uses one and I know Ferrari does. I didn't know the situation with Renault or anyone else. Note that those at the front of the pack... have and use these tools.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Honda did start early...i believe the deal was first announced almost a 2 years before its first race in 2015. by the time Mclaren saw what Merc's 2014 engine would look like, would it have already been too late for Honda to change their design?

but even if they could have learned more from Merc, they clearly underestimated the task that laid ahead and continued to underestimate it right up until the end of the partnership with Mclaren.

but issues of strategies, testing platforms etc aside do we actually know how much more lead time Merc and Renault had?

from what i recall both Merc and Renault were the main factors in why the current engine formula was chosen so, imo, it stands to reason that they pushed for this solution because they already had their starting point/early r&d already in hand (and in Merc's case an ingenious solution plus a mega ton of resources to boot).

indeed it is fair to say that Honda did many things wrong (as did Mclaren imo) but even if they had done everything right would they still not have been victims of being behind on time?