Honda and Toro Rosso ring the changes ahead of new F1 partnership
Posted By:   |  14 Dec 2017   |  10:52 pm GMT  |  100 comments

Ahead of their new partnership for 2018, Honda and Toro Rosso have both made changes to their team structures as they seek to build a successful relationship in Formula 1.

Honda recently announced that Yusuke Hasegawa will no longer head up the company’s Formula 1 operations, conducting a management reshuffle, while Toro Rosso has needed to make changes to its 2018 car having originally begun the design process around a Renault engine package.

Honda has divided Hasegawa’s former Head of F1 Project position into two distinct roles, breaking the trackside operations away from the role in charge of development at Honda’s Sakura headquarters.

Toyoharu Tanabe is the incoming Honda F1 technical director, and will oversee the Japanese company’s operations at races and tests – working closely in conjunction with Toro Rosso’s management and engineering staff.

With plenty of prior experience in Formula 1, Tanabe had worked as a race engineer for Gerhard Berger during Honda’s first stint with McLaren, and later worked as an engineer with Jenson Button at BAR and Honda’s former works team, before most recently working in America with Honda Performance Development.

The development role in Sakura is to be taken by Yasuaki Asaki, a senior engineer at Honda also with prior F1 experience, before becoming the project lead for Honda’s N-One and N-Box ranges of “kei” cars.

After taking over from Yasuhisa Arai in 2016, Hasegawa will now return to Honda’s automotive operations as executive chief engineer, heading up the company’s research and development across its manufacturing concerns.

Hasegawa’s time overseeing the Honda F1 project was of limited success and, although McLaren showed steady improvement over the 2016 season after a fraught opening year of McLaren and Honda’s renewed partnership, 2017 was a period of struggle.

Electing to pursue a new engine concept having felt that the McLaren-enforced “size zero” power unit design had reached the end of its development potential, Honda struggled for reliability all year, forcing the two parties to cut ties.

Tanabe’s first job will be to ensure that Honda’s relationship with Toro Rosso begins strongly, knowing that Red Bull Racing will be assessing Honda’s progress with its junior team.

Using Toro Rosso as something of a sacrificial lamb presents a low-risk solution for Red Bull, and the Italian team receives works support for the first time after handing its customer Renault package over to McLaren.

With Honda’s variation in power unit architecture compared to Renault, Toro Rosso technical director James Key has conceded that accommodating a new power unit has provided something of a challenge to the team’s engineers.

Talking to Autosport, Key said: “They are completely different. It’s a very nicely packaged engine, but the whole power unit is a different architecture.

“It doesn’t drop into the same space. There’s quite a bit of car layout work that has to be done to adapt to it.”

“We’ve adapted the car under the skin as best we can, and that’s led to quite a different approach to the chassis design, to the way the gearbox works, and so on.


Toro Rosso driver Pierre Gasly was optimistic about Toro Rosso’s partnership with Honda, suggesting that the marque’s single-team approach will result in “no compromise”.

“Honda’s goal is to prove to everyone that they can make fast engines”, said Gasly.

“We are the only one to have their engines so we’re sure they’ll give everything they can to give us the best treatment and there will be no compromise.

“I think this is really positive and they’ll have an extra three or four months to improve before the beginning of the year.

“At the moment they are definitely improving. When you look at the McLarens, they are much better now than six months ago. If they manage to keep this momentum I think it will be a good move and surprise everyone in a nice way. Let’s hope it can happen.”

Featured Video
Sign up for Jenson’s Triathlon today!
Featured News in mclaren
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

Excellent article, thanks James.


Good luck to Toyoharu Tanabe, you’ll need it now you don’t have Alonso to flatter your piece of S^!£ PU as he did the past THREE years.

Sorry to say with these stupidly complex PUs you should have pulled out of F1 then reconsidered joining when the rules eventually change. It would save you a load of cash, till then sorry to say I’ll see you on TV when you’re being blue flagged.

