Honda Withdrawl from F1

[Peter Mallett]

Then perhaps you should stop now. In the meantime I've bought a few Mercs in my time but F1 success has never been a factor. Do you hanker after a Merc due to its F1 success?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Then perhaps you should stop now. In the meantime I've bought a few Mercs in my time but F1 success has never been a factor. Do you hanker after a Merc due to its F1 success?

Actually, I am thinking about stopping again. The Hamilton/Mercedes domination is killing my interest as did the Schumacher/Ferrari domination.

I've never owned a Merc and I don't hanker after one, F1 success or not. If I had that sort of money, I'd buy a vintage Les Paul.

[Peter Mallett]

Bingo.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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

You missed the best bit with the V10 engines!

That was a great era, with merry, happy tifosi! Most of the tracks didn't even have ridiculous tarmac runoffs everywhere yet, with classic tracks like Imola and Magny Cours on the calendar!

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Do you hanker after a Merc due to its F1 success?

Mercedes has a severe lack of manual transmission options in much of their range, it's most unfortunate. A 190E Cosworth with the dogleg manual box would be a lovely runaround!


Superb!

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I've never owned a Merc and I don't hanker after one, F1 success or not. If I had that sort of money, I'd buy a vintage Les Paul.

You'd rather a plank of wood than a motor car!?

You sure you don't like the 190E 2.3-16 valve Cosworth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORc139-iQ7c It's really nice!

It would certainly be easier to go with the 2020 Honda Civic Type R given it's a modern car, manual transmission, brand new with warranty etc... But the 190E sure has it's appeal!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

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

I didn't quote your entire post just to save space, but you are spot on.

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.

So there needs to be enough "truth" in the linkage between their product and F1 so that a good story can be told (such as "Our success with hybrid engines in F1 is applied to our road cars!" even if there may be little or no truth in that statement it does seem plausible to the uninformed consumer).

No doubt they also drink their own Kool-aid as well and believe it will improve their internal engineering. And I am sure at some level it does, but could that have been done in a cheaper way? Probably.

But I think "road relevancy" exists primarily as a marketing concept.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Bingo.

Domination ruining the general fan experience and driving them away? Yep.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Domination ruining the general fan experience and driving them away? Yep.

Why should fans care if there is a dominant team?

Given that there is no success ballast and no balance-of-performance in Formula One, it is not unexpected that one team would dominate.

If this was a concern for the FIA, which it does NOT appear to be, it would be straightforward to implement balance-of-performance in Formula One in order to converge the performance of Mercedes, Williams and everyone in-between! The simplest way would be to add ballast to everyone that isn't Williams, until everybody does about the same laptimes.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Why should fans care if there is a dominant team?

I assume that is a rhetorical question.

While F1 fans are not a homogenous group. I would assume there is a majority who would just be OK with "good racing" (insert your definition here as to what that exactly means) at the expense of other things (such as open regulations). I think they are also looking to expand beyond a (dwindling) hardcore group that can be rabid about keeping the soul (i.e. the way it was in the 1950's) of F1 alive (even if that soul really has been dead for years IMHO and what we have had for decades is some shadow of how it was.)

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Given that there is no success ballast and no balance-of-performance in Formula One, it is not unexpected that one team would dominate.

If this was a concern for the FIA, which it does NOT appear to be, it would be straightforward to implement balance-of-performance in Formula One in order to converge the performance of Mercedes, Williams and everyone in-between! The simplest way would be to add ballast to everyone that isn't Williams, until everybody does about the same laptimes.

I do think it is a concern for the FIA. The problem is, they want to have it all. They want racing to be unpredictable enough that it will keep fans engaged (i.e. dial the level of domination back down a few notches) but also want to continue to keep some part of the long standing DNA of F1 which is creativity (i.e. constructors championship). The hard part is getting that balance. The solution they are going with (everyone here knows this but is worth repeating) is a combo of even tighter regulations, but not spec and cost controls.

