Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[AR3-GP]

Any reason why Honda stick to A2A intercoolers unlike Mercedes or Ferrari?

Guessing same reason as Red Bull - weight and packaging. A2A intercoolers are lighter and can be mounted higher up which lets you shrink the sidepod intakes.

Cooling is not a PU thing, It's a chassis thing. PU tell the chassis how much cooling they need a chassis delivers...or suffers.

A well functioning team will communicate in both directions. Chasing outright power (+weight, +cooling) at the expense of aero can be a negative as much as chasing aero at the expensive of PU reliability. There is a sweet spot.

[diffuser]

Guessing same reason as Red Bull - weight and packaging. A2A intercoolers are lighter and can be mounted higher up which lets you shrink the sidepod intakes.

Cooling is not a PU thing, It's a chassis thing. PU tell the chassis how much cooling they need a chassis delivers...or suffers.

A well functioning team will communicate in both directions. Chasing outright power (+weight, +cooling) at the expense of aero can be a negative as much as chasing aero at the expensive of PU reliability. There is a sweet spot.

Naturally in a WORKS TEAM there is communication with regards to cooling but "WORKS TEAMS" are a minority in F1. Williams will have just been told the cooling requirements and go figure it out. My point was the manufacturing, placement and choice of radiators are done by the chassis team. Williams does not receive radiators with the purchase of the PU.

[mzso]

So, since Honda apparently has a problem with vibration, can they solve that? Are there mechanisms or devices to absorb vibrations? Because obviously they won't re-design the PU anytime soon, if it even originates there.

I think AM being late with the chassis was big blow to Honda. Otherwise they could have tested the engine within the actual chassis with gearbox and all before even the first "shakedown" test. This just resulted in a compound handicap.

On the other hand since this is clearly a reliability issue, they can implement when and what they feel is right, right? I hadn't heard of this rule being changed.

[Craigy]

So, since Honda apparently has a problem with vibration, can they solve that? Are there mechanisms or devices to absorb vibrations? Because obviously they won't re-design the PU anytime soon, if it even originates there.

I think AM being late with the chassis was big blow to Honda. Otherwise they could have tested the engine within the actual chassis with gearbox and all before even the first "shakedown" test. This just resulted in a compound handicap.

On the other hand since this is clearly a reliability issue, they can implement when and what they feel is right, right? I hadn't heard of this rule being changed.

The year before Honda pulled out of F1 in 2008, an old friend of mine was working for the F1 team.
As a result of this in 2008/2009 he got to test the Honda versus Mercedes F1 engines back to back, and said the two were comparable in peak power, but the Mercedes was comparatively much smoother ("like a turbine") and the Honda used much more fuel to get to the peak power number.
Unfortunately, it appears the vibration thing is repeated weakness.

[Bence]

And if anyone remembers Senna's first Honda experience... After an installation lap he jumped out of the car thinking that something was broke, because the Honda was running so rough compared to the Renault that he couldn't associate the vibrations with "normal operation"...

[diffuser]

So, since Honda apparently has a problem with vibration, can they solve that? Are there mechanisms or devices to absorb vibrations? Because obviously they won't re-design the PU anytime soon, if it even originates there.

I think AM being late with the chassis was big blow to Honda. Otherwise they could have tested the engine within the actual chassis with gearbox and all before even the first "shakedown" test. This just resulted in a compound handicap.

On the other hand since this is clearly a reliability issue, they can implement when and what they feel is right, right? I hadn't heard of this rule being changed.

We know the battery has problems with vibration. The source we don't know. We don't know if the stiffness of the chassis is modifing the vibration so it effects tge battery. You got to remember, this is not a vibration that you and I would knowingly think is bad. It's just at the right harmonics.

The race said this was on Honda issue, as they should have been running the PU on the actual full vehicle rig at Silverstone instead of the one in Sakura. Their opinion not mine.

[Rasoose]

So, since Honda apparently has a problem with vibration, can they solve that? Are there mechanisms or devices to absorb vibrations? Because obviously they won't re-design the PU anytime soon, if it even originates there.

I think AM being late with the chassis was big blow to Honda. Otherwise they could have tested the engine within the actual chassis with gearbox and all before even the first "shakedown" test. This just resulted in a compound handicap.

On the other hand since this is clearly a reliability issue, they can implement when and what they feel is right, right? I hadn't heard of this rule being changed.