Renault will be glad Honda remain as it hides their PU disaster.


Last line hurrah…I like it.


I’m looking forward to another chapter of this hilarious farce!


I’d like to be first to congratulate Sauber on their 9th place in the 2018 constructors championship.


With the Aston-Martin sponsorship and up-to-date Ferarri engines, they may well finish higher than 9th.


Who would have thought 15 years ago that Minardi would be brought out to become a decent set up, and then to get a works engine deal!


I always loved Minard in the Stoddard years 👍 They started the careers of quite a few F1 stars. Punched well above their weight with good humour. I miss that attitude…


Honda sure know how to make the right noises… Except with their engine 😂😂


“Hasegawa’s time overseeing the Honda F1 project was of limited success“

How diplomatic…


To be fair, he was handed a poison chalice.


Silly him for taking it? Nevertheless booted upstairs as is typical in japanese businesses.


I really hope TR&Honda have a good year in 2018. Everyone keeps bashing at Honda and forget that Mclaren has 50% of the blame for the mishaps. For me it felt that Mclaren was more incharge of the engine design then Honda. But wait and see as i think they will be nowhere near RB with same engine and it will be interesting to se who they blame this time. Im not anti Mclaren or pro Honda but i dont think its fair to lay 100% of the blame on Hondas and hide behind them.


Certainly McLaren wouldn’t have been up there with Mercedes and Ferrari with either of their works engines, but Honda have to take the lions share of the blame. F1Metric’s end of season analysis had a good comparison of the Honda engines to Mercedes, which concludes Honda were responsible for about 2.5% of the total 3.5% of McLaren’s pace deficit to Mercedes on the most power hungry tracks.

His prediction for McLaren with a Renault engine matches my own – next year they’ll be a clear fourth and in the hunt for podiums, but not race wins or the title.


mclaren had mercedes engines in 2013.
what were their excuses then?


That’s an interesting question and the answer is: Paddy Lowe.


lowe left mclaren then.


@ Bim…Honda build the engines, no on else. If McLaren placed ‘undue demands’ , a questionable prognosis, on them, they didn’t have to comply. They could’ve always said no. In my reading of it they, Honda, made promises they could not keep [ like Renault] and have paid the price. No sympathy here. Fortunately McLaren weren’t paying for the engines! Unlike Red Bull who would’ve coughed for in excess of 100% of their allocated engines at a cost of mega millions!!! Renault should hang their heads in shame. IMO, if they can’t deliver an engine that will handle the distance and provide an equal performance to the best in field then they should be discounting their product until they can.


Honda build the engines but McLaren Applied Technologies built 90% of hybrid components. Next season will be all Honda, this Asaki guy was the chief of engine development during Honda’s glory years, he replaced Hasegawa at Sakura in August when Honda moved him over to the UK factory in Milton Keynes, this is where Tanabe will also be based.

I expect good things from them next season.


Would Alonso have won the championship this year if he were driving for Ferrari?



No. Ferrari would have asked him to cover Bottas instead of Hamilton. Abu Dhabi 2010, ring a bell.


I think he would have.. despite a slower package.


Cheesypoof, but then you would hardly say any different would you?


@TimW calm down Roscoe. Good boy.


Very amusing Cheesypoof, my point stands though…..


Would Ferrari be in a position to fight for the championship, if he were in Ferrari? I like him as a driver but he moan a lot…… demoralizing team a lot.


It would have been a big ask but yeah, possibly.


I think it would have been closer but ALO would have came short. he would have had a meltdown after the spark plug issue like he did in 2007


i thought alonso had already been innthat ferrari for a long period of time, longer than he was a renault and won no championships. he lost to vettel, how much more hamilton?


I am a Hamilton fam, and yes you are absolutley right. perhaps my question should have been how much closer would it have been


Honda have been on a hiding to nothing over the last couple of years. They are a company that up until recently could be justifiably proud of its F1 history. I hope they can get it together next year.
Also so it can ad a bit of spice to the mid field.


