There's no such thing as a two way turn in F1 either. And I never said NASCAR rivals F1 in terms of technology, it wouldn't make sense for it to since it started out as stock car racing, what I was saying was that it wasn't necessarily easier. I mean, did you know some people actually think it's harder to be in a race that has left and right turns then in one that has only left turns? Man, I feel sorry for their mothers...
@nitel10 Renault didn't push Honda aside, Honda left F1 after 1992 after Renault barely beat them. Renault is and was an excellent engine manufacturer, but to say that Honda wasn't at least as dominant is just arrogant. Honda dominated the mid to late 80s and continued that dominance in the very early 90s before their departure from the sport. I will say, however, that Honda's return in 1999 was an utter disaster.
yes but in those years that you quoted, when honda was dominating, renault had also left the sport. So its not fair then because they both dominated when the other was not in the sport. i never said honda did not dominate. what i was talking about was the whole period of F1 from start to present. you are the arrogant one who just went and extracted only the honda period to justify your biased claim.
On the all time engine manufacturers list , honda comes 5th in the table.
@nitel10 Again, your "facts" are incorrect. Renault competed from '77-82 as a works program, '83-85 as both a works program and engine supplier to Lotus, '86 as a supplier only. They missed ONLY the '87 and '88 seasons before returning with Williams from '89-'97, and with Benetton '95-'97. So, from 1980-1997, Renault competed 15 seasons, Honda only 9. Both had 6 WCs, and Honda had 2/3 the number of wins (56/94 =60%) that Renault did, in 2/3 (9/15 =60%) the number of years.
no your facts are wrong. honda was dominating because williams and mclaren in that period were the best cars. when mclaren had the porsche engines they were still winning as they had the best car. if they had any good engine, they would have won.
go look at the F1 engine stats.
Renault is a more suscessful engine than honda period. no need to continue this rubish argument. brazil is more successful in football than USA. who cares whether us was not at all the world cups?
@nitel10 You seem to have forgotten the whole point of this "rubbish argument" (learn to spell). The point was that you made the comment that Renault pushed Honda aside, when in fact, Honda simply left F1 all-together. Then you stated that Honda did not dominate in the 80s and early 90s, when clearly they did. My facts are not wrong. I don't give a damn about Mugen, and I also don't care about SuperTek (Renault's sub-company engine for Williams in '98 and '99.
Stop trying to tell lies. my initial post over 2 yrs ago said, Honda did not dominate 80's to 90's. i never said anything about early. you are the one who needs to go and read. are you illiterate?
@nitel10 Renault is an excellent engine manufacturer with a very successful history in F1, but so is Honda. And THAT is the point you seem unwilling to accept. It's not about who has more wins overall. It's about giving a company the credit it rightfully deserves. Also, if we're going to talk about dominant cars winning the championships and not the engines, then you must agree that Renault-powered Williams cars in the 90s were unstoppable with their active suspensions and semi-auto gearboxes.
I do know how to spell. if i made a mistake so what? i am human. i do accept that honda was successful. but renault was more successful. something you are not taking in. I have given honda credit for producing great engines. But renault did sweep them aside when it comes to successfull F1 engines. and that is a fact. Supertec did not turn up in the period of 80 to 97 you are quoting.
87 and 88 is the midlle eighties so what is incorrect?
ferrari, ford, renault, mercedes, honda.
that is what the stats say.
your stats are wrong again
from 1980 to 1997 Honda competed in 10 seasons. if you add mugen which is just a tuned honda, then it goes up to 15 like renault. only missing 1980 and 1981
the fact they arrived late in 1983 in rd 9 is not renaults fault
In racetrim it was the Honda RA 166E absolutely. Rumour has it they had 950hp in the races.
The BMW M12 developed over 1400hp on the dyno in qualifying trim in 1986. But they also say that the Renault EF15B (the first engine with pneumatic valvegear, this made it rev higher than ever before) developed 1300hp in qualifying. Therefore Senna put the Lotus-Renault on pole 8 times in 1986.
The Renault had lots of power in qualifying and Senna was the qualifying master.
the most powerful engines have always been the BMWs in both turbo and normally aspirated.
in 1986 the BMW in the benetton and arrows had over 1500hp in quali trim. and that was because the dyno stopped at 1500hp. it was probablt more but could not be measured and in 2005. the v10 was clocking 925hp
ok i have seen it now. was that ever in the back of the car, and i cannot see any 985 hp reading. all i can see is some dials and the engine speed, not power
@nitel10 the rpm on the left , the right is Hp . they are blocking soem of the other stuff under the blue . and it was onylyin the back during suzuka race ... thats whyit had so much power and had bench sequence . see if it woudl last the race with more power ....
Bearing in mind that it's a Honda engine being started up by Honda engineers!. For the record a RAE166E in 1986 produced 950bhp @4.1 bar race boost about 1,200bhp in quali trim & higher boost. A RAE167E in 1987 produced 995bhp @4.0 bar race and quali boost. Rev limit 14,00rpm. Very fragile engines by todays standards only good for 125-200 miles before a rebuild. A engine could be changed per session. Compare to today Each driver has maximum of 8 engines for the season plus 4 for testing.
