Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 403 posts

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#391

Post by ll931110 »

hvidgaard wrote: post #198
btian wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No niche manufacturer will be able to make a competitive V10 PU. If F1 is serious about reducing costs, they have to at least standardize PU, like they did to ECU.

Engines is the least of concerns. Mercedes win, not because they also produce the engine, but because they pour nearly half a billion euros into the car, with engines being a vanishingly small amount of that. They have a car with superior aerodynamics and mechanical grip. Making the engine standardized will not change that.

That is simply not true. Mercedes had a huge head start in 2014 by starting the V6-hybrid engine development from 2012, while their competitors (Red Bull and Ferrari) were busy fighting for the championship with V8 engine in 2012 and 2013.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#392

Post by ll931110 »

sasaf5 wrote: post #107
gonzo41 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't F1 cars be about finding the peak of a X engineering problem. For electiric's it's not as much about speed but battery. Maybe having hyper-miler distance races that aren't speed oriented is the sort of pivot F1 should be doing? I know it's not sexy like a fast car moving nimbly among the pack but if car companies can get their tech focused on getting the most distance from a battery then there's the cross o…

> watching a slow race is a big ask. Above non-ridiculously low speed wouldn't the relative speed among cars be more important for entertainment?

Sure, but current Formula E cars are around F3 speed, which is two steps below F1 cars. Formula E even had to avoid racing on the full Monaco layout to avoid headlines comparing (and ridiculing them) for being slow.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#393

Post by hvidgaard »

Theodores wrote: post #370
hvidgaard wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engines is the least of concerns. Mercedes win, not because they also produce the engine, but because they pour nearly half a billion euros into the car, with engines being a vanishingly small amount of that. They have a car with superior aerodynamics and mechanical grip. Making the engine standardized will not change that.

Mercedes get prize money and sponsor money. On top of that they get revenue from supplying engines to other teams. The team might spent untold hundreds of millions (of money they have earned) but the parent Mercedes company spend thirty million a year. For Mercedes this is excellent value for money, equivalent to a billion or so in paid advertising time on television. Contrast this situation with teams at the back of…

Mercedes the F1 team does not get revenue from selling the engines. Mercedes HPP develops and sell those engines to all the teams that use them.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#394

Post by exDM69 »

TylerE wrote: post #381
exDM69 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could stick a commodity pushrod V8 in there and make 1000hp easy with a bolt on turbo and run the same laptimes. Here's the issue: the engine manufacturers are also one of the most important financial sponsors of the sport. You'd need to convince Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault to build obsolete engines and put down a big bag of money. And besides, you won't be able to fit a big V8 engine under the bodywork of a…

Don't underestimate the LS motor. The C8 Corvette is rated for 27mpg highway. Don't know of any other 500hp vehicle that comes close. 70 years of iteration on a basic design goes a long way.

It's a fine engine alright, but not even really in the same class.

The engine would have to put out about 7 mpg at 110 mph average speed, with lots of braking and acceleration and top speeds north of 200 mph.

It would need a turbo and significant amount of boost to put out a comparable 850 hp. And not exceed 100kg/hour fuel flow rate.

And it's still about 60kg heavier at about 150kg vs. 210kg.

All of this is kinda a silly comparison, because an LS engine won't fit in an F1 car and afaik can't be used as a stressed structural member.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#395

Post by qkls »

farisjarrah wrote: post #374
NLMichel wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about full electric F1 cars, but where they switch out batteries four times during the race during pit stops. High speed racing without the need to carry a heavy battery pack.

Switching out batteries in Formula E has been problematic up until this point from a technological point of view, so much so that in Formula E they simply have 2 cars and when the drivers pit they hop out of the first car and into the second car. Batteries are extremely heavy and need to be protected so that in the event of an accident they don't explode or kill the driver. Thus far the battery has been more or less…

They don't swap cars anymore. But the races are shorter than F1 races.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#396

Post by bosie »

user5994461 wrote: post #315
bosie wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't F1's unbalanced finances nothing compared to other sports though? i.e. tennis. federer has completely different opportunities compared to a top 75 player. did it kill the tennis sport and/or is it killing the sport? you could argue that way given that it is always the same folks winning the big tournaments

Any tennis player could get the best racket and shoes from any sponsor, or buy it themselves. The costs to have a F1 is incomparable. Any single part alone is astronomical and many have to be changed between races. Having a car at all for training is a miracle!