Richard

[S griffin]

Manufacturers are mainly in it to showcase their brand to the public. They pick and choose when to come in and when to leave. And if times get tough in the world, then their racing programme is most likely to be cut due to how expensive it is. We saw it with Renault at the end of 85 and Toyota at the end of 09. Relying so much on manufacturers doesn't always end well, as we have seen many times in the past

[chunterer]

When the rules are written in consultation with manufacturers (and not the racing teams as such) but then such rules do not engage any more manufacturers than those already present, and in fact may lead to withdrawals, then it is clearly a closed shop and must be seen as anti-competitive?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

You missed the best bit with the V10 engines!

That was a great era, with merry, happy tifosi! Most of the tracks didn't even have ridiculous tarmac runoffs everywhere yet, with classic tracks like Imola and Magny Cours on the calendar!

I stopped watching after Austria 2002 and started watching F1 again towards the end of 2007; they were awesome sounding engines.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Mercedes has a severe lack of manual transmission options in much of their range, it's most unfortunate. A 190E Cosworth with the dogleg manual box would be a lovely runaround!


Superb!

You'd rather a plank of wood than a motor car!?

You sure you don't like the 190E 2.3-16 valve Cosworth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORc139-iQ7c It's really nice!

It would certainly be easier to go with the 2020 Honda Civic Type R given it's a modern car, manual transmission, brand new with warranty etc... But the 190E sure has it's appeal!

I like the 190E but I prefer this, https://static.keymusic.com/products...hardware-3.jpg and I can play rock n roll on it. I can't play rock n roll with a car.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So there needs to be enough "truth" in the linkage between their product and F1 so that a good story can be told (such as "Our success with hybrid engines in F1 is applied to our road cars!" even if there may be little or no truth in that statement it does seem plausible to the uninformed consumer).

No doubt they also drink their own Kool-aid as well and believe it will improve their internal engineering. And I am sure at some level it does, but could that have been done in a cheaper way? Probably.

But I think "road relevancy" exists primarily as a marketing concept.

To the uninformed consumer the only "truth" that's needed in the link between the manufacturer's product and F1, is a driver in the car bearing the manufacturer's logo and winning races.

I agree, "road relevancy" exists primarily for marketing, as does the environment these days. Just drop the word hybrid every so often.

[Richard C]

This thread is proving my theory I put forth back in 2015. That every thread in this forum eventually becomes a "What is wrong with/how to fix F1".

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

To the uninformed consumer the only "truth" that's needed in the link between the manufacturer's product and F1, is a driver in the car bearing the manufacturer's logo and winning races.

I agree, "road relevancy" exists primarily for marketing, as does the environment these days. Just drop the word hybrid every so often.

We are on the same page. It just depends upon how the manufacture spins it. The Indycar example. How many of those engines are designed, built and maintained by outside companies that have been hired by the manufacture (partnered with? ) to just put their nameplate on it? I really don't know as I don't follow Indycar, but I suspect that is not an odd situation.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

We are on the same page. It just depends upon how the manufacture spins it. The Indycar example. How many of those engines are designed, built and maintained by outside companies that have been hired by the manufacture (partnered with? ) to just put their nameplate on it? I really don't know as I don't follow Indycar, but I suspect that is not an odd situation.

Richard

Honda's IndyCar program is run by Honda Performance Development, Inc. based in Santa Clarita, California and is a subsidiary of American Honda Motor Co. The engine is developed and built in house by HPD. Chevrolet's engine is designed and built by Ilmor Engineering Ltd., who have a long history with Roger Penske, having designed both the Chevy and Mercedes engines used by Penske during the CART era. Interestingly, before switching to the current 2.2L twin turbo V6 engine formula, Honda, who became the sole engine suppliers to IndyCar in 2007, had worked with Ilmor on the design of previous 3.0L NA V8 engine.

With regards to road relevancy, when the new rules for a new chassis and engine formula were proposed for IndyCar back in 2010, Tom Stephens, then GM’s global product boss, said, “Racing is one of the best ways to showcase what we can do.” This was echoed by Mark Kent, GM director of racing, who further explained: “Turbo-charging, direct injection and the use of E85 are all the technologies that we’re using in the street. So it’s a great opportunity for us to take the learning at the racetrack and apply it to our street car.”