@Abzstar111 Blame it on J.M. Balèstre, he was the FIA chairman on late 80's. He ordered the banning of the F1 turbo engines because he wanted that a french were F1 champion, and all french drivers raced with teams without turbo engines.
@C7H042 ??? Alain Prost won two of his four titles with a turbo engine during the Balestre era (in 85 and 86 with the Mc Laren Porsche). In fact, turbo engines were banned for security and economical reasons only (too much power and too much money investments from the big companies). And it was Renault, a french company, who brought the turbo to Formula 1 !
@spitfire1936 actually 86 williams honda produced over 1400hp and that aint some made up horse power claim thats coming from nigel mansell who drove it when murray walker interviewed him and the engines built to last how ever long they need to last
@spitfire1936 Correct me if I am wrong (and I may be), but I thought the Honda's rev limit was between 11,000 and 12,000? Perhaps the information I read was wrong?
Well, I dont know if anyone has mentioned this, but the guy said "Thats why they went to McLaren" refering to Honda. Williams went to Judd before Renault, so at that time, Renault and Williams were not even chatting. FAIL, Mr Todzilla
you idiot ALL F1 cars sounded like this in the turbo era even the ferrari's and the mclaren's
This was a williams honda from before the wiliiams renault you mentioned and its much faster than current f1 cars, there restricted now due to health and safety crap
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thanks for the input ricer....but this sounds like crap....current f1 cars sound way better, only f1 can pull off the high pitched exhaust...and maybe a countach with titanium
so your complaining because an F1 car has a high pitched exhaust while saying that only F1 or a 30 year old lambo are allowed to pull of high pitched exhausts?
are you saying that every old F1 car sounds like crap or just the Honda? (which sounded the same as all the others in that era)
and btw, im not a ricer, mostly because its not a real word
the cars today sound like chalk squeaking on the board. If I have one free wish, then the wish would be that I am driving such those 80's and 70's cars, which are even better.
They might sound better but did you know that these turbos were getting 1300BHP? And I'm not talking about power to weight ratios either! Mansell was quoted saying that in his Williams Honda, he was getting wheel spin in top gear!!!
uhm sure sounds better but cmon faster than current f1 cars? you measure that fastness in what? cause laptimes and topspeeds are alot faster than used to be
Don't see either as being any more challenging than the other. F1 cars when you get going fast are glued to the ground. Nascars are all steel heavy ass, old tech muscle cars running over 200mph withen inches of other drives. Both are sick and I'll be damn if I do either.
don't know much about Nascar but it seems to me it is a lot of artificial racing with constant pacecars packing the field, essentially making the eventual racewinner a lottery of who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Even Nascar drivers themselves have complained about this.
F1 cars are physically more challenging clearly. 5G's in the corners means you'd better have some good neckmuscles. Braking going into a tight corner also requires tremendous strenght.
@ChampCarforlife I like that idea. It'll probably be a little bit different though since the Indycar engines will be about 0.5 L larger and will rev around 1000 to 1500 rpm higher than the turbo F1s, but still, AWESOME sound!!
The new Indycar engine will rev up to 12,000 at 550-700 hp in 2012 so it won't quit be up there when F1 at the turbo's at 1000 to 1500 rpm but the it will still sound Awesome.
@ChampCarforlife Yeah, the hp will be nowhere near these engines....sadly, but it's a relief to be getting turbos back at Indy. I've had it with this heavy, slow, NA , stupid airbox thing on top bullcrap. Give me high hp, screaming turbo engines bolted onto low slung, sleek, sexy chassis that rip the shirt off your back when they rocket by! Thats what Indy once was!
@AntonioX27 Is that why Kimi Raikkonen went from kicking ass in Formula 1 to being a moderate NASCAR driver? If NASCAR is so easy why don't you go win the Indy 500?
@thekkl one is a box with an engine . one is a masterpiece of modern engineering . the 2 cannot be compared . the cars and tracks are not good enough to fully explot his talent . one way turns , no coputers . like men that never grew up going around in circles . and think of the travel schedule of f1 . that alone makes it harder than 99% of any sportotu there . cheers
Honda WAS a good factory engine supplier in F1 during the late 80's and early 90's. But they left F1 after Renault starting whooping their ass (1992). They also didn't do much since their reentry into F1 with the Honda F1 team (2005-08).
Stop living in the glory days. Face reality. When Honda bought out the BAR Team 2005, the Honda F1 team was a miserable failure. Their engines were well known to most knowledgeable F1 fans as down in power. Their cars were twitchy and not drivable too.
In addition, the current Brawn GP01 chasis (Former Honda Team) would have not benefited with the Honda Engine. It is now powered by the Mercedes Engine. It is well known around F1 circles to be the most powerful and drivable in F1. If the Brawn Chasis was powered by Honda Engine, it would have been a mid-fielder a best. You would have seen Button way down the 2009 pecking order.
