Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[dr_cooke]

BTW, this is interesting that in Abu Dhabi when Alonso did his quick lap at the end he was 0.28 sec from Hamilton but this didn't result in closer to Mercedes speed trap. Somehow he did manage nearly to match Mercedes fast lap but with much worst than average speed trap. This means that closing the gap to 0.3 sec was purely only on full ERS deployment,

Hamilton best lap was two laps after his pit stop, Alonso lap was four laps after his pit stop. Yes, Alonso was with supersoft but for Mercedes at the end of the race the soft compound was better. Anyway, the point is that they were very close to the front without top speed at the straights. This means that only the average ERS deployment was in full regime.

Hamilton's fastest lap was on lap 44, Alonso's on lap 52. So an extra 8 laps of fuel on board - around 15kg. That'd be worth ~0.5s at least.

Also, Hamilton pitted 6 laps earlier, so his tyres would have to last the extra distance (and why he had softs and not super-softs).

Alonso's lap times from his pit stop:
Lap Time
48 2'20.989
49 1'44.954
50 2'04.250
51 2'06.839
52 1'44.796
53 1'54.360

Lap 48 is the out-lap, but it also includes time in he pits and the stop itself, Alonso having apssed the timing marker on the way to his box.

Lap 53 was the end of the race for Alonso, as he was 2 laps down.

In comparison, Hamilton's times after he pitted were:
Lap Time
42 2'04.986
43 1'44.713
44 1'44.517
45 1'45.130
46 1'44.773
47 1'44.983

Alonso did one fast lap on his first flyer on fresh tyres, then two very slow laps followed by his fastest lap.

Hamilton did his fastest lap on his second flying lap out of the pits, his previous fastest lap was on the first flying lap after the stop.

In fact, the first 10 laps after his final stop were his 10 fastest laps in the race.

If Hamilton had done a late stop like Alonso, and done a qualifying style lap, like Alonso, he would have been significantly faster.

Vettel stopped earlier, on lap 39. He was behind Pérez after leaving the pits, by about 3s.

His lap time sequence after his stop was:
Lap Time
40 2'05.872
41 1'45.156
42 1'45.684
43 1'45.708
44 1'45.542
45 1'45.255
46 1'44.607
47 1'45.250
48 1'44.550
49 1'44.733

Vettel passed Pérez on lap 45.

Laps 41 to 49 were his 9 fastest laps in the race.

On lap 50 he backed off substantially. He was too far behind Raikkonen and clear of Pérez.

I believe Vettel was on super-softs.

To conclude, Alonso's fastest lap was set in a sequence of 5 laps at the end of the race. He did one quick one, his second fastest time of the race, followed by 2 laps 20s off the pace (charging batteries, letting the tyres settle), then his fastest lap and a slow lap to finish.

One thing we do not really know is whether the need for that slow laps after a fast lap was only on reliability grounds and not on pure total power available. I mean, maybe they could pull two fast laps together, only at the risk of blowing sthg on the second. Still, although I do not remember top speed chart, some of you have mentioned substantially lower TS even in that lap. That should suggest at least a good enough chassis

[j.yank]

Hamilton best lap was two laps after his pit stop, Alonso lap was four laps after his pit stop. Yes, Alonso was with supersoft but for Mercedes at the end of the race the soft compound was better. Anyway, the point is that they were very close to the front without top speed at the straights. This means that only the average ERS deployment was in full regime.

Mclaren ran a qualifying run in the final stint, lost minutes, found clear track and charged their ERS fully, their lap times weren't impressive as they were notably slower than actual qualifying with similar track conditions and only marginally more fuel.