Amen to that John….I’m even hoping for a bit more


variable valve timing with a technology only the honda engine had. no other team had it. as soon as the other teams put it on, honda was nowhere.
can you help by naming the piece of technology mercedes engine has that every other engine lack?
that’s the difference.


honda has no real f1 success to be proud of. the only time honda engines won in f1 was when they enjoyed the advantage of variable valve timing technology. as soon as other engine manufacturers implemented the technology, honda was nowhere to be found..


variable valve timing with a technology only the honda engine had. no other team had it. as soon as the other teams put it on, honda was nowhere.

Innovation is part of motor racing, for a time Honda lead the pack then the others caught up. That makes Honda bad?

can you help by naming the piece of technology mercedes engine has that every other engine lack?

I think you are over simplifying whats going on. Winning a motor race (and other sports) is not down to just a thing.
Effective quality control.
A talented motivated and dedicated team focussed on results.
Those things and more put together and managed in a way that allows a team to flourish. That’s the difference!
Which is very possibly why Ferrari have not done so well as expected. While Renault and Red Bull do seem to be closing the gap, and some of the other teams are also improving.
I don’t know if you are being purposely obtuse or you really don’t get it.


may be you should learn that apart from that variable valve timing advantage, honda has never been competitive in f1…
on the contrary, renault won championships with williams and redbull at different eras, ferrari multiple times at different eras, mercedes built the best v8 engines and were held back to allow others to catch up and we know how well their v6s are.

you can argue and quite all you want. there is no record of honda competitiveness outside their variable valve timing advantage.
until you are able to provide evidence of honda’s success outside that variable valve timing advantage….you know what to do..


@ John….you nailed it with the latter comment.


the only time honda engines won in f1 was when they enjoyed the advantage of variable valve timing technology.

Er yeah and they did quite well with it. As Renault and BMW did with with the tubos and Merc are doing now with the hybrids.

So what happened was the bloke who ran over your cat driving a Honda?


forget emotions and stay close to facts. honda was uncompetitive when other teams had variable valve timing. bmw renault and mercedes never had anything on their engines others didn’t have.
that’s the difference.


Is that from Wikipedia? Renault brought a considerable amount of innovative technology to F1, in fact I would say historically., they are the top innovators up to the current period. First with the 1.5 litre twin turbo formula. That “tea kettle” brought them some pain but the rest quickly followed suit when Renault got it to make extraordinary power without grenading. Desmodromic (tethered) valves pneumatically operated. This wasn’t exactly “new” tech but Renault were first to bring it to F1 and what this did was open the floodgates to high rpm unlocking major horsepower gains, as valve springs ended their short and miserable lives at around 1,500rpm. Finally, Renault wiped the floor with every V12 on the block when they pioneered the V10 configuration. Within a year, everyone else followed suit even Ferrari, as V12 is in their DNA. So yes, Renault is the company that took the risks, brought the innovation and reaped the rewards but rarely in their own car. It seems those times have gone but we can only hope they will come again. Very clever engineers, the French.


the discussion is about honda, not renault. renault mercedes and ferrari have all had an excellent f1 success at different eras while honda only enjoyed a single spell with their variable valve timing advantage.


And how could you possibly know that?


you do not seize to amaze me. you still seem to believe you know more about what i know than i do?
it’s not my fault hamilton led his engineers to design and build a car with which he demonstrated his superior driving skills by winning the drivers championship with two races to spare, is it?


it’s not my fault hamilton led his engineers to design and build a car

@ aveli / inshaalahurra

Yes in 2010 when Mercedes were drawing up their initial designs for the all conquering engine they were consulting Hamilton’s expert knowledge on hybrid technology on an almost daily basis. All this whilst he was still driving for McLaren!



i like your like of thought but i can’t help but say. when all the other engine manufacturers developed their variable valve timing technology, honda was no where. the only difference was the technology. nothing else. all the other factor remained constant, having no influence on performance whatsoever. so your idea of other factors playing a part doesn’t wash. only mentioning facts here, no emotions are not applied.