Did you know those engines are Ilmor engines? They develop those in England. The Mercedes-Bens gives them the money for long time. Back than when they came out with those engines the mercedes benz did not want they name on it yet until the engines got better. Mercedes-Benz did not want the name on it. Came out as Sauber Petronas. Was the name until the ILMOR engines got better. By the way at the ILMOR factory in England they were study the 80s-early 90s Honda engines! Honda-Ilmore took over INDY
This is still the most powerful engine in F1 history: 1400hp(!) in 1500cc at 12000rpm because there was no compress limit in 1986. The F1 87 Honda was less powerful since it was limited to 4bar, and the 88 one (limited to 2bar) developed only 685hp.
Although less powered, aspirated engines react quicker to accelaration: the Renault 2005 (2,4L) made 0-300km/h in 8,6s, while Honda-Turbo 1986 made 0-300km/h in 9,4s.
But since 2007 power didn't improve more - engines have been limited to 19000rpm.
Sure, read the article. The Renault 2.4L made 0-100km/h in 1.7s, 0-200km/h in 3.8s and 0-300 in 8.6s; so 100-200km/h in 2.1s, 100-300km/h in 6.9s and 200-300km/h in 4.8s. This aspirated engine developed 1250hp at 21500rpm. But a same powered turbo machine wouldn't produce such high acceleration; its only advantage would be less rotation and so less consuption.
Williams did not leave Honda, Honda left them when FW refused to have Satoru Nakajima alongside Nigel mansell for 1988. Williams was left with Judd power, not Renault in 1988. Honda had the best engines from 1986-1991, and won the most Turbo charged races in F1 History. Honda won twice as many races that Renault did from 1977 to 1988.
They had the best engine in 1985 already, but the car didn't come good until the end of the season when Rosberg and Mansell won the last 3 races in dominant style.
A few reliability issues aside it was still already a dominant force.
@McLarenMercedes Williams Honda did win the last three races in dominate form for 1985, just as Ferrari won the last two races in 87 in dominate form. Tag Porsche had it right for 1984 & was the car that won the most races in 1985. For me, to be consider the best engine, you have to have speed & reliability. Honda fixed it in 1985 & by 1986, Tag Porsche had no response for Honda. It was only the destructive nature of Mansell vs. Piquet along with the brilliance of Alain Prost that honda lost
btw, yes Renault did finished top in 93 with William's FW13B (Active suspension, yadi yada) But didn't they have a hard time in 94 beating Scuhmacher in a Ford HBv8 Benetton? Not to mention Senna's death due to poor worksmanship in Williams?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Senas death was not due to poor workmanship,it was due to thew safety car allowing his tyres to cool,flattengin them,thus he gorunded out and lost control.Rob
Went on and win 16 out of 17 races that single year. I don't believe there's any other engine manufacturer has done that sine then. BTW, all 1/2 finishes too. LOL..
Whatever, Try finding a Engine manufacturer that did anything remotely that close to domination in recent F1 history? Honda Rules the 80~90's. Now if only they can pick up their paces. Jeff Wilis suck ass. Hopefully, Ross Brawn can bring Honda back on track in 09 and on, with new rules.
For Fxxk sake... Guys, The only reason why they went to Maclaren not William is because it's the better choice for Honda. And not too mention. That Honda helped Williams to win a few world champions in the last of the Turbo era. And in 88 when they left William, and joined Maclaren both Alain Prost/Aryton Senna.
in '92 Wilkiams-Renault kicked McLaren-Honda out of it's winnin' predeccesion and forced to use Ford Engines in '93, Peugeot in '94 and Mercedes-Benz from '95 to the present day
Give me a freaking break, Imola? At that corner? Senna's skills? Come on, it clearly was mechanical error which cause his life, Williams is 100% responsible if u ask me.
@mushrume
There's no such thing as a two way turn in F1 either. And I never said NASCAR rivals F1 in terms of technology, it wouldn't make sense for it to since it started out as stock car racing, what I was saying was that it wasn't necessarily easier. I mean, did you know some people actually think it's harder to be in a race that has left and right turns then in one that has only left turns? Man, I feel sorry for their mothers...
thekkl 1 month ago
Woop shhh woop shh woop shh! NICE.
Emiins 3 months ago
Comment removed
kalamatamusic 8 months ago
Comment removed
kalamatamusic 8 months ago
Comment removed
kalamatamusic 8 months ago
@nitel10 Renault didn't push Honda aside, Honda left F1 after 1992 after Renault barely beat them. Renault is and was an excellent engine manufacturer, but to say that Honda wasn't at least as dominant is just arrogant. Honda dominated the mid to late 80s and continued that dominance in the very early 90s before their departure from the sport. I will say, however, that Honda's return in 1999 was an utter disaster.
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan
yes but in those years that you quoted, when honda was dominating, renault had also left the sport. So its not fair then because they both dominated when the other was not in the sport. i never said honda did not dominate. what i was talking about was the whole period of F1 from start to present. you are the arrogant one who just went and extracted only the honda period to justify your biased claim.
