Recent Topics
Hyundai motor oil
by pbm. 12/14/18 08:16 AM
Which Exhaust Manifold Should I Buy
by Miller88. 12/14/18 08:10 AM
Rotella T5 10w30 Ford 6.7L anyone?
by sw99. 12/14/18 07:49 AM
Advice on spark plugs for 90,000 mile Accord
by Chris B.. 12/13/18 11:24 PM
Elec star kit for predator engine...
by SmokeyBear. 12/13/18 11:07 PM
Mecredes Bosch vs Ngk sparks plug
by Rohan. 12/13/18 09:48 PM
Wife problem?
by penguin. 12/13/18 08:04 PM
2008 Chevy Malibu 3.6L V6
by lordcheeto. 12/13/18 07:36 PM
power company merged and I got the shaft
by motor_oil_madman. 12/13/18 07:19 PM
Space heater burnt smell
by BossMoss. 12/13/18 07:13 PM
Shell Helix Ultra Maserati 10W-60
by wemay. 12/13/18 06:53 PM
Cox Modem Info???
by Gebo. 12/13/18 06:39 PM
How are these Road Force values?
by mclasser. 12/13/18 05:19 PM
Finally broke down a bought a trailer
by BeerCan. 12/13/18 04:25 PM
What oil for '19 Subaru WRX?
by TKNY. 12/13/18 04:12 PM
Newest Members
captobvious, pgrkcs, 4Doors4Life, 780Ari, kayumb
66677 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
93 registered members (badduxx, Alfred_B, A310, andyd, AZjeff, 1foxracing, 9 invisible), 1,220 guests, and 41 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics295,050
Posts4,926,865
Members66,677
Most Online2,553
Oct 27th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Some explanations from Honda #4467390
07/22/17 06:01 PM
07/22/17 06:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,462
Georgia
DeepFriar Offline OP
DeepFriar  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,462
Georgia

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: DeepFriar] #4467393
07/22/17 06:07 PM
07/22/17 06:07 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,897
Spring,Texas
Bud_One Offline
Bud_One  Offline
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,897
Spring,Texas
So will they stop having engines fail , before then end of the race now ?

Last edited by Bud_One; 07/22/17 06:07 PM.

16 Civic-QSUD 0W-20, XG7317
14 Civic-Idemitsu Zepro 0W-20, XG7317
05 Chevy 2500HD-QSUD 10W-30, XG3675
97 Accord Wagon-Havoline ProDS 10W-30, TG7317
Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: Bud_One] #4467513
07/22/17 08:14 PM
07/22/17 08:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,231
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Garak Offline
Garak  Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,231
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
They'll have their reliability sorted out in time for the new engine formula. wink

Actually, Renault should be counting their blessings, that Honda is monopolising the "bad engine" headlines.


Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, NAPA Gold 7356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515
Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: DeepFriar] #4467560
07/22/17 09:28 PM
07/22/17 09:28 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,618
Santa Barbara, CA
bdcardinal Offline
bdcardinal  Offline
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,618
Santa Barbara, CA
So they said things did not show on an engine dyno, why don't they use a chassis dyno. I know lowly nascar teams will run a car on a chassis dyno up to speed to loo kfor drivetrain vibrations.


2014 Ford Mustang GT Track Pack
1995 Ford Mustang GT

Ford/Mazda Parts Counter
NRA Benefactor Member
Opinions expressed are my own.
Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: DeepFriar] #4467584
07/22/17 10:02 PM
07/22/17 10:02 PM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,485
S California
OneEyeJack Offline
OneEyeJack  Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,485
S California
This is racing. There is no excuse.

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: bdcardinal] #4467643
07/23/17 12:56 AM
07/23/17 12:56 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Brad_C Offline
Brad_C  Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
So they said things did not show on an engine dyno, why don't they use a chassis dyno. I know lowly nascar teams will run a car on a chassis dyno up to speed to loo kfor drivetrain vibrations.


I'm pretty sure that's against the rules. You know, the 3" thick book they wrote to try and put a lid on costs. The one that costs more to enforce/work around than they were spending on testing and development in any case. Anyway, it is what it is.

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: DeepFriar] #4467789
07/23/17 07:43 AM
07/23/17 07:43 AM
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,657
Central Maryland
HangFire Offline
HangFire  Offline
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,657
Central Maryland
The real reason is, Honda is new at this game, and is NOT the huge company that Toyota is, with limitless amounts of money to throw at it.


Various musings: http://hangfire.net
Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: HangFire] #4467842
07/23/17 08:52 AM
07/23/17 08:52 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Brad_C Offline
Brad_C  Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Originally Posted By: HangFire
The real reason is, Honda is new at this game, and is NOT the huge company that Toyota is, with limitless amounts of money to throw at it.


Dead right, look how many world championships Toyota has racked up vs Honda.. Oh wait.. I'm pretty sure Toyota never won a race.

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: HangFire] #4467856
07/23/17 09:10 AM
07/23/17 09:10 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,485
S California
OneEyeJack Offline
OneEyeJack  Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,485
S California
Originally Posted By: HangFire
The real reason is, Honda is new at this game, and is NOT the huge company that Toyota is, with limitless amounts of money to throw at it.


Honda is not "new at this game". They have done well in F1 in past years with numerous wins since 1968 BCP (before cell phones) where Toyota has failed to make any headway and quit. It appears that Honda suffered more from the tsunami than was at first realized and that resources had to be redirected to keep the manufacturing core of their business alive.

