[Team] Scuderia Toro Rosso: Now with HONDA

[chillibowl]

personally i find myself hoping its more then a back up plan. i find myself curious to see what the performance of the 2017 Honda engine would look like if in a 2018 STR.

maybe we will get a taste of it in winter testing as some sort of base line comparison test.

but surely their 'Plan A' is to do whatever is necessary to help move them towards their true goal of putting a competitive engine into the back of a 2019 RBR car.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely their 'Plan A' is to do whatever is necessary to help move them towards their true goal of putting a competitive engine into the back of a 2019 RBR car.

Agreed - I just don't see how putting a 2017 engine into the Torro Rosso helps that cause in any way. Even if the 2018 engine isn't as good as hoped surely it's the one they've got to push forward with? Otherwise you're looking at another wasted season (running a year old Ferrari engine was no good so a year old Honda is going to be terrible) and still no guarantee that you'll have a decent engine for 2019.

They've got to go with the 2018 engine and then throw as many updates at it as they can to make it quicker / more reliable (assuming it's not awesome out of the box). Yes that's going to be another raft of gazillion place grid penalties but if they go with the 2017 engine they'll be at the back anyway.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I just don't see how putting a 2017 engine into the Torro Rosso helps that cause in any way...

just speculating, but the engine is not the only thing that STR needs to work on/develop.

if they show up at a winter test or a GP weekend and the 2018 engine is not working, would there still not be some value in dropping in a 2017 unit if only to rack up some amount of miles/collect some data?

obviously far far from ideal but surely its better then the lack of plan they had in Australia last year when it looked like they might burn through an entire years allotment of PUs in one GP weekend.

im not sure where my optimism comes from on this, but it does seem like they are learning from their mistakes...maybe

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

personally i find myself hoping its more then a back up plan. i find myself curious to see what the performance of the 2017 Honda engine would look like if in a 2018 STR.

Its pure speculation on my part, but I would not be shocked if the initial 2018 engine is not relatively close to the final 2017 engine from a performance perspective. While I expect them to make performance improvements, I think much of what needs to be done is to solve long standing reliability issues that couldn't be solved in parts of the 2017 design.

So we might roughly see how a 2018 STR compares to a 2017 McLaren very shortly!

In an effort to contribute to this thread without just being a contrarian to other peoples opinions. There has been some interesting info via the Japanese press. Honda has release some details of how they do things within the current F1 spec (actually lots of details on the 2017 power unit). While some of these details may be specific to just Honda, it is likely that the particular novel concept mentioned below is used by other teams as well.

It's all about interesting ways of flowing energy around in the hybrid side of the car. Especially to harvest and store more energy than expected based upon how most people view the rules. I may get some details wrong, but here it is...

* Regulations fix how much the battery pack (ES) can store (I think 4MJ)
* The ES can transfer as much energy as it wants to the MGU-H (i.e. spin up the turbo shaft via motor)
* The MGU-H can transfer as much energy as it wants to the MGU-K (i.e. pull energy off the exhaust to run the hybrid motor.)
* MGU-K however can only use energy at a rate of 120kW
* MGU-K can only send no more than 2MJ of energy per lap to the ES.

The loophole is that there is no limit on transfer of energy from the MGU-K to the ES if it is routed through the MGU-H. Basically the MGU-K harvests energy, this is sent to the MGU-H which the motor spins up the shaft, then quickly it switches the MGU-H to generator mode and treats the MGU-H as a flywheel to extract energy and then send to the ES. This allows for harvest and usage of more energy than expected. This switching back and forth happens many times a second.

A more specific example is that lets say the car harvests it's maximum 2MJ from the MGU-K during the lap. It can then now start to route even more energy through the MGU-H to the ES. I also think that while the ES holds a maximum of 4MJ there is nothing that says more energy than 4MJ might actually be harvested and deployed throughout the lap. I think that previously most people just thought the MGU-H was used to spin up the turbo as needed (like anti-lag) and then harvest some energy back for either the ES or to be sent to the MGU-K. But now it is used as an energy storage device itself to allow for energy to flow through it to the ES from the MGU-K.

If I understand it correctly, the article says that Honda was not doing this in the 2017 engine early on (even if that was a design goal), but started to do this at the end of the season (which is also when we started to see some better performance from the engine). And as I mention above, this is not expected to be a Honda only solution. It is likely Mercedes has been doing this for awhile (if not from the beginning).

Richard

[Tourer]

Seems to me that having a plan B in this instance is something of a cop out. While it may seem prudent, in reality it’s showing a lack of commitment & confidence in the 2018 program. Far better to commit 100%, give it everything and know that you HAVE to make it work as it’s the only option you have. Kinda like the teams themselves in fact. Any time a team has stepped back to an older chassis it has (rightly) been seen as a major disaster. Quite why Honda would even be considering it (other than supposedly avoiding embarrassment) is beyond me.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Quite why Honda would even be considering it (other than supposedly avoiding embarrassment) is beyond me.