On the all time engine manufacturers list , honda comes 5th in the table.
nitel10 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan
when i said 80's to 90's i meant exactly that. the whole period. and renault was not there for much of the middle eighties.
At the end the stats show that renault is a more successful engine in f1 than honda.
nitel10 8 months ago
@nitel10 Again, your "facts" are incorrect. Renault competed from '77-82 as a works program, '83-85 as both a works program and engine supplier to Lotus, '86 as a supplier only. They missed ONLY the '87 and '88 seasons before returning with Williams from '89-'97, and with Benetton '95-'97. So, from 1980-1997, Renault competed 15 seasons, Honda only 9. Both had 6 WCs, and Honda had 2/3 the number of wins (56/94 =60%) that Renault did, in 2/3 (9/15 =60%) the number of years.
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan
no your facts are wrong. honda was dominating because williams and mclaren in that period were the best cars. when mclaren had the porsche engines they were still winning as they had the best car. if they had any good engine, they would have won.
go look at the F1 engine stats.
Renault is a more suscessful engine than honda period. no need to continue this rubish argument. brazil is more successful in football than USA. who cares whether us was not at all the world cups?
nitel10 8 months ago
@nitel10 You seem to have forgotten the whole point of this "rubbish argument" (learn to spell). The point was that you made the comment that Renault pushed Honda aside, when in fact, Honda simply left F1 all-together. Then you stated that Honda did not dominate in the 80s and early 90s, when clearly they did. My facts are not wrong. I don't give a damn about Mugen, and I also don't care about SuperTek (Renault's sub-company engine for Williams in '98 and '99.
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan
Stop trying to tell lies. my initial post over 2 yrs ago said, Honda did not dominate 80's to 90's. i never said anything about early. you are the one who needs to go and read. are you illiterate?
nitel10 8 months ago
@nitel10 Renault is an excellent engine manufacturer with a very successful history in F1, but so is Honda. And THAT is the point you seem unwilling to accept. It's not about who has more wins overall. It's about giving a company the credit it rightfully deserves. Also, if we're going to talk about dominant cars winning the championships and not the engines, then you must agree that Renault-powered Williams cars in the 90s were unstoppable with their active suspensions and semi-auto gearboxes.
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan
I do know how to spell. if i made a mistake so what? i am human. i do accept that honda was successful. but renault was more successful. something you are not taking in. I have given honda credit for producing great engines. But renault did sweep them aside when it comes to successfull F1 engines. and that is a fact. Supertec did not turn up in the period of 80 to 97 you are quoting.
nitel10 8 months ago
Comment removed
nitel10 8 months ago
Comment removed
nitel10 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grayqboufan
Face it you have no case. All the history points to renault being more successful at F1.
honda great engine manufacturer. renault greater.
Stop your pointless bleating.
Honda can stick to indy as if they return to F1, renault would sweep them aside again.
nitel10 8 months ago
Comment removed
nitel10 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grayqboufan
87 and 88 is the midlle eighties so what is incorrect?
ferrari, ford, renault, mercedes, honda.
that is what the stats say.
your stats are wrong again
from 1980 to 1997 Honda competed in 10 seasons. if you add mugen which is just a tuned honda, then it goes up to 15 like renault. only missing 1980 and 1981
the fact they arrived late in 1983 in rd 9 is not renaults fault
nitel10 8 months ago
Comment removed
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@nitel10 correction: in 1985, Renault also supplied engines to Tyrell
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
with 94 gp wins and 6 straight WC. renault pushed honda aside.
nitel10 8 months ago
They went to Renault because Honda wanted to stay with Senna and they only way tyhey could do that was go to McLaren! Was not Williams choice
chunder27 1 year ago
In 1986 Qualifying Engines was most powerfull than 1987 ?
In 1986 what is the most powerfull engine?
Honda RA 166E on Williams FW11 or BMW M12/13 on Benetton B186 ?
quatrupeto 1 year ago
@quatrupeto Yes, in 87 the turbo was limited to 4.0 bar.
trezoitao38 10 months ago
@quatrupeto
In racetrim it was the Honda RA 166E absolutely. Rumour has it they had 950hp in the races.
The BMW M12 developed over 1400hp on the dyno in qualifying trim in 1986. But they also say that the Renault EF15B (the first engine with pneumatic valvegear, this made it rev higher than ever before) developed 1300hp in qualifying. Therefore Senna put the Lotus-Renault on pole 8 times in 1986.
The Renault had lots of power in qualifying and Senna was the qualifying master.