I hope the Toro Rosso / Honda partnership is a success – but I don’t think they have the drivers to do it justice in 2018.


i would love to see pascal wehrlein in one of STR


or perhaps we will see Dany back in the STR.


Wow… that’s a scathing opinion of a driver pairing if ever I did hear one – not even being able to do justice to a B-team with by far the worst engine on the grid?

I’d say if anything, it’ll be the team unable to do the drivers justice!


Toro Rosso weren’t doing too bad with its original drivers – Kvyat even scored points in his last drive. The NKOTB could barely get the same cars out of Q1 and didn’t even look like scoring a point. They made Ericsson look good.


Exactement, mon ami.


Just in case anyone is wondering, I referred to the Mercedes engine when I said McLaren had the best engine since 98.


And here we all were thinking you meant the Honda 😉


Apologies in advance JA. Unlike other articles, reading this one I felt like I was reading a resume for a job interview until I got to Ames Key’s comment. If Honda engine design requires significant chassis design modifications, McLaren would be in the same position with Renault. That seems like a text to the McLaren aero team’s strength. Obviously McLaren has much bigger budget than STR. However, it will show the F1 world what McLaren is capable of with a better engine. I’m not so sure if they will do a great job. Considering they were unable win one WCC with the best engine at the back of their chassis since 98!! For McLaren’s sakes I hope they are at least in par with RB.


don’t forget brawn bolted a mercedes engine onto the back of their honda car and won both championships in 2009, long after winter testing.


@ Formula Zero…The point you’ve missed is the ‘reliability’ issue that dogged RB for the entire year!!! That was appalling, especially from a manufacturer like Renault. Red Bull had nine engine related DNF’s and i don’t know how many others there were ,if you count Renault’s own plus those of Toro Rosso!!! To make matters worse the very thought of only having three engines available per car next year will only compound the problem as something will have to give. Either they reduce the stress which means a performance loss or they pay the price. I simply don’t know how they can have their cake and eat it as well. McLaren will be faced with the same problem as all the others. IMO ’18 could be even worse that of ’16/’17. Maybe someone can convince me that i’m on the wrong foot here…..


not sure i follow your logic. if rosso had to enlarge the engine bay to fit the honda, then mclaren would have to make theirs smaller. two different challenges..


What I am thinking is that the current McLaren chassis is designed around the Honda engine. McLaren and Alonso claims that the the chassis is the best, it’s the engine that’s powerless. Now they have the Renault with a completely different design to the Honda engine. Doesn’t it mean that chassis need quite a bit of change to suit fit the Renault engine without facing any potential aero problem?


I’m finding it hard to get my head around this so I might head over to Racecar Engineering to see if they have any more info on this. The “chassis” is the tub the driver sits in. As such the PU bolts to the tub and becomes a third member which the gearbox and suspension then hang off. There doesn’t appear to be any structure to the chassis rearward of the drivers firewall/bulkhead apart from perhaps reinforcement and a cage to support the gearbox. I’m getting this from conventional layouts of rear engines race cars and don’t have detailed knowledge of an F1 chassis so I’m guessing here. In this case, there would be little or no alteration to the form factor of the tub because the PU simply bolts to it. The architecture could be the width and height of the PU and the different gearbox requirements but these are still not major alterations to the “chassis” but bodywork, floor & sidepods. Would love some more detail on this..


i see what you mean formula zero but don’t forget what brawn achieved in 2009.


I’m cheering for the Honda “underdog”.

I just feel that with STR 2018 is a development year for Honda for the next step of being a works RBR engine in 2019. It will be easy for Honda to hide behind those first year drivers at STR and let the new Honda F1 program leadership get their groove over the season in a low profile, low pressure season ahead of the big show that will be 2019.