The year before Honda pulled out of F1 in 2008, an old friend of mine was working for the F1 team.
As a result of this in 2008/2009 he got to test the Honda versus Mercedes F1 engines back to back, and said the two were comparable in peak power, but the Mercedes was comparatively much smoother ("like a turbine") and the Honda used much more fuel to get to the peak power number.
Unfortunately, it appears the vibration thing is repeated weakness.

I do remember a technical document showing the Honda V8 to be extremely light, a hair above the minimum weight. Makes sense that they accomplished this in part with less mass in the crankshaft at the expense of vibration.
Ross Brawn said the Mercedes unit was heavier and had a higher CofG when mounted in their car, but it seems likely that Honda back then went past the 'sweet-spot' even if it had it's upsides.

They were also allowed variable-length inlet trumpets on the V10s up until '05, but they were banned for the V8s in '06. My understanding was the Honda V8 was very similar to the '05 V10, even sharing a small number of parts, but without the variable trumpets it initially lacked a lot of mid-range torque(could partially explain more fuel use). This plus the V8s being less balanced by nature, would mean it made sense that most manufacturers worked more weight back into the engine.

[Rasoose]

And if anyone remembers Senna's first Honda experience... After an installation lap he jumped out of the car thinking that something was broke, because the Honda was running so rough compared to the Renault that he couldn't associate the vibrations with "normal operation"...

Very interesting, thank you for sharing.

I remember BAR crediting a large percentage of their increased reliability (of the entire car, not just engine) in 2000 on switching to the Honda V10, which produced much less vibration versus their Supertec V10 from '99. It gave a good bump in power too, but it wasn't particularly light for it's time. Then for '02 they went to extremes for lower weight and CofG but they had to dial it way back for '03.

Seems they go back and forth a bit, pushing different avenues more aggressively depending on the year and the engineering team.

[DarkAlman]

And if anyone remembers Senna's first Honda experience... After an installation lap he jumped out of the car thinking that something was broke, because the Honda was running so rough compared to the Renault that he couldn't associate the vibrations with "normal operation"...

I remember that, and I also remember him asking Honda to sacrifice peak power for more driveability. The engines back then had huge turbo lag and Senna likely asked for a smoother acceleration curve to prevent the back wheels from lighting up after the corners.

Comparing a Honda engine from 30 years ago to today though is a non-sequitor.

The technology is totally different, and there probably isn't a single person left from that original engineering team.

[DarkAlman]

Based on Newey's comments on the battery pack not recharging past the minimum 250kw, I wonder if the battery system is even working at all (disabled for testing). Or if they are operating it at a bare minimum in testing just as a proof of concept until the problems are worked out.

The performance of the engines on the dyno are probably totally different that what we have seen so far on track.

The main issue seems to be related to unexpected vibrations in the car, which could be anything really. The talk about the transmission being the issue could imply that Aston's first ever in-house gearbox might be at fault for the vibrations. Or it could be another totally unrelated problem.

In dyno testing the Honda engine was likely load tested without the Aston gearbox, at least until very recently due to the development time. The engineers at Sakura apparently have an entire engine + chassis + gearbox being tested together right now to try to isolate the problem.

I'm just speculating here, but based on the renders of the Ferrari and Mercedes engines (which could be deliberately inaccurate mind you) the Honda power pack appears to be shorter and taller, 2 tiered.

Newey's requests to Honda to make the engine more compact probably resulted in the 2-tier battery pack. The battery sits underneath the fuel tank behind and under the driver. If the battery is 2-tiered it could allow the engine to be moved forward a good 6-8 inches or more.

If Honda had to scramble to assemble these battery packs their could be some internal faults to them, but I would have expected Adrian to give them 3-6 months notice that than this is what Aston had in mind for the chassis.

Maybe they were using a mule battery pack in testing until recently. All the cells stored in a hypothetical rubbermaid tub during testing but the race packaging and housing itself wasn't actually determined and assembled until quite recently.

The vibrations may be shaking the cells or wiring apart. Could it be that the concern is not be the wiring harnesses breaking, but maybe that the cells might get punctured?

But what the hell do I know, this is all guess work unless someone internal at Honda speaks up.

[wuzak]

Newey's requests to Honda to make the engine more compact probably resulted in the 2-tier battery pack. The battery sits underneath the fuel tank behind and under the driver. If the battery is 2-tiered it could allow the engine to be moved forward a good 6-8 inches or more.