McLarenMercedes 10 months ago
@quatrupeto
the most powerful engines have always been the BMWs in both turbo and normally aspirated.
in 1986 the BMW in the benetton and arrows had over 1500hp in quali trim. and that was because the dyno stopped at 1500hp. it was probablt more but could not be measured and in 2005. the v10 was clocking 925hp
nitel10 8 months ago
@nitel10 minus the BAR honda suzuka special engine , 985 hp
mushrume 1 month ago
never heard of that one i'm afraid.
nitel10 1 month ago
@nitel10 suzuka special . you can see the v 10 on a bench running a lap sequence . and at the end the hp . they did not fuck around
mushrume 1 month ago
@mushrume
where is the video?
nitel10 1 month ago
@mushrume
ok i have seen it now. was that ever in the back of the car, and i cannot see any 985 hp reading. all i can see is some dials and the engine speed, not power
nitel10 1 month ago
@nitel10 the rpm on the left , the right is Hp . they are blocking soem of the other stuff under the blue . and it was onylyin the back during suzuka race ... thats whyit had so much power and had bench sequence . see if it woudl last the race with more power ....
mushrume 1 month ago
gute zeit in der f1 für honda .
alesabine 1 year ago
raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa raa rraaarararararararaaa....
mercedesbs 1 year ago
nascar is gay!! and we coming up on another left turn! The cars are amazing and thats it.
mkIIIsupras 1 year ago
ÁMEN
hondadrag 1 year ago
eargasm :DD:
ikszdeh 1 year ago
Vrrrrrmmm psssccchhhhh Vrrrrrrmmmmm Pscccchhhccccchhhhh Vrrrrmmmmmmm Pshhhchhhhhhh Vrrrrrrrrrmmmmm Pscccccchhhhhhhh
vrednie 1 year ago
A classic era Honda-engine, and that sound!
SorsanSuuriAfro 1 year ago
Their boss have to order to stop the engine. Before the crazed mechanic blew up the engine!
pablocamarotte 1 year ago
@pablocamarotte hahah
belmon125 1 year ago
@pablocamarotte LMAO your definately right, as the other bloke was about to turn off the engine, he revved it harder lol
Abzstar111 1 year ago
Bearing in mind that it's a Honda engine being started up by Honda engineers!. For the record a RAE166E in 1986 produced 950bhp @4.1 bar race boost about 1,200bhp in quali trim & higher boost. A RAE167E in 1987 produced 995bhp @4.0 bar race and quali boost. Rev limit 14,00rpm. Very fragile engines by todays standards only good for 125-200 miles before a rebuild. A engine could be changed per session. Compare to today Each driver has maximum of 8 engines for the season plus 4 for testing.
spitfire1936 2 years ago
@spitfire1936 Yeah I agree with you. I guess thats why they cut back on turbocharged engines. But still they were the F1 days!
Abzstar111 1 year ago
@Abzstar111 Blame it on J.M. Balèstre, he was the FIA chairman on late 80's. He ordered the banning of the F1 turbo engines because he wanted that a french were F1 champion, and all french drivers raced with teams without turbo engines.
C7H042 1 year ago
@C7H042 ??? Alain Prost won two of his four titles with a turbo engine during the Balestre era (in 85 and 86 with the Mc Laren Porsche). In fact, turbo engines were banned for security and economical reasons only (too much power and too much money investments from the big companies). And it was Renault, a french company, who brought the turbo to Formula 1 !
hoplageis57 1 year ago
@hoplageis57 Really? Oh, thanks for correcting my mistake, I didn't knew some of those data. Thanx you guy.
C7H042 1 year ago
@spitfire1936 actually 86 williams honda produced over 1400hp and that aint some made up horse power claim thats coming from nigel mansell who drove it when murray walker interviewed him and the engines built to last how ever long they need to last
edan1976 1 year ago 2
@spitfire1936 Correct me if I am wrong (and I may be), but I thought the Honda's rev limit was between 11,000 and 12,000? Perhaps the information I read was wrong?
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan Yes that was the std rev limit but it was upped in qualifing trim
spitfire1936 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan Yes but in qualifiying trim they reved higher
spitfire1936 8 months ago
@spitfire1936 Thanks!
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
Nelson Piquet´s car. A great engine, a great pilot, a great era for F1.
exceolino 2 years ago 3
Well, I dont know if anyone has mentioned this, but the guy said "Thats why they went to McLaren" refering to Honda. Williams went to Judd before Renault, so at that time, Renault and Williams were not even chatting. FAIL, Mr Todzilla
mowerman437 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow even honda's f1 cars sound ricer....leave F1 to the pros, Ferrari, Mclaren and Renault
coreyneilvancs 2 years ago
you idiot ALL F1 cars sounded like this in the turbo era even the ferrari's and the mclaren's
This was a williams honda from before the wiliiams renault you mentioned and its much faster than current f1 cars, there restricted now due to health and safety crap
llynellyn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thanks for the input ricer....but this sounds like crap....current f1 cars sound way better, only f1 can pull off the high pitched exhaust...and maybe a countach with titanium
coreyneilvancs 2 years ago
so your complaining because an F1 car has a high pitched exhaust while saying that only F1 or a 30 year old lambo are allowed to pull of high pitched exhausts?
are you saying that every old F1 car sounds like crap or just the Honda? (which sounded the same as all the others in that era)
and btw, im not a ricer, mostly because its not a real word
llynellyn 2 years ago 4
shut up, you and coreyneilvancs.