This. I believe that their strategy is almost one of minimising the acute embarrassment they have suffered in the last couple of years with the constant failures and the Alonso style public ridicule outbursts. That does not fit into the Japanese philodophy.

Failure is one thing; repeated failure an unacceptable option, especially when compounded with ridicule by the masses.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Quite why Honda would even be considering it (other than supposedly avoiding embarrassment) is beyond me.

Originally Posted by E.B

This. I believe that their strategy is almost one of minimising the acute embarrassment they have suffered in the last couple of years with the constant failures and the Alonso style public ridicule outbursts. That does not fit into the Japanese philodophy.

Failure is one thing; repeated failure an unacceptable option, especially when compounded with ridicule by the masses.

But surely using the 2017 engine would be hugely embarrassing? It would be an admission that their 2018 engine is another disaster. I can't see any positive to using the 2017 engine unless the 2018 engine just blows up on startup every time.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

But surely using the 2017 engine would be hugely embarrassing? It would be an admission that their 2018 engine is another disaster. I can't see any positive to using the 2017 engine unless the 2018 engine just blows up on startup every time.

But, would they have to 'admit' they're using the 2017 engine? If it's pretty much a straight swap for the 2018 unit (which it will need to be if they're considering using it) they could just say that they've used 'another' engine (maybe of a slightly lower specification). It's important for Torro Rosso and Honda to get some testing mileage under their belts pre-season. Ultimately the 2017 may not have the potential power of the new unit, so that won't push the chassis as hard, but it will push it a lot harder than an exploded 2018 engine!

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

But, would they have to 'admit' they're using the 2017 engine? If it's pretty much a straight swap for the 2018 unit (which it will need to be if they're considering using it) they could just say that they've used 'another' engine (maybe of a slightly lower specification).

Keeping that sort of info under wraps in F1 would prove very difficult I'd imagine!

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

It's important for Torro Rosso and Honda to get some testing mileage under their belts pre-season.

Agreed - they need some serious mileage (as does everyone).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

But surely using the 2017 engine would be hugely embarrassing? It would be an admission that their 2018 engine is another disaster. I can't see any positive to using the 2017 engine unless the 2018 engine just blows up on startup every time.

Is it really that extreme? That if they don’t launch with an expected significant upgrade that the entire new 2018 spec is a disaster? We are all entitled to our opinions, but this is the complete opposite of what was being said early 2017 when everyone was aghast that Honda introduced a new engine that was clearly not ready. Including comments that the 2016 engine would have been a better option.

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

But, would they have to 'admit' they're using the 2017 engine? If it's pretty much a straight swap for the 2018 unit (which it will need to be if they're considering using it) they could just say that they've used 'another' engine (maybe of a slightly lower specification). It's important for Torro Rosso and Honda to get some testing mileage under their belts pre-season. Ultimately the 2017 may not have the potential power of the new unit, so that won't push the chassis as hard, but it will push it a lot harder than an exploded 2018 engine!

Very good point. Especially given that the “2018 spec” is an evolution of the 2017 design. Let’s call it “2017++”. I suspect even if they didn’t launch with expected upgrades that defines the 2017++ spec, it is unlikely to be exactly the same spec used at the end of last year. Let’s call that 2017+ spec. We are arguing if Honda will launch with a 2017+ or a 2017++ spec. Granted... 2017++ is expected/hoped to be a significant improvement over a 2017 or 2017+ spec.

Richard

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Is it really that extreme? That if they don’t launch with an expected significant upgrade that the entire new 2018 spec is a disaster? We are all entitled to our opinions, but this is the complete opposite of what was being said early 2017 when everyone was aghast that Honda introduced a new engine that was clearly not ready. Including comments that the 2016 engine would have been a better option.

Yep - it is that extreme - so far it's always been "the next engine will be great" and they've failed to deliver. How long can that go on? I don't remember anyone saying the 2016 engine should have gone back in the car - that was awful. But yes - the 2017 engine clearly wasn't ready - the question is - why not?

[Peter Mallett]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the Torro Rosso Honda thread?

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the Torro Rosso Honda thread?

Only if someone corrects the spelling of that thread - it’s driving me mad.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Threads on the Honda Engine merged as per Peter's suggestion

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Yep - it is that extreme - so far it's always been "the next engine will be great" and they've failed to deliver. How long can that go on? I don't remember anyone saying the 2016 engine should have gone back in the car - that was awful. But yes - the 2017 engine clearly wasn't ready - the question is - why not?