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Honda's IndyCar program is run by Honda Performance Development, Inc. based in Santa Clarita, California and is a subsidiary of American Honda Motor Co. The engine is developed and built in house by HPD. Chevrolet's engine is designed and built by Ilmor Engineering Ltd., who have a long history with Roger Penske, having designed both the Chevy and Mercedes engines used by Penske during the CART era. Interestingly, before switching to the current 2.2L twin turbo V6 engine formula, Honda, who became the sole engine suppliers to IndyCar in 2007, had worked with Ilmor on the design of previous 3.0L NA V8 engine.

With regards to road relevancy, when the new rules for a new chassis and engine formula were proposed for IndyCar back in 2010, Tom Stephens, then GM’s global product boss, said, “Racing is one of the best ways to showcase what we can do.” This was echoed by Mark Kent, GM director of racing, who further explained: “Turbo-charging, direct injection and the use of E85 are all the technologies that we’re using in the street. So it’s a great opportunity for us to take the learning at the racetrack and apply it to our street car.”

Exactly! Pretty much outsourced and with a pure marketing spin on the relationship between racing and manufacturing. Indycar is making it work.

Unrelated. This showed up in my newsfeed. Someone who is deep, deep in denial. It's pretty much a "You can't leave me, I am leaving you!" statement I really dislike the term "butthurt", but that column has butthurt written all over it.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10...good-riddance/

Richard

[S griffin]

While I agree Honda haven’t exactly always covered themselves in glory since their return, I do think that article was written with expectations too high. At the end of the day you shouldn’t expect every manufacturer to stay, they’ve always come and gone

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Exactly! Pretty much outsourced and with a pure marketing spin on the relationship between racing and manufacturing. Indycar is making it work.

Unrelated. This showed up in my newsfeed. Someone who is deep, deep in denial. It's pretty much a "You can't leave me, I am leaving you!" statement I really dislike the term "butthurt", but that column has butthurt written all over it.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/10...good-riddance/

Richard

Thanks for that and definitely worth reading, though rather scathing of Honda. I liked this line: "With the double-diffuser, even a Honda lawn-mower engine would have done the job."

[steve nielsen]

Honda open to facilitating Red Bull engine project post-2021

Honda’s Formula 1 project leader is willing to discuss Red Bull keeping its engines after its 2021 F1 exit so the team can develop them itself or with a new partner.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/honda...ject-post-2021

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

https://the-race.com/formula-1/honda...ject-post-2021

Thanks for the link. I am doubtful for reasons I already posted. But! If I remember, the deal Honda gave Brawn was quite sweet. While people may give Honda grief for leaving F1 (a number of times now), I do think Honda tries to not leave their partners in a lurch. So they may work a sweet deal with RBR/AT.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

https://the-race.com/formula-1/honda...ject-post-2021

That article mentions a number of options and it will be very interesting to what the outcome is.

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Thanks for the link. I am doubtful for reasons I already posted. But! If I remember, the deal Honda gave Brawn was quite sweet. While people may give Honda grief for leaving F1 (a number of times now), I do think Honda tries to not leave their partners in a lurch. So they may work a sweet deal with RBR/AT.

Richard

It's Yamamoto who said it

[gert]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That article mentions a number of options and it will be very interesting to what the outcome is.

Most likely: Renault, I think.

[Peter Mallett]

Returning to our brief chat about the Cosworth era, it is easy to forget that in that time. Maserati, Matra and Alfa Romeo to name three came and went. Later, Porsche, Yanaha and Peugeot did the same.

The difference then and now, is that somebody could always backfill the hole because for a lot less dosh a reasonable engine could be built.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Returning to our brief chat about the Cosworth era, it is easy to forget that in that time. Maserati, Matra and Alfa Romeo to name three came and went. Later, Porsche, Yanaha and Peugeot did the same.

The difference then and now, is that somebody could always backfill the hole because for a lot less dosh a reasonable engine could be built.

Add Lamborghini to the 'laters'.

[Peter Mallett]

Indeed, but the grids were still filled.