KillerDreck89 2 years ago
the cars today sound like chalk squeaking on the board. If I have one free wish, then the wish would be that I am driving such those 80's and 70's cars, which are even better.
We dont need no safety.
There's an expression: No risk, no fun.
KillerDreck89 2 years ago
They might sound better but did you know that these turbos were getting 1300BHP? And I'm not talking about power to weight ratios either! Mansell was quoted saying that in his Williams Honda, he was getting wheel spin in top gear!!!
ssssroryssss2 2 years ago 3
uhm sure sounds better but cmon faster than current f1 cars? you measure that fastness in what? cause laptimes and topspeeds are alot faster than used to be
luputtaja 2 years ago
Nascar and F1 are totally different. I enjoy watching both, but F1 is definitely my choice. F1 races are much more challenging than Nascar races.
revokdaryl1 2 years ago 28
Don't see either as being any more challenging than the other. F1 cars when you get going fast are glued to the ground. Nascars are all steel heavy ass, old tech muscle cars running over 200mph withen inches of other drives. Both are sick and I'll be damn if I do either.
TEFLONTHADON 2 years ago
don't know much about Nascar but it seems to me it is a lot of artificial racing with constant pacecars packing the field, essentially making the eventual racewinner a lottery of who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Even Nascar drivers themselves have complained about this.
F1 cars are physically more challenging clearly. 5G's in the corners means you'd better have some good neckmuscles. Braking going into a tight corner also requires tremendous strenght.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
@revokdaryl1 F1 is my choise as well, but I don't think that nascar is a lot easier thab F1.
cristianomaddog 1 year ago
@revokdaryl1 and the sound is so much better. nothing can beat those high revs.
Schutzstaffel23 1 year ago
@Schutzstaffel23
The Indy Car engine will sound similar in 2012.
ChampCarforlife 1 year ago
@ChampCarforlife I like that idea. It'll probably be a little bit different though since the Indycar engines will be about 0.5 L larger and will rev around 1000 to 1500 rpm higher than the turbo F1s, but still, AWESOME sound!!
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
@Grayqboufan
The new Indycar engine will rev up to 12,000 at 550-700 hp in 2012 so it won't quit be up there when F1 at the turbo's at 1000 to 1500 rpm but the it will still sound Awesome.
ChampCarforlife 8 months ago
@ChampCarforlife Yeah, the hp will be nowhere near these engines....sadly, but it's a relief to be getting turbos back at Indy. I've had it with this heavy, slow, NA , stupid airbox thing on top bullcrap. Give me high hp, screaming turbo engines bolted onto low slung, sleek, sexy chassis that rip the shirt off your back when they rocket by! Thats what Indy once was!
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
NSCAR?, Is for pretty girls running around in ovals. F1 is for athletes and astronauts, the quintessence get a F1 is only for artists ...
AntonioX27 2 years ago 7
@AntonioX27 Is that why Kimi Raikkonen went from kicking ass in Formula 1 to being a moderate NASCAR driver? If NASCAR is so easy why don't you go win the Indy 500?
thekkl 2 months ago
@thekkl one is a box with an engine . one is a masterpiece of modern engineering . the 2 cannot be compared . the cars and tracks are not good enough to fully explot his talent . one way turns , no coputers . like men that never grew up going around in circles . and think of the travel schedule of f1 . that alone makes it harder than 99% of any sportotu there . cheers
mushrume 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nascar is for real men, hot ones!!!!
F1 is for those European gay boys!!!!
Wee wee, croissant, ooh poo poo ovwa kiss kiss.....POOOOOOFFFFFF!!!!
RingahDingDing 2 years ago
Nascar Holy shit are you fuct in the head?
bradgotch 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
F1 sux Nascar Rules OK!
RingahDingDing 2 years ago
Nascar sux F1 Rules OK!
camvvti 2 years ago
lukesimmons101 touched felt my bum with his hand.....
I think hes one of those gay guys..... watch out boys!
RingahDingDing 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This has got NOTHING on Nascar.......renault and honda are homo lovers!
RingahDingDing 2 years ago
Oh man I love nascar, I love circles which is why i like to take turns is sodomizing my pigs with circular movements.
Nascar is absolutely fucking shite.
jimbooboo 2 years ago 3
I love how you capitalized nothing, in the middle of a sentence, but not NASCAR, beause it's an acronym. You've got to be exceedingly well educated.
lukesimmons101 2 years ago
Nope, nascar sucks - See top gear for more info why.
donaircooleone 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
He said "That's why they went to McLaren" no?
m3e92 2 years ago
Comment removed
m3e92 2 years ago
Renault ?! Renault's got nothing on Honda ... after all, Honda's one of the best engine manufacturers in the world ...
apexdna 2 years ago 5
Senna and Honda gave Renault tons of smack down back in the early 90's.
IDisnotscience 2 years ago 3
Honda WAS a good factory engine supplier in F1 during the late 80's and early 90's. But they left F1 after Renault starting whooping their ass (1992). They also didn't do much since their reentry into F1 with the Honda F1 team (2005-08).
