[ 2020 ] Aston Martin RedBull Racing F1 Team - Honda

[nzjrs]

Honda is rumored to be working on a next gen S2000. A man can dream.

Although I wish this forum supported the emojii with the little hearts for eyes!!!

[godlameroso]

Honda is not going out soft, they're putting the best of the best in all their cars. Honda Boss said as much, lots of improvements to be made with Honda and all 4 cars. Why would Honda put anything but the best in their last year?!

I would love to see a Red Bull technology and Honda collaboration, perhaps something to consider if they win together. Honda is rumored to be working on a next gen S2000. A man can dream.

What version was your s2000, first gen, ap1 or 2 ?

I have an AP1 track car with 332,000km and a low mileage garage queen AP2 with ~52,000km.

AP1 is on its spec 3 engine. F22 block, K24 crank, custom rods and OEM pistons.

[etusch]

Honda is not going out soft, they're putting the best of the best in all their cars. Honda Boss said as much, lots of improvements to be made with Honda and all 4 cars. Why would Honda put anything but the best in their last year?!

I would love to see a Red Bull technology and Honda collaboration, perhaps something to consider if they win together. Honda is rumored to be working on a next gen S2000. A man can dream.

What version was your s2000, first gen, ap1 or 2 ?

I have an AP1 track car with 332,000km and a low mileage garage queen AP2 with ~52,000km.

AP1 is on its spec 3 engine. F22 block, K24 crank, custom rods and OEM pistons.

not far from dream garage

[diffuser]

Helmut said the information Perez brings is valuable. They will never tell us what that is. It could be nothing it could be just a bluff. Or it could be that Perez can help with mapping or maybe even more.

I'm sure nobody else can get the mapping of Honda PU for Perez's needs better than Perez can. His knowledge of the Merc is completely useless. Different car, different PU.

[Zynerji]

Deleted

[nzjrs]

Helmut said the information Perez brings is valuable. They will never tell us what that is. It could be nothing it could be just a bluff. Or it could be that Perez can help with mapping or maybe even more.

I'm sure nobody else can get the mapping of Honda PU for Perez's needs better than Perez can. His knowledge of the Merc is completely useless. Different car, different PU.

(not picking on you) but I wonder what the overlap of people is that believe that drivers do/do not have significant influence on the design of the car 'Hamiltonstappen is good at developing cars' vs those that do/do not belive that drivers have/have not information about the PU operation and influence on its mapping.

[Zynerji]

Helmut said the information Perez brings is valuable. They will never tell us what that is. It could be nothing it could be just a bluff. Or it could be that Perez can help with mapping or maybe even more.

I'm sure nobody else can get the mapping of Honda PU for Perez's needs better than Perez can. His knowledge of the Merc is completely useless. Different car, different PU.

Deployment and energy management strategies are the real value. Checo has lots of that info.

[Zynerji]

Time to build/ buy a factory and open Alpha Tauri Italian supercars with a toned down, heavier version of the 2019 Honda F1 engine?

I think they could get $1M each. Why wouldn't they? Newey has the experience, now he can do luxury supercars, not stripped down Valkyrie racecars.

My opinion is;
1 m$ is still too cheap for a car powered with F1 based engine. But I would like to see them to set a company joint undertaking by Redbull Racing and Honda to produce purely track oriented supercars. Fully carbon fiber car designed under management of Newey and redbull engineers with f1 style seamless gb, and v6 or v8 honda engine. Maybe 2 different spec, if you like turbo a v6 turbo option and if you like NA, v8 high revving engine. Under this collaboration they can sell it with high price.

I mean, just moving to cast parts, and optimization outside F1 technical restraints (VVT) could lead to a more powerful/efficient ICE to save on the Hybrid weight (battery) would be a huge cost savings. Maybe even just skipping the battery entirely, and wire the H->K directly with no storage.

I think it could easily be done for a $1M hypercar. Probably sell 300/yr.

[Hoffman900]

Redbull doesn't want to make stuff. They don't even make enough from drinks to cover what they do. Their real value is a brand, like "Supreme" and the like.

[diffuser]

Helmut said the information Perez brings is valuable. They will never tell us what that is. It could be nothing it could be just a bluff. Or it could be that Perez can help with mapping or maybe even more.

I'm sure nobody else can get the mapping of Honda PU for Perez's needs better than Perez can. His knowledge of the Merc is completely useless. Different car, different PU.

(not picking on you) but I wonder what the overlap of people is that believe that drivers do/do not have significant influence on the design of the car 'Hamiltonstappen is good at developing cars' vs those that do/do not belive that drivers have/have not information about the PU operation and influence on its mapping.

I think cars are built based on science with the understanding that they must give drivers confidence. So there is a fine tuning. It is also hard to deferentiate between driver feedback and all the data that is collected. I'm sure all the feedback that the drivers give is double checked with data.

I think the biggest misconception is that cars are designed for one driver over another. When the reality is they just design the features to make the cars as fast as possible. It just turns out that some drivers can take better advantage of the car's strength.

[Moore77]

I'm sure nobody else can get the mapping of Honda PU for Perez's needs better than Perez can. His knowledge of the Merc is completely useless. Different car, different PU.

(not picking on you) but I wonder what the overlap of people is that believe that drivers do/do not have significant influence on the design of the car 'Hamiltonstappen is good at developing cars' vs those that do/do not belive that drivers have/have not information about the PU operation and influence on its mapping.

I think cars are built based on science with the understanding that they must give drivers confidence. So there is a fine tuning. It is also hard to deferentiate between driver feedback and all the data that is collected. I'm sure all the feedback that the drivers give is double checked with data.