You cannot compare qualifying run with fast lap during the race. Everyone is slower in the race, including Mercedes - Hamilton was down 4 sec comparing his fast lap with his qualifying run. Alonso was 2 sec behind MH best qualifying time. I argue that during the whole season even in qualifying MH hadn't run the car in full deployment mode, probably because of the high risk for PU failure. They did this only in the final laps of the final race when the PU failure wasn't important anymore. Also, they had to slow down significantly after each of these quick laps, probably to cool down the PU. Of course, Hamilton could improve his fast lap if he had the same tires at the same lap like Alonso, but I doubt that he would be quicker more than a 1 sec. This is a gap of 1.3 sec. During the season the gap wasn't below 2.3 sec. This means that only the ERS full deployment mode brings a difference of 1 sec. Note that at the same time Alonso speed trap was 306 km/h and Hamilton's 323 km/h. The last one shows the deficit in the ICE power. That's why I think that a 2.5 sec gain during the winter is realistic, if they fix the ERS issue and get more power from PU. Of course, we should see how much will gain Mercedes.

[lkocev]

You would think Mercedes had 5 million hawsepowaz in their engine the way how the journos are slapping on power gains to catch mercedes over the past 2 seasons. 223? really? lol
I've heard so many 40 and 50 hp upgrades you would forget the fuel rate was limited.223 is just ridiculous.

Its so ridiculous its to the point that I can't even laugh at that report. And to have the nerve to quote exactly 223, I find that quite insulting, no body quotes exact figures in F1. Hell your lucky to even get ball park figures let alone exactly 223.

I find it impossible to believe that the power deficit could have ever been more than half of that stupid 223 figure. We are talking about power units where an increase of 10 hp could potentially cost millions in development, where millions are potentially spent on fuel formulation and investigating its burn characteristics. You wouldn't even quote 223 in a god damned fairytale, this is a load of mushroom food.

Nobody is making 223 hp increases, period. That 40-50 hp predicted Mercedes increase sounds like garbage to me too. Anyone would think these power units were still in the initial development stages with figures quoted like that.

In my opinion, Hondas primary objective would have been to increase the work capacity of the turbine, and subsequently the MGU-H and compressor.

Wazari do you have any idea of the wastegate layout that Honda will go with for the coming season?

[Juzh]

223 bhp was a fictional number made up by media for plebs who don't know better. It came from ICE gains of 62 bhp apparently and ERS deployment of 161 bhp (as if they didn't have any in 2015). Misinformation at it's best.

[wuzak]

Hamilton best lap was two laps after his pit stop, Alonso lap was four laps after his pit stop. Yes, Alonso was with supersoft but for Mercedes at the end of the race the soft compound was better. Anyway, the point is that they were very close to the front without top speed at the straights. This means that only the average ERS deployment was in full regime.

Mclaren ran a qualifying run in the final stint, lost minutes, found clear track and charged their ERS fully, their lap times weren't impressive as they were notably slower than actual qualifying with similar track conditions and only marginally more fuel.

You cannot compare qualifying run with fast lap during the race. Everyone is slower in the race, including Mercedes - Hamilton was down 4 sec comparing his fast lap with his qualifying run. Alonso was 2 sec behind MH best qualifying time. I argue that during the whole season even in qualifying MH hadn't run the car in full deployment mode, probably because of the high risk for PU failure. They did this only in the final laps of the final race when the PU failure wasn't important anymore. Also, they had to slow down significantly after each of these quick laps, probably to cool down the PU. Of course, Hamilton could improve his fast lap if he had the same tires at the same lap like Alonso, but I doubt that he would be quicker more than a 1 sec. This is a gap of 1.3 sec. During the season the gap wasn't below 2.3 sec. This means that only the ERS full deployment mode brings a difference of 1 sec. Note that at the same time Alonso speed trap was 306 km/h and Hamilton's 323 km/h. The last one shows the deficit in the ICE power. That's why I think that a 2.5 sec gain during the winter is realistic, if they fix the ERS issue and get more power from PU. Of course, we should see how much will gain Mercedes.

There were two slow laps after Alonso's first flying lap after the stop and before his fastest lap. I would suggest that they had to do that to fill the ES.

Hamilton's fast lap was on 44. ie 80% of the race done, so 20% fuel remaining. Call it 20kg.

Alonso's lap was on 52. That's 94% of the race done. 6% fuel remaining. Call it 6kg. (Alonso only did 53 laps, but likely had a full 55 laps worth of fuel aboard. That said, the slow laps may have been for fuel conservation as well as charging ERS.)