Stop living in the glory days. Face reality. When Honda bought out the BAR Team 2005, the Honda F1 team was a miserable failure. Their engines were well known to most knowledgeable F1 fans as down in power. Their cars were twitchy and not drivable too.
RedneckBart 2 years ago 2
In addition, the current Brawn GP01 chasis (Former Honda Team) would have not benefited with the Honda Engine. It is now powered by the Mercedes Engine. It is well known around F1 circles to be the most powerful and drivable in F1. If the Brawn Chasis was powered by Honda Engine, it would have been a mid-fielder a best. You would have seen Button way down the 2009 pecking order.
RedneckBart 2 years ago 3
Did you know those engines are Ilmor engines? They develop those in England. The Mercedes-Bens gives them the money for long time. Back than when they came out with those engines the mercedes benz did not want they name on it yet until the engines got better. Mercedes-Benz did not want the name on it. Came out as Sauber Petronas. Was the name until the ILMOR engines got better. By the way at the ILMOR factory in England they were study the 80s-early 90s Honda engines! Honda-Ilmore took over INDY
korom1 1 year ago
@RedneckBart
korom1 1 year ago
honda hey day was in the '80's and maybe early '90's...
since then they have produced nothing but 2nd rate smack. assholes.
762x51mmNATO 2 years ago
... say what ?!
apexdna 2 years ago
suena como lancha de acapulco
pichicho88888 3 years ago
This is still the most powerful engine in F1 history: 1400hp(!) in 1500cc at 12000rpm because there was no compress limit in 1986. The F1 87 Honda was less powerful since it was limited to 4bar, and the 88 one (limited to 2bar) developed only 685hp.
Although less powered, aspirated engines react quicker to accelaration: the Renault 2005 (2,4L) made 0-300km/h in 8,6s, while Honda-Turbo 1986 made 0-300km/h in 9,4s.
But since 2007 power didn't improve more - engines have been limited to 19000rpm.
JMRRF 3 years ago 10
some claim that the bmw had 1500hp at qualifications. but lets not argue as it was not easy to measure it properly at that time.
MatsNorway 3 years ago 4
186mph in 8.6 seconds? That's crazy...are you sure that's right?
Pendemic 2 years ago
Yes. Read this on Forward Acceleration
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Formula_One_car
and remember that's not so crasy as a Top Fuel Dragster 482km/h in 4.76sec
watch?v=lm5RkeuKC1Q
Do you want to drive low cost acceleration? Buy a Farboud GT ($100000) - it develops 600hp in 2,7L at only 3500rpm and does 0-100km/h in 3.3sec
scorpiocars(.)net/cars/car(.)php?ID=4279#
(delete parentesis)
JMRRF 2 years ago
0-300 ok. but what about 100-300? do you know?
MatsNorway 2 years ago
Sure, read the article. The Renault 2.4L made 0-100km/h in 1.7s, 0-200km/h in 3.8s and 0-300 in 8.6s; so 100-200km/h in 2.1s, 100-300km/h in 6.9s and 200-300km/h in 4.8s. This aspirated engine developed 1250hp at 21500rpm. But a same powered turbo machine wouldn't produce such high acceleration; its only advantage would be less rotation and so less consuption.
JMRRF 2 years ago
allright thanks.
impressive.
we need the numbers for the turbo now
MatsNorway 2 years ago
@JMRRF I think the BMW turbo was the most powerful
flipsidedogchop 7 months ago
Bring back the turbos.
billyshearspink 3 years ago 6
The best engine of the turbo era.
Eric0816 3 years ago 7
honda turbo engine great sound... i loved the turbo era
45HJK 3 years ago 6
HONDA V6 TURBO SOUND ! great memories.
HondaRacingDevellopm 3 years ago 2
sounds like a civic vtec
hiblahablahubla 3 years ago
What a huge era ! The actual F-1 is just a busines...
fwbraz 3 years ago 2
it sounds like angry dog waiting your attack to bite you
kjsh987 4 years ago 2
they dias "thats why they went to mclaren
leemyster2 3 years ago 2
lol, noob!!
mickeynismocat 4 years ago
how the fuck does renault sound like mclaren, im lost for words lol.
andy375 4 years ago 2
Será q aqueles mecânicos ainda tem tímpanos ?
nandovsks0606 4 years ago
Williams did not leave Honda, Honda left them when FW refused to have Satoru Nakajima alongside Nigel mansell for 1988. Williams was left with Judd power, not Renault in 1988. Honda had the best engines from 1986-1991, and won the most Turbo charged races in F1 History. Honda won twice as many races that Renault did from 1977 to 1988.
Twin540i 4 years ago 46
@Twin540i
They had the best engine in 1985 already, but the car didn't come good until the end of the season when Rosberg and Mansell won the last 3 races in dominant style.
A few reliability issues aside it was still already a dominant force.