Again, the ratio matters, not the total cost. Obviously a single player sport isn't comparable to a tech sport in terms of total financial costs...

the racket and shoes don't matter in terms of expenses, at all. RF's cost is in the millions and you are comming up with rackets... he is drawing a completely unfair advantage that only maybe 3 or 4 other tennis players can afford.

thats like saying the F1 team only needs to purchase tyres.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#397

Post by kube-system »

WorldMaker wrote: post #386
kube-system wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, alternatively, does it show how Honda's (and Nissan's) parent companies are out of touch with the American buyer? American buyers don't hate energy efficiency -- look at the comparative success of Toyota hybrids in the US. Most of the tech that Nissan and Honda of Japan developed for energy efficiency wasn't engineered for powering the types of vehicles that Americans want to buy. The same goes for Mitsubishi too…

> Or, alternatively, does it show how Honda's (and Nissan's) parent companies are out of touch with the American buyer? I would assume that's why Honda/Nissan groups continue to hedge their bets and leave profitable American divisions doing profitable (but I'd say dumb long term) American things. I admitted that I think as much that that's why those anchors are still allowed to "weigh them down"; they are still profi…

The Leaf in the US wasn't a marketing communication failure, it was a product placement failure. Americans are willing to compromise on [price] or [interior] or [performance] or [practicality], but not all four.

Americans who drop $40,000+ (in 2020 dollars) aren't the kind of buyers who are willing to drive a vehicle that looks, feels, and performs like a sub $15,000 car, and is less practical than one. You don't need an SUV to be successful either, look at the Model 3, S, Prius, etc.

Americans are perfectly willing to buy economical cars... at an economical price. But if you ask big bucks, it better be something Americans can show off.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#398

Post by WorldMaker »

kube-system wrote: post #397
WorldMaker wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, alternatively, does it show how Honda's (and Nissan's) parent companies are out of touch with the American buyer? I would assume that's why Honda/Nissan groups continue to hedge their bets and leave profitable American divisions doing profitable (but I'd say dumb long term) American things. I admitted that I think as much that that's why those anchors are still allowed to "weigh them down"; they are still profi…

The Leaf in the US wasn't a marketing communication failure, it was a product placement failure. Americans are willing to compromise on [price] or [interior] or [performance] or [practicality], but not all four. Americans who drop $40,000+ (in 2020 dollars) aren't the kind of buyers who are willing to drive a vehicle that looks, feels, and performs like a sub $15,000 car, and is less practical than one. You don't nee…

Product "placement" failure is a marketing communication failure. If you can't communicate well enough why your product is competing in the price point that it is, that's a classic marketing failure.

"Looks" and "feels" can be addressed by marketing narratives. (And some of the differences between "economy" and "luxury" in cars are marketing more than cost basis. If the American version of the Leaf wasn't tweaked for some of those "luxuries", that can also be a failure of marketing imagination.)

As for performance, I'm assuming you've either never driven a Leaf nor owned a sub-$15,000 ICE car? No EV "performs like a sub $15,000 car", in terms of torque/pickup/handling. That that isn't more well known is itself a particularly larger American industry marketing failure that's left the average American consumer behind the world market.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#399

Post by agnivade »

lethologica wrote: post #72
chrisseaton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they make all the cars the same? Why not have a maximum size or something like that and let people innovate within that to do whatever they want? Why the 'formula'?

This is what I've always been curious about. I've never been a massive F1 fan or followed it closely, but I've always viewed it as being the absolute pinnacle of what can be achieved with a racing machine. So to me, it seems odd to add all of these extra rules and regulations that may stifle reaching even further. I'd love to see a motorsport where there was maybe one rule where you have a budget within $X amount of…

F1 was kinda like that once. But then accidents started to happen, things got extremely dangerous. So more and more rules had to be put.

The challenge is to keep that perfect balance between enjoyable races and keeping the drivers safe.

Re: Honda quits F1, invests in carbon-free tech instead

#400

Post by kube-system »

WorldMaker wrote: post #398
kube-system wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Leaf in the US wasn't a marketing communication failure, it was a product placement failure. Americans are willing to compromise on [price] or [interior] or [performance] or [practicality], but not all four. Americans who drop $40,000+ (in 2020 dollars) aren't the kind of buyers who are willing to drive a vehicle that looks, feels, and performs like a sub $15,000 car, and is less practical than one. You don't nee…

Product "placement" failure is a marketing communication failure. If you can't communicate well enough why your product is competing in the price point that it is, that's a classic marketing failure. "Looks" and "feels" can be addressed by marketing narratives. (And some of the differences between "economy" and "luxury" in cars are marketing more than cost basis. If the American version of the Leaf wasn't tweaked for…

Communication will get people to the dealership, but if your product doesn't impress people in a test drive, they won't buy it.

> No EV "performs like a sub $15,000 car", in terms of torque/pickup/handling

Torque != power. Low-horsepower EVs like the Leaf feel great in a city where you get the benefit of that torque from 0-30 mph, but that benefit quickly tapers off as speed rises. (aerodynamically, 2x speed requires 4x power) The 2012 Leaf launched with a high-9 second 0-60. The 2012 Prius has a number in the low-10s and the 2012 Yaris has 0-60 times in the low-9s. These are all very comparable vehicles in a highway merge situation. You won't impress your passenger with the performance of any of them on a high-speed American highway. They're fun as heck around a dense city, but most Americans dropping $40,000 on a new car are merging on to divided highways in the burbs.

Post reply on HN