Honda Withdrawl from F1

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

Both Toyota and Hyundai already sell cars with hydrogen fuel cells

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSxP...ature=emb_logo

Hydrogen could be a solution, especially for haulage.

However, Akrapovic waggish point remains. It's not really the tech in the vehicle and the ability to build the vehicle that is behind his point either.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

Both Toyota and Hyundai already sell cars with hydrogen fuel cells

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSxP...ature=emb_logo

Flying cars also exist as actual vehicles. But we both know we're talking about the mass roll out of these vehicles.

The Toyota hydrogen vehicle is the only car on Toyota.co.uk that does not have a price listed. There's a reason for that.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The Toyota hydrogen vehicle is the only car on Toyota.co.uk that does not have a price listed. There's a reason for that.

The Mirai is about 80k euros here.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Hydrogen could be a solution, especially for haulage.

However, Akrapovic waggish point remains. It's not really the tech in the vehicle and the ability to build the vehicle that is behind his point either.

Can hardly wait - just look at Stockholm's CNG buses!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qmSG-U8FYI

Hydrogen tank more energetic and higher pressure.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Honda aren't leaving IndyCar, though the new hybrid engine that was to be introduced next year, will be put back to 2023. This is primarily due to Covid, which has led to manufacturing shutdowns in the production of the KERS units. The Honda IndyCar program is not directly run by Honda but by HPD, Honda Performance Developmemnts and they've just announced a change at the helm, with David Salters becoming the seventh president, succeeding Ted Klaus.

I reckon hybrids will be the death of Indycar. Have they learned nothing from F1?

Stick to making the ICEs better and forget about the hybrid spiel.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Greem

Not really, no. The DFV was an off-the-shelf product that anyone could phone up and order to fit in their own car. Lots of people did. Good business for Cosworth and great marketing value for Ford.

Yes, that's good. I agree with it occurring that way.

Originally Posted by Greem

If the FIA direct Renault to supply an engine to RB, that's not quite the same thing, is it?

That's why I used "de facto".

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

Can hardly wait - just look at Stockholm's CNG buses!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qmSG-U8FYI

Hydrogen tank more energetic and higher pressure.

You’re right, tunnels should be banned.

Obviously I am joking there, but you bring up a serious point. The sooner we ban transport and progress the better.

We might want things to go back to horse and cart, but in the interests of fairness here is a hydrogen bus behaving like other normal buses and not exploding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0tUWPR4nzE

[Akrapovic]

As we all know, petrol is in no way dangerous.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

I reckon hybrids will be the death of Indycar. Have they learned nothing from F1?

Stick to making the ICEs better and forget about the hybrid spiel.

They've had a number of years in which to observe how hybrids have worked out F1 and if the racing remains close, I don't see this being the death of IndyCar.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by wnut

Can hardly wait - just look at Stockholm's CNG buses!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qmSG-U8FYI

Hydrogen tank more energetic and higher pressure.

Well, whaddya know?

Originally Posted by New York Times

“The bus drove into a beam hanging down from the tunnel entrance, and then the gas tank on the roof exploded,” Asa Skold, an operator with the emergency services, told the newspaper.

Mr. Aberg said the bus had taken the wrong road. “You can’t drive that way because the buses are too tall,” he said.

Now, I've seen some racing drivers and road drivers do some crazy things over the years, and some of them have resulted in fires and explosions too.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

As we all know, petrol is in no way dangerous.

Indeed. As long as it stays put, you and I both know that it's only when fuels get out of containment that they're dangerous!

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Does anyone think the manufacturer-based model has failed because they have made it an explicit goal in F1 policymaking as opposed to the F1-road car links all being happy accidents?

[chillibowl]

Imo, Honda's leaving F1 is more a testament to their own failure in F1 rather than the F1 model itself failing.

Not to say F1 doesnt have problems of course but very few highlights for Honda in the past 20.

Personally i dont see the RB wins as clear cut successes for Honda which really only leaves Super Aguri's Sato using Honda power to pass Alonso's Merc powered McLaren (Monty 2007?) as my only lasting memory. That and they gave away a chassis that won a title with another manus engine.

Just my opinion but cant place Honda's failure on F1/FOM.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

Does anyone think the manufacturer-based model has failed because they have made it an explicit goal in F1 policymaking as opposed to the F1-road car links all being happy accidents?

Yes. There's a few of us here who think that.

One of the big reasons this failed is because it (accidentally) transfers the power to the manufacturers. In previous rules sets where it was not meant to be specifically about road cars, manufacturers came and went when it suited them. You had a constant flow through the series. When there wasn't many manufacturers it was fine because the gap was filled by smaller engine builders, or Cosworth who more different types of engines than we've all had hot dinners combined. The power was with the series, knowing the teams were coming and going.

By committing to road car relevance you're basically letting manufacturers dictate what they want the rules to be. They build the cars, therefore they can call the shots on what they want.