McLarenMercedes 10 months ago
@McLarenMercedes Williams Honda did win the last three races in dominate form for 1985, just as Ferrari won the last two races in 87 in dominate form. Tag Porsche had it right for 1984 & was the car that won the most races in 1985. For me, to be consider the best engine, you have to have speed & reliability. Honda fixed it in 1985 & by 1986, Tag Porsche had no response for Honda. It was only the destructive nature of Mansell vs. Piquet along with the brilliance of Alain Prost that honda lost
Twin540i 9 months ago
"Thats why they went to Mclaren"
davesideways 4 years ago
btw, yes Renault did finished top in 93 with William's FW13B (Active suspension, yadi yada) But didn't they have a hard time in 94 beating Scuhmacher in a Ford HBv8 Benetton? Not to mention Senna's death due to poor worksmanship in Williams?
koukiR32 4 years ago
Thr Fw13B is the car that had raced in 1990. So if you're talking about 1993 it have to be the Fw15
red5isalive 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Senas death was not due to poor workmanship,it was due to thew safety car allowing his tyres to cool,flattengin them,thus he gorunded out and lost control.Rob
Robzx10R 4 years ago
Went on and win 16 out of 17 races that single year. I don't believe there's any other engine manufacturer has done that sine then. BTW, all 1/2 finishes too. LOL..
koukiR32 4 years ago
15 out of 16 races, and they weren't all 1-2s. 10 of them were, but the others not:
- Senna was DSQed in Rio
- Senna crashed in Monaco
- Prost retired in the rain in Silverstone
- Senna was 4th and 6th in the Iberian tour (Spanish and Portuguese GPs)
Check out your facts before commenting.
vikirad 3 years ago 2
Whatever, Try finding a Engine manufacturer that did anything remotely that close to domination in recent F1 history? Honda Rules the 80~90's. Now if only they can pick up their paces. Jeff Wilis suck ass. Hopefully, Ross Brawn can bring Honda back on track in 09 and on, with new rules.
chefa77 3 years ago
I was talking about the 1-2 finish thing. I know that Honda's absolute dominance of 1988 will probably remain unrivaled for the rest of F1 history.
vikirad 3 years ago
Honda did not dominate 80's to 90's. They had 5 wins. So did Renault and ford had 4 wins.
The ford cosworth was more dominating in F1 anyway.
nitel10 3 years ago
@nitel10 Honda 1980s-1990s stats:
1985: 4 GP wins, 3rd in World Championship (Williams)
1986: 9 GP wins, 1st in World Championship (Williams)
1987: 9 GP wins, 1st in World Championship (Williams)
1988: 15 GP wins, 1st in World Championship (McLaren)
1989: 10 GP wins, 1st in World Championship (McLaren)
1990: 6 GP wins, 1st in World Championship (McLaren)
1991: 8 GP wins, 1st in World Championship (McLaren)
1992: 5 GP wins, 2nd in WC (McLaren)
Didn't dominate?....6 straight WC, 56 GPs!
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
nitel10 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grayqboufan
with 94 gp wins and 6 straight world titles. renault pushed honda aside
nitel10 8 months ago
@vikirad Senna crashed at Monza too while leading with only 1 or 2 laps left. The two Ferraris went on to finish 1-2 in that race.
Grayqboufan 8 months ago
For Fxxk sake... Guys, The only reason why they went to Maclaren not William is because it's the better choice for Honda. And not too mention. That Honda helped Williams to win a few world champions in the last of the Turbo era. And in 88 when they left William, and joined Maclaren both Alain Prost/Aryton Senna.
koukiR32 4 years ago
that thing runs so rough before it warms up
bucurelpacura 5 years ago
in '92 Wilkiams-Renault kicked McLaren-Honda out of it's winnin' predeccesion and forced to use Ford Engines in '93, Peugeot in '94 and Mercedes-Benz from '95 to the present day
xpidf1 5 years ago 3
It wasn't a post to blame williams. Just that they went to Maclaren becaude Senna moved to Maclaren.
mpls2006 5 years ago
And allegedly it was William's weak steering shaft that broke and caused Senna's fatal crash.
65ShelbyClone 4 years ago
Emphasis on the word 'alledgedly'. A more rational explaination may be the car grounded out and lost grip.
glc1983 4 years ago
Give me a freaking break, Imola? At that corner? Senna's skills? Come on, it clearly was mechanical error which cause his life, Williams is 100% responsible if u ask me.
chefa77 3 years ago 2
The team is always responsible for the death of their drivers! But guilty of manslaughter, never!
brav0wing 3 years ago 3
That's not right. They moved to McLaren and Lotus too because they wanted to put Nakajima in Nigel Mansell's car and Frank said NO.
So they went out, go to McLaren and Lotus and put Nakajima there in the second Lotus car.
This is it.
red5isalive 4 years ago 7
that's Honda's fault not Williams.. what d ya expect from a man in a wheelchair? arrogant Japies..
davedavid86 5 years ago
Actually what the guy said was this " that's why they went to Maclaren"
mpls2006 5 years ago 3