Isn't the battery one tier and the control electronics the other tier?

[Bill]

Based on Newey's comments on the battery pack not recharging past the minimum 250kw, I wonder if the battery system is even working at all (disabled for testing). Or if they are operating it at a bare minimum in testing just as a proof of concept until the problems are worked out.

The performance of the engines on the dyno are probably totally different that what we have seen so far on track.

The main issue seems to be related to unexpected vibrations in the car, which could be anything really. The talk about the transmission being the issue could imply that Aston's first ever in-house gearbox might be at fault for the vibrations. Or it could be another totally unrelated problem.

In dyno testing the Honda engine was likely load tested without the Aston gearbox, at least until very recently due to the development time. The engineers at Sakura apparently have an entire engine + chassis + gearbox being tested together right now to try to isolate the problem.

I'm just speculating here, but based on the renders of the Ferrari and Mercedes engines (which could be deliberately inaccurate mind you) the Honda power pack appears to be shorter and taller, 2 tiered.

Newey's requests to Honda to make the engine more compact probably resulted in the 2-tier battery pack. The battery sits underneath the fuel tank behind and under the driver. If the battery is 2-tiered it could allow the engine to be moved forward a good 6-8 inches or more.

If Honda had to scramble to assemble these battery packs their could be some internal faults to them, but I would have expected Adrian to give them 3-6 months notice that than this is what Aston had in mind for the chassis.

Maybe they were using a mule battery pack in testing until recently. All the cells stored in a hypothetical rubbermaid tub during testing but the race packaging and housing itself wasn't actually determined and assembled until quite recently.

The vibrations may be shaking the cells or wiring apart. Could it be that the concern is not be the wiring harnesses breaking, but maybe that the cells might get punctured?

But what the hell do I know, this is all guess work unless someone internal at Honda speaks up.

The mouting points on the battery is Causing big vibration on the batteries and Causing damage therefore the car has to run on save mode.Honda are confidence on their pu and believe it can full charge batteries. The so called newey comment that cannot be corroborated is romour perhaps lies to milk the Honda story.

[GhostF1]

So, since Honda apparently has a problem with vibration, can they solve that? Are there mechanisms or devices to absorb vibrations? Because obviously they won't re-design the PU anytime soon, if it even originates there.

I think AM being late with the chassis was big blow to Honda. Otherwise they could have tested the engine within the actual chassis with gearbox and all before even the first "shakedown" test. This just resulted in a compound handicap.

On the other hand since this is clearly a reliability issue, they can implement when and what they feel is right, right? I hadn't heard of this rule being changed.

The year before Honda pulled out of F1 in 2008, an old friend of mine was working for the F1 team.
As a result of this in 2008/2009 he got to test the Honda versus Mercedes F1 engines back to back, and said the two were comparable in peak power, but the Mercedes was comparatively much smoother ("like a turbine") and the Honda used much more fuel to get to the peak power number.
Unfortunately, it appears the vibration thing is repeated weakness.

This is interesting to hear! Thanks for sharing.

I remember in 2019, Max mentioned the Honda was smoother in operation than the Renault they changed from, and easier to modulate on throttle. Wouldn't be drawn on anything else. Albon made mention about the throttle pedal being something he needed to get used to when he went to Williams as well. Just interesting bits here and there.

[ispano6]

Nothing on the RA626H has been optimized yet. It doesn't experience the vibrations on the test-bench, so it needs to be mated to the full drivetrain and monocoque and even then it is not sufficient.

People here are talking about past decades and applying it to today are really just bringing back a grudge. Some people carelessly uttering things like AMR should drop the engine and go with a Mercedes. They don't understand that you don't get that design freedom from a customer engine. It's the reason why they chose a works partnership. Perhaps it didn't need to be exclusive.

[diffuser]

Nothing on the RA626H has been optimized yet. It doesn't experience the vibrations on the test-bench, so it needs to be mated to the full drivetrain and monocoque and even then it is not sufficient.

People here are talking about past decades and applying it to today are really just bringing back a grudge. Some people carelessly uttering things like AMR should drop the engine and go with a Mercedes. They don't understand that you don't get that design freedom from a customer engine. It's the reason why they chose a works partnership. Perhaps it didn't need to be exclusive.

Agreed.