When you actually deconstruct the state of F1, it's kinda of crazy. Why are we determined to have power trains that are relevant to manufacturers? Meanwhile we can't put a roof on the car because that isn't F1. We mandate tyres that fall to bits for the show. We have brakes that really don't last very long (one could argue that is road relevant - my Fiesta is chewing brakes at the moment!). And we have massive aerodynamic layouts which are not even remotely close to road cars.

We just need the philosophy for the engines to be the same as brakes, aero, fuel, tyres etc. It should be about the sport, not about manufacturers getting what they want. Mandate a minimum engine size of 4L and minimum cylinder count of V8s and get rid of all hybrid and turbos and you'll get rid of all the manufacturer engines immediately and bring back smaller manufacturers. The brand names will still come and go, but you'll now have more popular engines at a lower cost.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Yes. There's a few of us here who think that.

One of the big reasons this failed is because it (accidentally) transfers the power to the manufacturers. In previous rules sets where it was not meant to be specifically about road cars, manufacturers came and went when it suited them. You had a constant flow through the series. When there wasn't many manufacturers it was fine because the gap was filled by smaller engine builders, or Cosworth who more different types of engines than we've all had hot dinners combined. The power was with the series, knowing the teams were coming and going.

By committing to road car relevance you're basically letting manufacturers dictate what they want the rules to be. They build the cars, therefore they can call the shots on what they want.

When you actually deconstruct the state of F1, it's kinda of crazy. Why are we determined to have power trains that are relevant to manufacturers? Meanwhile we can't put a roof on the car because that isn't F1. We mandate tyres that fall to bits for the show. We have brakes that really don't last very long (one could argue that is road relevant - my Fiesta is chewing brakes at the moment!). And we have massive aerodynamic layouts which are not even remotely close to road cars.

We just need the philosophy for the engines to be the same as brakes, aero, fuel, tyres etc. It should be about the sport, not about manufacturers getting what they want. Mandate a minimum engine size of 4L and minimum cylinder count of V8s and get rid of all hybrid and turbos and you'll get rid of all the manufacturer engines immediately and bring back smaller manufacturers. The brand names will still come and go, but you'll now have more popular engines at a lower cost.

I've got this feeling of de ja vu.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I've got this feeling of de ja vu.

Embrace it

[bjohnsonsmith]

I thought the reason manufacturers got involved in F1 and motorsport in general, was primarily because it was a good vehicle for marketing their road cars and not necessarily because of road car relevance.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought the reason manufacturers got involved in F1 and motorsport in general, was primarily because it was a good vehicle for marketing their road cars and not necessarily because of road car relevance.

indeed and until they bought teams that was the case. Now road relevance is an excuse for profligate expenditure and a closed shop.

[Adam43]

I see no need for road relevance, or indeed manufacturers in F1. Although not against them at all.

Being in it and doing well at what always going to be an engineering challenge is a good thing for any manufacturer surely? More important that the actual tech. This is what our engineers can do. It can teach their young engineers how to think, adapt, act quickly, etc... Not that I think there is much movement between an F1 team and the road car R&D. Shame.

Unfortunately I don’t think that the marketing people understand this or possibly the people watching.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see no need for road relevance, or indeed manufacturers in F1. Although not against them at all.

If you or they follow the ethos which says this is a sport.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Being in it and doing well at what always going to be an engineering challenge is a good thing for any manufacturer surely? More important that the actual tech. This is what our engineers can do. It can teach their young engineers how to think, adapt, act quickly, etc... Not that I think there is much movement between an F1 team and the road car R&D. Shame.

Indeed. But this applies to all sorts of industries not just F1.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Unfortunately I don’t think that the marketing people understand this or possibly the people watching.

Ain't that the truth.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

indeed and until they bought teams that was the case. Now road relevance is an excuse for profligate expenditure and a closed shop.

But why do they need an excuse for profligate expenditure? Surely as manufacturers, they would want to keep costs down?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see no need for road relevance, or indeed manufacturers in F1. Although not against them at all.

Being in it and doing well at what always going to be an engineering challenge is a good thing for any manufacturer surely? More important that the actual tech. This is what our engineers can do. It can teach their young engineers how to think, adapt, act quickly, etc... Not that I think there is much movement between an F1 team and the road car R&D. Shame.

Unfortunately I don’t think that the marketing people understand this or possibly the people watching.

As far as the marketing people are concerned, if a driver say Lewis Hamilton can keep on winning, that keeps Mercedes or which ever team a manufacturer owns or is involved with, in the public eye and hopefully that will translate into sales.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

But why do they need an excuse for profligate expenditure? Surely as manufacturers, they would want to keep costs down?

Why? The more they outspend the opposition the better it is.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Why? The more they outspend the opposition the better it is.

Just because someone can outspend another, doesn't mean they are going to produce a better car and win.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

But why do they need an excuse for profligate expenditure? Surely as manufacturers, they would want to keep costs down?

Have you been watching F1 over the last 15 years?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Have you been watching F1 over the last 15 years?

The last 12 years. I stopped watching for a bit, when Ferrari and Schumacher dominated.