Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Juzh]

I also thought it was obvious tactics. Just a defence against any team trying to snatch some points by blowing through their engines in some sort of "hail Mary mode". Thye'd have enough engines to match strategies. Additionally they might have anticipated a " '21 silverstone" on Max. They'd limit the damage by taking the engine penalty at a venue of their choice, making a desperate move less attractive.

This tactic wouldn't work. After exhausting your ICE allowance you can only keep the last engine in your pool of available engines. Last year they took ICE #4 in beligum, then ICE #5 two races later in Italy. This automatically removed engine #4 from the pool, damage or no damage. This is done exactly for the purpose of preventing engine stockpiling.
You can use first 3 engines however you like.

As the engine use rule was supposed to be 'cost cutting', surely it is no longer needed now all the teams have the same spending limit?

If one team believes it is more efficient for them to spend 5million on swapped/rebuilt engines than say wind tunnel or computer time, is it not a fair choice for them?

The maximum spend is the same if it goes on inch long protrusions or slots, or on whole engines.

Engines are not covered by cost cap. You can throw money at them with impunity.

[GhostF1]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/honda ... /10434231/

The full article.

Tetsushi Kakuda explains they belive they had a clear advantage in power deployment last year and have made a further step for this year. Reliability suffered from new fuel and pushing for performance, so they've made improvements to the strength and durability of the PU for this year that will enable harder modes to be run and for longer. Good step in precision within Honda and suppliers in relation to parts and assembly of the Power Unit.

Overall, it sounds very positive.

[Big Tea]

This tactic wouldn't work. After exhausting your ICE allowance you can only keep the last engine in your pool of available engines. Last year they took ICE #4 in beligum, then ICE #5 two races later in Italy. This automatically removed engine #4 from the pool, damage or no damage. This is done exactly for the purpose of preventing engine stockpiling.
You can use first 3 engines however you like.

As the engine use rule was supposed to be 'cost cutting', surely it is no longer needed now all the teams have the same spending limit?

If one team believes it is more efficient for them to spend 5million on swapped/rebuilt engines than say wind tunnel or computer time, is it not a fair choice for them?

The maximum spend is the same if it goes on inch long protrusions or slots, or on whole engines.

Engines are not covered by cost cap. You can throw money at them with impunity.

But paying for an engine comes out of the covered cost surely? Don't know how it works for Merc, Ferrari and Alpine, but there must be a measure of engine cost. (or not??)

[Henk_v]

The Monza engine penalty always felt precautionary to me. Like they decided on the weekend itself because they saw they had such a large advantage over the field to do it. There were no rumours at all coming up to Monza nor were there any earlier in the season suggesting Honda would use more than 4

Plus more engines, more data collection about how the power unit is wearing with the new fuel? So they can optimize the reliability again

I also thought it was obvious tactics. Just a defence against any team trying to snatch some points by blowing through their engines in some sort of "hail Mary mode". Thye'd have enough engines to match strategies. Additionally they might have anticipated a " '21 silverstone" on Max. They'd limit the damage by taking the engine penalty at a venue of their choice, making a desperate move less attractive.

This tactic wouldn't work. After exhausting your ICE allowance you can only keep the last engine in your pool of available engines. Last year they took ICE #4 in beligum, then ICE #5 two races later in Italy. This automatically removed engine #4 from the pool, damage or no damage. This is done exactly for the purpose of preventing engine stockpiling.
You can use first 3 engines however you like.

Thanks! Did not know that!

[organic]

The Monza engine penalty always felt precautionary to me. Like they decided on the weekend itself because they saw they had such a large advantage over the field to do it. There were no rumours at all coming up to Monza nor were there any earlier in the season suggesting Honda would use more than 4

Plus more engines, more data collection about how the power unit is wearing with the new fuel? So they can optimize the reliability again

I also thought it was obvious tactics. Just a defence against any team trying to snatch some points by blowing through their engines in some sort of "hail Mary mode". Thye'd have enough engines to match strategies. Additionally they might have anticipated a " '21 silverstone" on Max. They'd limit the damage by taking the engine penalty at a venue of their choice, making a desperate move less attractive.

This tactic wouldn't work. After exhausting your ICE allowance you can only keep the last engine in your pool of available engines. Last year they took ICE #4 in beligum, then ICE #5 two races later in Italy. This automatically removed engine #4 from the pool, damage or no damage. This is done exactly for the purpose of preventing engine stockpiling.
You can use first 3 engines however you like.

Can you find where it says this in the sporting regulations? I believe that is inaccurate

What you describe is true when taking two excess components in the same weekend. Ie you can't take ice 4&5 in 1 weekend and keep both like Mercedes pulled in 2016. That was what engine stockpiling was and rules were changed to prevent it for 2017 onwards.

During any single event, if a driver introduces more than one of a power unit element that is subject to penalty, only the last element fitted may be used at subsequent events without further penalty. This is to prevent the stockpiling of spare power unit elements.

But you can build up a pool of components beyond the capacity without losing access to previously taken excess components as long as you're not trying to stack all of your penalties into one weekend

[chrisc90]

Didn’t Ferrari do something in Canada with Charles where they took a early penalty then added extra components on once there was a certain mileage on them?

[organic]

Didn’t Ferrari do something in Canada with Charles where they took a early penalty then added extra components on once there was a certain mileage on them?