I think the biggest misconception is that cars are designed for one driver over another. When the reality is they just design the features to make the cars as fast as possible. It just turns out that some drivers can take better advantage of the car's strength.

Well said. I don't think the designers (aero, mechanical etc.,) really validate their design ideas with a driver to see if A driver feels comfortable with that concept or not. They simply do internal rationalization to see if the concept really gives performance benefits. If it does, they would go for it. A driver has to take it with his race engineers and mechanics to set it up for his liking in terms of balance. I don't think designers give a damn about what a driver likes or dislikes, they simply trust their collective understanding of physics to build fast cars. Drivers' feedback is more towards balancing setup. Some teams ends up building fast cars which suits both their drivers and in most cases, they might not. That is where an adaptable driver prevails. Like you rightly said, the data collected from the car would validate if what the designers saw in their simulations matches the ontrack performance, which in turn helps them refine their designs.

In one of the podcasts, Patrick Head sarcastically said, a lot of good drivers think they know engineering and laughed. That is what strong engineers think of a driver's engineering knowledge. Drivers are merely just a tool for engineers to collect data that would help them refine their ideas. I doubt if the engineers look at the drivers with the same awe that an average race fan looks at them as some kind of heroes. From that standpoint, i don't think drivers play a big role in development of a car.

[etusch]

Well said. I don't think the designers (aero, mechanical etc.,) really validate their design ideas with a driver to see if A driver feels comfortable with that concept or not. They simply do internal rationalization to see if the concept really gives performance benefits. If it does, they would go for it. A driver has to take it with his race engineers and mechanics to set it up for his liking in terms of balance. I don't think designers give a damn about what a driver likes or dislikes, they simply trust their collective understanding of physics to build fast cars. Drivers' feedback is more towards balancing setup. Some teams ends up building fast cars which suits both their drivers and in most cases, they might not. That is where an adaptable driver prevails. Like you rightly said, the data collected from the car would validate if what the designers saw in their simulations matches the ontrack performance, which in turn helps them refine their designs.

In one of the podcasts, Patrick Head sarcastically said, a lot of good drivers think they know engineering and laughed. That is what strong engineers think of a driver's engineering knowledge. Drivers are merely just a tool for engineers to collect data that would help them refine their ideas. I doubt if the engineers look at the drivers with the same awe that an average race fan looks at them as some kind of heroes. From that standpoint, i don't think drivers play a big role in development of a car.

Because of motorsport media, there are many people thinks that driver develops cars. Very recently I read someone claims that Mercedes pace comes from ham because he developed the car. This is really ridiculous. Maybe old school drivers were know more about how to do set ups but, I think, a driver doesn't know what mechanics do when he complain about understeer or oversteer if it is not just front or rear wing. He just know what is wrong but I don't think many of them know what need to be done to fix it by set up. In fact race engineers says them where they are faster and where they are slower, where they can be faster. Drivers have talent to do what they need to do to being faster. When engineer says you can gain x turn, they can do it or it is expected to... and if they can they are good as driver.

If I am not wrong, there are 3 types of motogp bikes. inline, v and L type. inline ones are shorter because of packing advantages of layout and faster at cornering but slower at straights. v types are a balance of both and L type (ducati) are faster at straights but slowest at corners. Ducatis are very good at acceleration, max speed and braking and these are easiest part of riding ( braking is not that easy of course but at ducati, it is easier compared to honda for example ). I had read that ducati riders talking about their needs of getting faster at corners and in the same time at yamaha, their riders talking about their needs of being faster at straights etc. Engineers trying to solve these problems but not change their concept and sometimes riders are complaining that engineers doesn't listen them. Because they are thinking it as if it is that much simple to taking something from somewhere and putting it somewhere else. Then when they see what they wanted didn't happen, they think that engineers are not listening them.
For example Rossi claimed to swap i4 to v4 because i4 is not powerfull enough. But yamaha didn't go that way. Rossi is not newbie and know old times and new too. But still he is not one to develop bike.

[Wouter]

Max became an uncle on 7 december, when he was in Bahrein.
Now he is/was in The Netherlands and could meet his nephew Luke, the son of his sister Victoria.
Congrats!!

[Zynerji]

I'm sure nobody else can get the mapping of Honda PU for Perez's needs better than Perez can. His knowledge of the Merc is completely useless. Different car, different PU.

(not picking on you) but I wonder what the overlap of people is that believe that drivers do/do not have significant influence on the design of the car 'Hamiltonstappen is good at developing cars' vs those that do/do not belive that drivers have/have not information about the PU operation and influence on its mapping.

I think cars are built based on science with the understanding that they must give drivers confidence. So there is a fine tuning. It is also hard to deferentiate between driver feedback and all the data that is collected. I'm sure all the feedback that the drivers give is double checked with data.

I think the biggest misconception is that cars are designed for one driver over another. When the reality is they just design the features to make the cars as fast as possible. It just turns out that some drivers can take better advantage of the car's strength.

I agree. However, all parts are NOT the same.

Every engine will have HP differences.
Every carbon piece will have different weight.

A team could purposefully advantage a single driver over the other by simply collecting the best parts to build one car.

[rogazilla]

I must misunderstand a lot. But what deployment strategy does one manufacture does that others don’t see from gps and in race and qualy? If Honda can’t deploy enough on the straight and has clipping they surely know Mercedes is not clipping from gps. I am sure engineers know how much they could recover and run deployment during simulation to maximize lap time based on where to recover and where to deploy. I just don’t see how knowing another PU mapping and deployment or recovery make a difference the fact that you are limited by your own PUs capability and further more what’s the secret that others don’t already know?