Honda powered McLarens won 44 races with 53 poles from 1988-1992. Their reliability and power were untouchable and this partnership along with their drivers, Arton Senna and Alain Prost owned F1. The only question at those races was not whether a Honda powered car would win but which driver would win.

Link

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: DeepFriar] #4468046
07/23/17 01:04 PM
07/23/17 01:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,657
Central Maryland
HangFire Offline
HangFire  Offline
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,657
Central Maryland
Ancient history.


Various musings: http://hangfire.net
Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: DeepFriar] #4468202
07/23/17 04:11 PM
07/23/17 04:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,462
Georgia
DeepFriar Offline OP
DeepFriar  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,462
Georgia
At the risk of painting with too broad a brush (not to mention the threat from marauding Honda fanbois) I have begun to wonder if the whole Honda corporate structure has lost the engineering/mechanical bent it long had. I have not been truly impressed with their efforts for at least a dozen years. The VTEC hayday has come and gone and the newer models are fairly ho-hum in my opinion. It's as though they just stoppd investing in "doing it better" and have been coasting. Just my .02.

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: OneEyeJack] #4468756
07/24/17 08:29 AM
07/24/17 08:29 AM
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,180
Cascadia
BikeWhisperer Offline
BikeWhisperer  Offline
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,180
Cascadia
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Originally Posted By: HangFire
The real reason is, Honda is new at this game, and is NOT the huge company that Toyota is, with limitless amounts of money to throw at it.


Honda is not "new at this game". They have done well in F1 in past years with numerous wins since 1968 BCP (before cell phones) where Toyota has failed to make any headway and quit. It appears that Honda suffered more from the tsunami than was at first realized and that resources had to be redirected to keep the manufacturing core of their business alive.

Honda powered McLarens won 44 races with 53 poles from 1988-1992. Their reliability and power were untouchable and this partnership along with their drivers, Arton Senna and Alain Prost owned F1. The only question at those races was not whether a Honda powered car would win but which driver would win.

Link




I think Honda was arrogant due to past success (though their most recent spell in F1 from 2000 to 2008 netted them all of ONE win so it's not like they had always been successful). If past success counted then Cosworth should be tearing it up right now...


2015 F150 XLT SCrew 2.7 Eco-Boost
5w-30 Motorcraft Semi-Syn, FL2062

2016 Ford Escape SE Eco-Boost 2.0L
5w-30 Edge EP, Fram XG3614




Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: Brad_C] #4469567
07/25/17 02:31 AM
07/25/17 02:31 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,231
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Garak Offline
Garak  Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,231
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I'm pretty sure that's against the rules. You know, the 3" thick book they wrote to try and put a lid on costs. The one that costs more to enforce/work around than they were spending on testing and development in any case. Anyway, it is what it is.

It's not that thick. wink I think the technical regulations are only 100 pages or so.

With respect to Honda's success over the years, Autosport magazine did a feature on how they really didn't do that well if you look at the numbers. Aside from the Ayrton Senna years, which make all the headlines, there were some mighty disastrous years. Nonetheless, Honda does have the resources to straighten things out, should they devote the resources and get creative enough. Mercedes, Ferrari, and Renault wouldn't hesitate to poach the best talent from other teams (or other divisions within the parent company, which is what Mercedes did). Honda looks way too inwardly. They need to look at some outside talent. That's not a failing; that's forward thinking.


Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, NAPA Gold 7356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515
Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: Garak] #4470679
07/26/17 07:14 AM
07/26/17 07:14 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Brad_C Offline
Brad_C  Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
I'm pretty sure that's against the rules. You know, the 3" thick book they wrote to try and put a lid on costs. The one that costs more to enforce/work around than they were spending on testing and development in any case. Anyway, it is what it is.

It's not that thick. wink I think the technical regulations are only 100 pages or so.


Yeah, I know but without a bit of hyperbole it doesn't quite sound as magnificent smile

In any case, Honda need to get it together because at the moment they're making Renault look relatively good and we need a bit more pressure on the French to get it together. At least Ferrari are providing a bit of competition this year. Best season we've seen in years (in my personal opinion anyway - not humble, but worth what you paid for it).

Re: Some explanations from Honda [Re: bdcardinal] #4470721
07/26/17 08:03 AM
07/26/17 08:03 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Brad_C Offline
Brad_C  Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 683
Perth, Western Australia
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
So they said things did not show on an engine dyno, why don't they use a chassis dyno. I know lowly nascar teams will run a car on a chassis dyno up to speed to loo kfor drivetrain vibrations.


Ok, so I looked into this a bit further. There's nothing in the Technical Regs on Dyno usage, but Article 5.2 in Appendix 8 (Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions - ATR) of the FIA F1 Sporting regulations explicitly permit "Steady state and dynamic engine dynamometer work with an F1 car or subcomponent may be performed (and therefore not within the definition of RWTT) provided that"..

And it goes on to basically say yes you can use a chassis dyno *but* there must be no front or rear wings and nothing that can be construed as Aero testing. So that honestly knocks out a whole host of vibration sources that Honda might want to be testing against. Without the road surface and interaction between the aero and suspension you're effectively testing on a static bed anyway, so back to a custom chassis specific engine dyno. You really need the complete car to get a representative test, and you aren't allowed to use it.

That's the only reference to Dyno work I can find (although there are several Appendices I can't find). All testing limitations really pertain to aero and on-road.

Since I had the 2018 regs open, I had to look. They're down to 3 of each major component next year and they have effectively nailed down the potential for oil burning to supplement fuel.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™