They tried to take one excess component per session resulting in a 10place penalty and that would allow them to never receive the "back of the grid" penalty because they never took more than 15 places of grid penalties at any one time. But FIA ruled that if more than 15 places are taken within the same weekend then it's botg, foiling the strategy/clever interpretation

[chrisc90]

Didn’t Ferrari do something in Canada with Charles where they took a early penalty then added extra components on once there was a certain mileage on them?

They tried to take one excess component per session resulting in a 10place penalty and that would allow them to never receive the "back of the grid" penalty because they never took more than 15 places of grid penalties at any one time. But FIA ruled that if more than 15 places are taken within the same weekend then it's botg, foiling the strategy/clever interpretation

Slightly different then. I could remember some controversy around it but couldn’t remember the specifics.

Thanks for clearing up

[Juzh]

I also thought it was obvious tactics. Just a defence against any team trying to snatch some points by blowing through their engines in some sort of "hail Mary mode". Thye'd have enough engines to match strategies. Additionally they might have anticipated a " '21 silverstone" on Max. They'd limit the damage by taking the engine penalty at a venue of their choice, making a desperate move less attractive.

This tactic wouldn't work. After exhausting your ICE allowance you can only keep the last engine in your pool of available engines. Last year they took ICE #4 in beligum, then ICE #5 two races later in Italy. This automatically removed engine #4 from the pool, damage or no damage. This is done exactly for the purpose of preventing engine stockpiling.
You can use first 3 engines however you like.

Can you find where it says this in the sporting regulations? I believe that is inaccurate

What you describe is true when taking two excess components in the same weekend. Ie you can't take ice 4&5 in 1 weekend and keep both like Mercedes pulled in 2016. That was what engine stockpiling was and rules were changed to prevent it for 2017 onwards.

During any single event, if a driver introduces more than one of a power unit element that is subject to penalty, only the last element fitted may be used at subsequent events without further penalty. This is to prevent the stockpiling of spare power unit elements.

But you can build up a pool of components beyond the capacity without losing access to previously taken excess components as long as you're not trying to stack all of your penalties into one weekend

You're right.

[Henk_v]

That's settled then.

Since RB had an astronomic lead with the Honda engine, I think it's likely

-They did not turn it up to the max (which helped to give them the perfect reliability in the latter 3/4 of the season). I just can't see them running the engine anywhere near the red area as they had nothing to win and could only lose if it broke.
-They had a bit more room to experiment, giving Honda better feedback than any other team struggling for points could give their ICU engineers. They (RB) litterally showed they could just skip an entire quali run. Probably "sacrificed" a few to gain data/feedback too. If you are 20+ seconds in the lead and are just managing the gap, you can afford some experimenting too.

That for me would cement the thought that the humble Japanese could well match any power gain boasted by the Italians or Germans. Any Italian sob story on how they had to tune down the engine, or German horror story about parts falling off I classify as politics to find more wiggle room for ICU power improvement. I'd bet Honda/RB had just as much difficulties behind the scenes but just shut up and got cracking at the problems. RB won races with both a busted clutch and a busted gearbox. Never made the storylines other than a quick remark maybe in the debrief. Imagine that happening to some other drivers. We would not have heard the end of it.

[epo]

That's settled then.

Since RB had an astronomic lead with the Honda engine, I think it's likely

-They did not turn it up to the max (which helped to give them the perfect reliability in the latter 3/4 of the season). I just can't see them running the engine anywhere near the red area as they had nothing to win and could only lose if it broke.
-They had a bit more room to experiment, giving Honda better feedback than any other team struggling for points could give their ICU engineers. They (RB) litterally showed they could just skip an entire quali run. Probably "sacrificed" a few to gain data/feedback too. If you are 20+ seconds in the lead and are just managing the gap, you can afford some experimenting too.

That for me would cement the thought that the humble Japanese could well match any power gain boasted by the Italians or Germans. Any Italian sob story on how they had to tune down the engine, or German horror story about parts falling off I classify as politics to find more wiggle room for ICU power improvement. I'd bet Honda/RB had just as much difficulties behind the scenes but just shut up and got cracking at the problems. RB won races with both a busted clutch and a busted gearbox. Never made the storylines other than a quick remark maybe in the debrief. Imagine that happening to some other drivers. We would not have heard the end of it.

The Mercedes engine is not German made (it would have been a lot better if), just the label is.

[Henk_v]

You are obviously exactly right. It would be stupid if the former "axis of evil" (Germany, Italy & Japan) held the monopoly on F1 engines. So Merc is Brittish and RBPT is getting there.

[Cassius]

You are obviously exactly right. It would be stupid if the former "axis of evil" (Germany, Italy & Japan) held the monopoly on F1 engines. So Merc is Brittish and RBPT is getting there.

You forgot Renault so your reference does not make sense.

[Cs98]

You are obviously exactly right. It would be stupid if the former "axis of evil" (Germany, Italy & Japan) held the monopoly on F1 engines. So Merc is Brittish and RBPT is getting there.

You forgot Renault so your reference does not make sense.

Renault Hardly a member of the monopoly considering their engines have been inconsequential for the past 9 years. They only get a participation prize.

[Henk_v]

You are obviously exactly right. It would be stupid if the former "axis of evil" (Germany, Italy & Japan) held the monopoly on F1 engines. So Merc is Brittish and RBPT is getting there.

You forgot Renault so your reference does not make sense.

Who is buying Renault engines then?