So I guess we can shelve those 2018 Honda cheers and expectations until 2019. Expect nothing for 2018, because that’s all there will really be. Even if the 2018 Honds engine is awesome, the chassis, software game and drivers aren’t at STR.


I would love to cheer for Honda, but the drivers they have I feel its just like Alonso/Kimi win 2018 WDC……..


Yes! Anyone to do well in 2018 except Mclaren!


And that would be, why Random 79? For a ‘fan’ of F1, isn’t that a little harsh?


That’s a random Random, not the specific Random. I think.


The key sentiment from the JA article referenced above reads:

“All the noises from sources with knowledge of the Honda F1 project suggest that the fixes necessary to change the management culture and make that engine competitive are not in place and there is little sign of that changing.”

Not a lot of sunshine there. . .


@ Garrett Bruce…No sunshine …just lots of dark and stormy clouds with the chance of a thunderstorm…..


honda has no chance or dogs.


Woof woof!


Do Red Bull have any option other than Honda for 2019?


I wouldn’t be surprised if RB has covered this. They offer Honda a last chance and if they get it right RB becomes a works team. If they don’t get it right Honda will leave F1 (enforced by RB) giving RB all options to choose an engine from Mercedes, Renault or Ferrari, who will have to deliver according to the rules. (but what spec?) TR gets a Renault, then all manufactorers deliver to 3 teams and RB can choose. What about this theory James?


Robert, I can’t imagine the Torro Rosso supply contract is for any less than three years.


There is a chance that they could continue with Renault. Carloz Sainz is still under contract at Red Bull, and if Renault wishes to keep him beyond 2018 (I think they will) then they have to reenter negations with RB somewhere next year. I can’t imagine RB settling for anything less than an engine contract extension if they feel that Honda is not up to the task for 2019.


Jordan, I guess it depends how long Carlos’ contract is for doesn’t it? He will have done four years by the end of next season, that’s already a pretty hefty contract length. If Ricciardo moves on then RB will want Carlos back, but what if Dan re signs? Sainz has already said he won’t go back to Torro Rosso, so there might not be anywhere for him to go. Renault seemed very clear that they had no interest insupplying RB after next year, so I guess it comes down to how much Renault want to keep Sainz, and if Red Bull can keep him.


Carlos CHosen: when Red Bull wins Red Bull great, when Red Bull lose Renault shit. we will show them.


they mentioned aston martin..


Aston Martin has confirmed it will not enter F1 before the engine regs change in 2021. Even beyond that, it’s not a 100% sure that they will. Also I don’t think it would be wise for Red Bull to immediately switch to them, as they sure will need some time before they will be able to deliver an engine that’s up to par with the established manufacturers.


they still mentioned aston martin.
they even intend to have the name on their 2018 cars.


Blimey, read this and get informed for once before you open your mouth will you..


how did that stop them from mentioning aston martin?
horner said they are associated with a car manufacturer who would provide them with engines when the engine climate changes. as if f1 would risk losing ferrari and mercedes just to have aston martin replace them.


It says something when thinking through the pathways for a better F1 in the future when we have one of the top 5 manufacturers in the world still unable to build an F1 engine on par with both Ferrari and Mercedes after three years!!! The investment, to date must be huge, for absolutely no return by way of results., not even a glimpse of a podium!!! To continue down this established track is quite wrong, IMO. It’s time now to say, enough is enough and let’s move on to engines that are, according to Ross Brawn, cheaper/louder and faster. The Honda exercise should be a lesson well learnt. Even Renault, after five years, still cannot reach the level of power and reliability achieved by Ferrari and Mercedes!!That is failure big time. F1 and the fans deserve better treatment when it comes down to real competition and real racing.


I dissagree a little bit, take away ferrari/merc it would be relatively closer racing, I think merc/ferrari should be shorn of their qualy modes, oil burning is being outlawed already, I think those measures together would bring it back to a much more (relatively) equal playing field and we can go racing, if honda can just nail reliability we could have a game on our hands


Interesting, using the Mc/Honda banner used for the new Honda/RB partnership. Surely that wasn’t by design.

