F1technical.net

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 13:52

ispano6 wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 12:23

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 12:03

Maybe he's been feeding the opposite opinion to Gemini. AI modells just tend to reinforce what you feed them. Particularly if you coerce them long enough.

It will regurgitate barf if you feed it barf, which is what a majority of the internet fan sites produce.

It will start to make sense of the truth from various nuggets of wisdom and morsels of truth.

And you did the same with this Aramco narrative of yours...
But you pretend it a discovery when you do it.

BassVirolla wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 23:38

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 13:52

ispano6 wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 12:23

It will regurgitate barf if you feed it barf, which is what a majority of the internet fan sites produce.

It will start to make sense of the truth from various nuggets of wisdom and morsels of truth.

And you did the same with this Aramco narrative of yours...
But you pretend it a discovery when you do it.

I'd rather dismiss any AI related or generated BS. This is supposed to be a technical forum.

@difusser I understand and respect your intention, using AI to expose itself.

But to justify an argument with "ask Gemini" is one of the greatest jokes of all times.

BassVirolla wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 23:38

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 13:52

ispano6 wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 12:23

It will regurgitate barf if you feed it barf, which is what a majority of the internet fan sites produce.

It will start to make sense of the truth from various nuggets of wisdom and morsels of truth.

And you did the same with this Aramco narrative of yours...
But you pretend it a discovery when you do it.

I'd rather dismiss any AI related or generated BS. This is supposed to be a technical forum.

@difusser I understand and respect your intention, using AI to expose itself.

But to justify an argument with "ask Gemini" is one of the greatest jokes of all times.

diffuser wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2026, 02:55

BassVirolla wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 23:38

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 13:52

And you did the same with this Aramco narrative of yours...
But you pretend it a discovery when you do it.

I'd rather dismiss any AI related or generated BS. This is supposed to be a technical forum.

@difusser I understand and respect your intention, using AI to expose itself.

But to justify an argument with "ask Gemini" is one of the greatest jokes of all times.

I thought it was funny.

ispano6 wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2026, 12:09

LOL. You would be terrible at investigative journalism.

ispano6 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 17:34

I expected better from people here.
No, you people aren't getting it. Do you know how to use Notebook LM? Do you know what question to ask?

"What is Honda's matching problem with Aramco fuel?"

I don't need to use AI for something I already know from the beginning from two sources. My point explicitly was the lack of effort the non-technical lazy here demonstrate and quickly jump to the generic finger pointing that has made this forum a downer.

You feed it documents, you feed it truths. In this case statements made by Honda personnel from their official websites. Quotes from Asaki and Kakuda, in their native tongue. Sure, you posit a hypothesis, offer juxtaposition, rationale.

Guess what, it's great at pointing out bias, it will keep you grounded from any fantastical non-truths.

You will get likely two very easy answers.

1) that there is no evidence that Aramco's fuel is the issue

2) that Honda DOES have a matching problem because of a change to a new fuel and lubrication supplier.


Most of you seem to just think 1) and write off 2). Which is a shame because 2) is the real answer.

• everyone is running with Completely NEW fuel this year, not just Honda.

• Since Aramco has been using this fuel in F2 for a few years, they have the most experience with making the fuel. Now this doesn't guarantee the best fuel, it does decrease the odds of your claim having merit.

diffuser wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 19:32

The problem with your argument is:

• everyone is running with Completely NEW fuel this year, not just Honda.

• Since Aramco has been using this fuel in F2 for a few years, they have the most experience with making the fuel. Now this doesn't guarantee the best fuel, it does decrease the odds of your claim having merit.

Research into additives opens up a new (and costly) field of development
The development of e-fuels has opened up a frontier that goes far beyond the simple replacement of traditional gasoline. It is no longer about optimising an existing product, but about building an entirely new fuel, molecule by molecule. In this scenario, alongside fuel development itself, research into additives is becoming one of the main arenas of competition and innovation.

And it is precisely here that FIA regulations introduce a crucial distinction. Additives derived from non-sustainable sources are permitted, but within extremely strict limits and only if they fall into categories that do not improperly alter combustion, thus avoiding disguised performance advantages. This is no small issue, because the additives with the best properties are generally the non-sustainable ones.

The situation is different for sustainable additives. If they're certified and traced along the entire supply chain, they're not subject to the same limits imposed on non-sustainable additives. This is one of the fronts on which suppliers’ research is focusing, as they work to develop advanced, sustainable molecules capable of improving stability, resistance to knock, and combustion quality

It's not just the liquid itself that carries that value: it's the research behind it, as well as a supply chain that must be entirely “green”, certified at every step – from sourcing to the emissions of the entire life cycle – which are monitored by the FIA. Improving fuel quality means, for example, being able to obtain the same energy with a slightly lower mass, reducing the amount of fuel that needs to be carried on board.
.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-20 ... /10789765/

ispano6 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 21:24

diffuser wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 19:32

The problem with your argument is:

• everyone is running with Completely NEW fuel this year, not just Honda.