Well this forum runs on hyperbole at times! To each his own. I assume if we are operating on extremes, if they bring a new spec to start of 2018 (aka the 2018 engine), then it just showing up will mean Honda is an uncontested success! Right?

Regard talk... Honda was guilty of not delivering to prior promises. My perspective is they have been relatively quiet recently. As to “why” 2017 was a failure... already heavily discussed in this forum.

Richard

[Adam43]

I think we all agree that the priority and defining aspect to whether it is a success is getting the new 2018 engine right. If they have a problem with that then it will be bad.

[Akrapovic]

Obviously the new engine is the priority, but I guess my point is - what's the point of a Plan B, when Plan B is already as bad as a failed Plan A?

It's like saying that Plan A is to win the game. If Plan A fails, then Plan B is to lose the game. Utilising the Plan B, you're no further forward.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Obviously the new engine is the priority, but I guess my point is - what's the point of a Plan B, when Plan B is already as bad as a failed Plan A?

It's like saying that Plan A is to win the game. If Plan A fails, then Plan B is to lose the game. Utilising the Plan B, you're no further forward.

I would say that you suggest a non-existent scenario. It wasn't until late in 2017 that the 2017 engine was producing power at the level of the 2016 engine at the end of 2016. So if they find themselves in a scenario in which 2018 engine is significantly deficient "at the start of the season" (when compared to how things were at the end of 2017), then maybe it does make sense to start 2018 with the 2017 engine.

Also the start of 2018 and 2017 are two radically different scenarios. 2017 was a totally new design. 2018 will be an evolution (less likely to have negative surprises). So short of unexpected reliability issues (or more likely, unfinished reliability testing), we will probably see the 2018 engine at pre-season testing. Of course, there is still room for a massive and unexpected issue to arise. Never say never at this point with Honda! I am a fan, but I am also realistic.

Anyhow... I feel like I am belaboring my points. I think I am generally saying the same thing over and over again. So I am likely to cool down my posting on this until we have something "new" to talk about. I think at this point it is unlikely to sway the opinions of people. And in the end it really doesn't matter. It is just my opinion which is based upon speculation and my own reading. We will just have to wait and see what happens in pre-season testing when we have cars on track.

And... its going to be a long wait until pre-season testing! With an absence of news all we can do is speculate! I think pre-season testing is...

2/26 - 3/1
3/6 - 3/9

There is always a chance for more news to leak out between now and then, but for the most part, I expect it to be relatively quiet until right before the testing starts. I would love to hear some news leak out from the Torro Rosso side of the house.

Richard

[BertMk2]

It'll be interesting to see how much Honda branding is on the car too (and how prominent). Does anyone know what the financials are of this deal? Honda were paying McLaren vast sums (and Alonso) - so are they paying Torro Rosso the same amount?

[BSchneiderFan]

Can someone PLEASE correct the spelling?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Can someone PLEASE correct the spelling?

Hondda? Honnda?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Originally Posted by BertMk2

It'll be interesting to see how much Honda branding is on the car too (and how prominent). Does anyone know what the financials are of this deal? Honda were paying McLaren vast sums (and Alonso) - so are they paying Torro Rosso the same amount?

I think much of that McLaren money was for Alonso. Given he is not part of the deal, I assume Toro Rosso is getting much much less?

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Can someone PLEASE correct the spelling?

Ha, I didn't notice anything. I assume it is fixed now? What was it?

Richard

[ScotsBrutesFan]

It was Torro Rosso - HONDA now corrected to Toro Rosso - HONDA.

The temptation to change it to something with a different spelling mistake was almost to much, but I decided to be good (for a change).

[chillibowl]

bit of a random question....if they do use 2017 engines where would those 2017 PUs be coming from?

given how many units Mclaren went through plus the late season timing of their breakup, i cant imagine there are a lot of fresh/unused PU left over...unless they over produced them or would they be using refurbished/rebuilt units if the 2017 PU gets called back into service.

also a thought about the 3 engine limit for 2018...no doubt there will be a lot of races where penalties are incurred so this may be a moot point but given the 3 engine allotment , Honda wont have many opportunities to introduce new upgrades with out receiving even more penalties.

how this impacts their development cycle for 2018 will be interesting to say the least.

[newlaprecord]

the guys at str (minardi) have a proven track record of really good chasis and great professionalism in working with tight budgets. honda, we all know the track record they have, and a friendlier, more free, less dicatorship-like relationship compared to the one they had with mclaren, could result in some indeed great steps in the right direcion.

the problem are ther drivers. gasly is not half bad, but wont be enough to carry the team, and hartley, im not sure what he is doing in f1. all in all it feels like a very promising package, of which the true potential could sadly be never seen.