Braun’s proposal certainly adds substance to the pot. To add to @Kenneth’s comments — does anyone else remember when the architecture of an F-1 engine was specified simply by engine displacement ? Much more variety back then 4 cyl, V-8, V-12 and H-16. Would something in that spirit add to the debate or take away from it, one wonders. Then let them play with turbo or battery power if they want. Whatever engine mode is used for quali should be locked in for the race. Simply wondering out loud, here.

Regarding Gasly’s comments about a “no compromise” exclusive support situation — one wonders where he has been the last 3 years where Mc’s experience has shown the benefits of that approach. . . Maybe there is more to that view than meets the eye, and wishing a better year ahead for both sides of the equation.


@ Garrett Bruce…correct me if i’m wrong but by memory the correct term for this style of racing was ‘Formula Libre’. A concept that i would entirely embrace. The very first GP i ever watched was held in the Western Australian countryside at a sleepy wheatbeltg town called Narrogin. It was in 1951 and 35000 people attended. The race was won on an elapsed time basis and was won by a homebuilt car powered by a V8!!! That race was the sixteenth running of the Australian GP. What a mixture of cars from MG TC [my first car] to Maserati 6c powewred by a 1500 cc straight six supercharged engine. That race was a catalyst for me and i’ve been a motorsport junkie ever since. Viva la formula libre. True engineering innovation and creativity unleashed.


@Kenneth — The frame of reference from this chair where the term “formula libre” is concerned could be roughly translated to ‘run what you brung’ and all entries were welcome. There may have been a minimum time specified to qualify for the race itself, however. At least as memory serves and how it was used here in the USA.

The “formula” approach recalled in the earlier post referenced the displacement of the engine, and not the configuration. Ferrari, for example became famous for their V-12 back in the day and their choice of that configuration was related to a prevailing theory that there was more power generated due to the number of cylinders — it was more complicated than that, but that’s the situation I remember. Cosworth depended on the V-8 and other manufacturers chose other designs based on other considerations, presumably related to complexity, reliability and cost.


@Garrett Bruce and Kenneth:

Agreed re engines. As Ross Brawn has said, the current engines are great engineering feats, but not great for racing (I would add that the same holds true for chassis aerodynamics). It would be interesting to see what would happen if the regulations only specified displacement and maximum fuel load (NOT fuel flow). Maybe a V4 could outperform a V6 because of a better torque curve.

Going further, and pie in the sky, there is no compelling reason to prevent the use of two-strokes in GP racing or the WEC for that matter. We know that the last 500cc MotoGP two strokes were being detuned to about 200bhp to keep them rideable, electronic throttle control and so on being relatively cruder than what we have now. Ditto fuel injection.

More generally, we also know that a four stroke needs 880cc to produce the same power as a 500cc two stroke.

Given the imperative for smaller engines with higher specific output; given that all the current electronic and fuel management technologies (and supercharging and turbocharging) can be adapted to two strokes as readily as to four stroke engines, why not open up the formula to include them? Let Ferrari, MB, and Renault stick with what they have if you must. But offer an alternative.

Even more broadly, the current formula is only 100cc larger than the original 1.5 blown/4.5 unblown F1. Bring that back. Just specify a low max fuel load per race, prohibit refueling, and let the various teams and would-be engine suppliers optimize their designs to meet the constraints.

Surely Honda, for instance, could have an advanced evolution of this engine:

I am actually thinking that they may have adapted the ARC techniques to their F1 work. I have a gut feeling that the STR will be a fast car, that Honda (like BRM from 1962 to 1965) is about to hit the sweet spot.