A difference of about 14kg.

Depending on circuit, 10kg fuel is ~0.4s per lap worth. So 14kg would be ~ 0.56s. Add that to the deficit of 0.279s in lap times and then you get a gap of ~0.84s.

New super-softs were ~1s faster than softs. Hamilton was on the latter and Alonso the former. Hamilton also had to make his last 13 laps rather than 6.

But what of Vettel? His fastest was 0.033s slower than Hamilton's. But it was on the 8th lap after the pits, on tyres he had to make last 15 laps. So I doubt he took all the tyre could give him.

Alonso was basically spared the tyre management issue by pitting so late.

[Chicane]

I have been a silent lurker of this fantastic forum and i decided to take the plunge today. It is so amazing to see and learn for a non technical person like me. There are some brilliant minds on here.

I just wanted to echo a few of my thoughts.

The media is trolling away with arbitrary figures as far as Honda's power deficit is concerned. I am sure even Honda cannot state the exact deficit with 100% certainty. All these made up figures are just to get more hits on their websites. In the current power unit formula where peak output of the power unit by that i mean ICE+ERS deployment is nothing but a bragging right it is laughable to see so many media outlets competing with one another with their claims about Honda's power deficit.

Honda's internal combustion engine caught up and is probably very near the output of the Mercedes one but fuel efficiency of the ICE per se of the Mercedes engine still has an edge. As we all know more fuel efficiency equates to less fuel needed and consequently more performance. Reliability wise Mercedes is quiet superior to the Honda with the maximum mileage done per unit in the season is nearly double as much as Honda managed last year. So i tend to believe Honda are working on efficiency and reliability of the ICE and not so much on improving it's outright grunt. The utilized majority of the tokens on the ICE last year and many of them worked in their own admission. so i assume the onus will be on upping the efficiency and quality of the components used to improve reliability.

Arai has categorically stated that after Barcelona they did not suffer from any overheating issues arising out of tight packaging. He has made it categorically clear that overheating was not the main reason why they struggled so much. This whole size zero nomenclature is a misnomer imho with Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault not having any significantly wider rear ends. yes Honda appear to have the slimmest rear end but the others are not far off.

The MGU-H in particular has been singled out by Arai as one of the major bottlenecks in the ERS. Since the MGU-H feeds off the turbo two components that will be under major scrutiny will be the turbocharger and the MGU-H. I will leave it to the technical pros on this site to pick the bones about what changes need to made in those components to make sure the ICE output does not suffer as much as it currently does when under harvesting via MGU-H. Arai has stated how reliability and deployment will be the major area of focus.

Mercedes probably are harvesting more energy than they can deploy while Honda struggled with the MGU-H harvesting. Their inability to efficiently and effectively power the MGU-K via the MGU-H directly for which there is no limit was the biggest factor in my opinion. When all these media outlets calculate they calculate the max power output of MGU-K add their arbitrary imaginary ICE deficit to come up with an arbitrary figure. When the MGU-H is powering the MGU-K directly i do not think the MGU-K is performing at it's max output in my opinion. I am not sure about this, please correct me if am wrong here. So every time Honda is not deploying it does not mean they are automatically 160 bhp down on the rivals.

I am optimistic Honda will turn it around because they have the capacity, infrastructure and technical know how to sort this out. I feel Honda got their calculations wrong with respect to how much exhaust harvesting they needed and it is evident then Arai says at Monza they came to know how big the difference in ERS deployment was. sorry guys if this post is not up to f1 technical forum standards. Just my 2p. I am not technical guy. The little bit i know is based on the research i have made as a f1 fan.

[bauc]

@Chicane, welcome to the forum and great effort for your first post.

[j.yank]

There were two slow laps after Alonso's first flying lap after the stop and before his fastest lap. I would suggest that they had to do that to fill the ES.

Hamilton's fast lap was on 44. ie 80% of the race done, so 20% fuel remaining. Call it 20kg.