• Since Aramco has been using this fuel in F2 for a few years, they have the most experience with making the fuel. Now this doesn't guarantee the best fuel, it does decrease the odds of your claim having merit.

You make it sound like all fuels are equal.

Equating first year F2 fuel supplier to F1 gold-standard is not a strong piece of support I've been tracking their fuel development prior to this season and had concerns about their newcomer status. As title sponsor and global partner, I do want to give them the benefit of doubt that they have their area of expertise. I have high respect for them and their blue/green hydrogen vision. And mind you, Honda has proven experience developing championship winning fuel with ExxonMobil, I've posted articles here on their fuel development and synergy in the past.

diffuser wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 19:32

ExxonMobil has ZERO years experience with this years fuel. They never supplied anyone with SUSTAINABLE fuel last year. Amaraco's 3 years of supplying F2 and F3 is better no experience.

2025: The fuel was a blend containing a significant proportion of fossil-derived components (specifically, it was an E10 formula: 90% fossil fuel, 10% ethanol, though earlier in the year it transitioned to "advanced sustainable" blends that were not yet 100% fossil-free).

2026: The fuel is 100% advanced sustainable, meaning zero new fossil carbon is permitted. Every molecule (except for up to 1% additives/denaturants) must come from non-fossil sources like municipal waste, non-food biomass, or sustainable carbon capture.

Working with a new fuel + new fuel supplier does not equal = working with a new fuel.

diffuser wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 19:32

I call BS. 75% of team Honda was new, even if the used ExxonMobil fuel at AMR F1, there was a 75% that the people they worked with at Honda were gone.

You can't underestimate the value of the years of working with a supplier gives you. Synergy isn't a word that is tossed out lightly. It is the basis of which the science (combustion+tribology) must operate.

diffuser wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 19:32

I know first hand the state of the Honda PU is since they lost all the synergy of all the people that left! So I don't underestimate it at all.

Orihara has mentioned single-cylinder testing. In the past during the RB era, this was almost always accompanied by a fuel upgrade. Fuel/lubricants upgrades played a significant part of Honda's turnaround with Red Bull and we should see better performance when that synergy matures. The difficulty is trying to identify which properties are not understood or causing combustion events that are unexpected. From what I understand, this was manifesting as vibrations from the PU. These vibrations compounded issues elsewhere, and have to mange them for reliability. Orihara mentioned "friction", which is something they are also having to improve, as it is a critically energy sapping deficiency.

With the direction and uncertainty of the 2027 50/50 split, is there a point to introduce anything for 2026?
That is what some are asking, but the track is the laboratory and bringing any developments will help them better understand and develop. It's fair to say these are the "teething" problems they are experiencing and hopefully a 2nd spec engine and fuel is a step toward 2027 they can apply. But they shouldn't rush an engine just to meet a pre-summer shut-down date.

From Autosport in January:

Research into additives opens up a new (and costly) field of development
The development of e-fuels has opened up a frontier that goes far beyond the simple replacement of traditional gasoline. It is no longer about optimising an existing product, but about building an entirely new fuel, molecule by molecule. In this scenario, alongside fuel development itself, research into additives is becoming one of the main arenas of competition and innovation.

And it is precisely here that FIA regulations introduce a crucial distinction. Additives derived from non-sustainable sources are permitted, but within extremely strict limits and only if they fall into categories that do not improperly alter combustion, thus avoiding disguised performance advantages. This is no small issue, because the additives with the best properties are generally the non-sustainable ones.

The situation is different for sustainable additives. If they're certified and traced along the entire supply chain, they're not subject to the same limits imposed on non-sustainable additives. This is one of the fronts on which suppliers’ research is focusing, as they work to develop advanced, sustainable molecules capable of improving stability, resistance to knock, and combustion quality

It's not just the liquid itself that carries that value: it's the research behind it, as well as a supply chain that must be entirely “green”, certified at every step – from sourcing to the emissions of the entire life cycle – which are monitored by the FIA. Improving fuel quality means, for example, being able to obtain the same energy with a slightly lower mass, reducing the amount of fuel that needs to be carried on board.
.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-20 ... /10789765/

diffuser wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2026, 19:32

I would say it's possible that Amaraco fuel is inferior to that of other suppliers. However, the idea that it is as inferior as you believe, that the issue is entirely Amaraco's fault, or that Honda would be in a significantly different position with any other supplier is completely unfounded. You have no evidence that it's Amaraco's fuel's at fault and completely ignore Honda taking the blame for replacing 75% of the team. Quite frankly, you've pissed me off with your utter ignorance!