@ Garrett & Rudy…. I guess that there are a great number of variables when it come to choosing a ‘formula’ but as we have seen with these PU’s they are not always suited to match race expectations. I still find it very very difficult to understand why, after the billions of $’s that have been thrown at this formula by all engine builders, excluding Mercedes, that they still cannot match them!!! Yes, Ferrari may be close but still not on the same level. Something is fundamentally wrong when a situation like this occurs. The CLF proposal put forward by Brawn is a welcome start but i fear two things, one will it actually get past the starters gun and if so how emaciated will it be? The best ref point would be LMP1. They had an ‘equivalency’ formula that worked very well..the results would confirm that but because they went down the same path as F1 in hybrid tech it eventually became to costly to maintain hence their withdrawal. They had learned all they needed for their road cars so ‘goodnight Irene’. We could also do with a rethink of the chassis/design principles as well. The cars look ugly with all the bitz n pieces tacked on here there and everywhere. As an example have a look at the ’18 Indy cars, they are clean and very pleasing to the eye. F1 should not be averse to considering that aspect when looking ’21 and beyond. I would heartily support the old formula that you’ve mentioned. 1.5 blown/4.5 unblown as a starting point. Wow just imagine that combined with revolutionary body designs as glimpsed in the recent past. Sign me up Scotty.


You keep watching and ratings keep going up so why would they care? Its when people are fed up and stop watching that something will be done with haste. Until we are fed up to the point of turning off from F1 then it wont change they have no incentive to. You follow the soap opera and stay tuned. If no one were to watch they would make the right changes with the same haste that they reversed that awesome qualifying decision. I am stepping back next year but one viewer is not going to be cause for concern so I suspect nothing will change. Ferrari and Mercedes want to lock in their advantage so they don’t want change now. If the viewership dropped liberty would have more leverage to say we need to scrap contracts and get the viewers back.


Good point about the Renault reliability issue this year. Rumour has it (according to a few recent Horner interviews), Renault will close th gap to Mercedes and Ferrari next year. Maybe they will be a bit mor reliable too.


In fact, if the rumors of Mercedes helping Ferrari with their engine are true, then there is only one manufacturer who was able to get there on their own.


I would be very surprised if Jock Clear did not have a good understanding of the Mercedes PU and would probably be able to describe how the integration algorithims worked not to mentionbwhatever trick ignition strategy they were developing. Remember he did 12 months gardening leave.


fake news.


@ Jordanab…Yes, the rumor still exists although Wolff vehemently denies that it happened. In discussion with a friend about this it was thought that possibly there was some tech transfer between related parties. I guess that anything is possible!


what are you on about?
there are 4 engine manufacturers in f1 and you expect all 5 of them to build engines of equal performance?
we’re yet to see two cars finish first in f1.


Well, the sentence ” Honda Performance Development ” may look a bit septic right now, but i am quite sure they will get the job done. and if it is with Toro Rosso then even better as taht’s my favorite team, – if they achieve great things then excellent because they TR were pre-designed to not to, as an idea was until recent for TR to be a driver development place. But in all seriousness i can tell you Lads, Toro Rosso is becoming the decent fighting force now, it’s not punkish youngsters team anymore, they want to fight and win!


But in all seriousness i can tell you Lads, Toro Rosso is becoming the decent fighting force now, it’s not punkish youngsters team anymore, they want to fight and win!

What? They’re a B-Team for Red Bull Racing. They don’t want to “fight and win” they want to “maybe get into Q3 consistently”. Yay. Go team!


when you take what others discard?


Exactly Aveli.
I can imagine Tost doing an
Apocalypse Now moment and screaming
“The Horror The Horror ” as they go through engines like a man who has eaten an “Extra Hot Jalfrezzi Curry” everyday of the F1 season, goes through a shop full of boxer shorts 😄


The effort of the F1 manufacturers in developing the PU as regards its efficiency is starting to pay off.
A week ago (Dec 7. 2017 Honda filled for patent for a road car MGU-H.
“United States Patent application Pub number US 2017/0353315A1 Pub date Dec 7. 2017.”


that’s interesting…at least they haven’t given up on internal combustion engines then..

Top Tags