Alonso's lap was on 52. That's 94% of the race done. 6% fuel remaining. Call it 6kg. (Alonso only did 53 laps, but likely had a full 55 laps worth of fuel aboard. That said, the slow laps may have been for fuel conservation as well as charging ERS.)

A difference of about 14kg.

Depending on circuit, 10kg fuel is ~0.4s per lap worth. So 14kg would be ~ 0.56s. Add that to the deficit of 0.279s in lap times and then you get a gap of ~0.84s.

New super-softs were ~1s faster than softs. Hamilton was on the latter and Alonso the former. Hamilton also had to make his last 13 laps rather than 6.

But what of Vettel? His fastest was 0.033s slower than Hamilton's. But it was on the 8th lap after the pits, on tyres he had to make last 15 laps. So I doubt he took all the tyre could give him.

Alonso was basically spared the tyre management issue by pitting so late.

If we start to count very strictly who was in what lap we should mention that Alonso first quick lap bellow 1.45 was 4 laps earlier and it was a lap straight away after the pit stop, so he didn't made a preparation lap. But even if we count everything like you did, still there was at least 1 sec improvement comparing to their normal speed during the whole season, and my point is that this was done only by full ERS deployment. In no way I don't try to say that they have closed the full gap between them and Mercedes. But they will (if they fix their issues).

[diffuser]

I hate to be a pain but this is the Power Unit Thread. Not the what happened in the last race of 2015 thread.

[bill shoe]

In the current power unit formula where peak output of the power unit by that i mean ICE+ERS deployment is nothing but a bragging right it is laughable to see so many media outlets competing with one another with their claims about Honda's power deficit.

Would be interesting to see engine performance at each track in terms of average power over the whole lap, or more simply the total energy output per lap. This would be a better indicator of performance, but as you say the simple websites like convenient attention-grabbing headlines.

I think teams are closer than you may think to knowing each other's exact powertrain performance from FIA-harvested GPS data along the entire length of the track. Unfortunately, this info is not made public and the teams don't share it with the public. This secrecy is mind-blowing from a sport that has a complex but efficient new powertrain, and is collectively wringing its hands over how to be more popular.

[Big Mangalhit]

It is almost a general consensus that the Honda PU lacks in MGU-H harvest and thus some extra deployment. It has also been stated that they are on par with the Ferrari in terms of ICE. This may suggest that fixing the MGU-H would lead to huge improvements. But I do wonder if, like most things in F1, there is a compromise by doing so. I mean, is it possible that by increasing the turbine recovery the engine will create more back pressure to the ICE and thus lose some of it's great power?

Not saying at all it isn't feasible but just that is certainly not as simple as it is suggested and that a massive step forward (lets say 3s) is not a complete given

[Per]

You use the MGU-H to spool the turbine (and compressor) up to whatever RPM you want it to be at. You can do that in the corner, before you get to full throttle. Increasing the turbine and its inertia will mean you have to spend a bit more electrical energy on spinning it up, but I'd say you have enough time to do so anyway. Then once you get to full throttle, all the excess work that the turbine is doing can be harvested by the MGU-H and fed directly to the MGU-K.

So I may be wrong but I don't think increased back pressure will be an issue.

[Wazari]

Mr. Chicane, nice summation with your post. IMO, the "size 0" is a huge deal. When designing a PU, a few cm. here and there can have a huge impact on how and where certain components are fabricated and placed. Engine design is an exercise in a series of compromises. As engineers, space for a PU is an all time premium feature that we are always fighting for with chassis designers. So although the rear end of McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari might appear similar in size, a few centimeters on each side can have huge implications.

I have specifically asked about the new wastegate for 2016 and was politely denied any answers with my understanding that McLaren does not want that information to go out before the official preview.

[godlameroso]

I think their low inertia compressor was stalling during mgu-h harvesting. Hence the distinctive sound of their engine.

[bauc]

I think their low inertia compressor was stalling during mgu-h harvesting. Hence the distinctive sound of their engine.

Agreed, it will be interesting to hear the sound of the new engine and to make comparison with the old one.
Winter testing,please come sooner.