Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[DarkAlman]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DESgnfxXoAA6YFo.jpg

DRS is an aero device, not an engine so it belongs in another thread.
But that being said they probably run a smaller rear wing due to the lack of HP.



The Spec 3 upgrade is probably more to do with sustained power rather than top end power. Getting at extra 12-15 hp on the top end might not sound like a lot but there's a lot more going on with these power units that top end power.

Fixing the MGU-H problems will fix their deployment issues so they can harvest more electrical power during the race.

Making the engine more fuel efficient will mean they can use full power for more of the race. A lot less lift and coast and short shifting. Also less gas in the tank to start. Gas = weight, if I'm not mistaken 10kg of fuel is .3 sec a lap?

.3 x 70 laps = 21 sec again doesn't sound like a lot but that can be the difference between scoring points and not.

Being able to run the MGU-K for the entire straight is worth an extra 160hp. 160+12 = 172HP during the race. That's worth the upgrade. That doesn't help in qualifying because you charge the battery on the out lap, but during the race it makes a big difference. Hopefully then they won't get passed like a sitting duck on the straights.

[Andres125sx]

Sorry guys but I find it funny to read so many assumptions stating Honda didn´t realice how complex are current PUs, while they´re theirselves undestimating how complex are current PUs as they keep stating Honda should have solved their problems at this point .

I really think people should think about this before blaming Honda

- Developing a PU is extremely different to developing an ICE alone, specially with a fuel flow limited formula. Keep this in mind before comparing Honda to any other new manufacturer in past eras, as it is comparing apples to oranges.

- The development Honda was able to do in first two seasons is similar to the development any other manufacturer would do in... 6 months? due to the severe restrictions wich didn´t allow to solve problems as they show. Traditionally when some manufacturer had some faulty design it was solved in no time, as there were no restrictions about allocations, tokens or costs, so they were able to bring a completely new ICE next GP. For example they could develop two or three different routes for same ICE, and if first was a fail, they could bring the second or third one in next race and solve the problem instantly. But that´s no longer possible because of both tokens and allocations, so Honda was forced to keep their 2015 faulty design for two full seasons, as not even in 2015-16 winter they were allowed to change their architecture due to the limited tokens. What I´m trying to say here is Honda 2017 PU whould have been their 2016 PU, or even some spec 3 or 4 from their 2015 PU, with rules similar to past eras, but they are what they are now so they couldn´t introduce a new PU until 2017.

- Please please please please please... stop looking at peak power figures!!! [-o< I know that´s always been the key factor for any ICE, but that´s no longer true with current formula. There are 160 electrical horse power wich cannot be used constantly, only for part of the lap, or on sustained mode they can use the electrical power constantly, but then it´s no longer 160hp, but a fraction of that. What percentage? That will depend on ERS efficiency so it will vary dramatically from manufacturer to manufacturer, so THAT is the key factor nowadays. Peak power is only used for qualifying, wich is important, but that provide no points. But people keep debating about upgrades providing 10 or 30 hp, and assuming any of those numbers will reveal if the upgrade is worth or not... Sorry but that´s absurd. Example, what do you prefer: a) 10 hp increase toghether with a reliability upgrade wich allow to run sustained mode with 80hp from the ERS instead of 50 (numbers invented obviously), or b) 30hp increase with no reliability upgrade so no sustained mode improvement?.


I´m also a bit dissapointed with this upgrade, but we have no clue about what they are testing. Even Wazari said he can´t understand the reason they introduced this upgrade before the full spec3, and he´s been an insider, so we fans trying to understand the process is simply pointless. They could be testing some new concept before introducing the full spec3 so maybe this upgrade target was never a real perfomance/reliability upgrade, but only confirming some concept for the new PU.

[DarkAlman]

I´m also a bit dissapointed with this upgrade, but we have no clue about what they are testing. Even Wazari said he can´t understand the reason they introduced this upgrade before the full spec3, and he´s been an insider, so we fans trying to understand the process is simply pointless. They could be testing some new concept before introducing the full spec3 so maybe this upgrade target was never a real perfomance/reliability upgrade, but only confirming some concept for the new PU.

It could be to get some real-life data on parts of the design since Honda are notorious for having correlation problems between the dyno and the track.

It could also just be a political move, a half-measure to placate McLaren for a couple of races while waiting for spec 3 and show them that they are in fact making progress.

[alexx_88]

you still didn't get it Honda doing this for her own sake you should focus in what Wazari said

I never questioned the reasons why they got back into F1, but it has gone to show that they've mislead their partners, Mclaren into thinking they'll be competitive within a short timeframe.

[alexx_88]

Sorry guys but I find it funny to read so many assumptions stating Honda didn´t realice how complex are current PUs, while they´re theirselves undestimating how complex are current PUs as they keep stating Honda should have solved their problems at this point .

I really think people should think about this before blaming Honda

- Developing a PU is extremely different to developing an ICE alone, specially with a fuel flow limited formula. Keep this in mind before comparing Honda to any other new manufacturer in past eras, as it is comparing apples to oranges.

Don't know if this was addressed to me, but the two things don't contradict themselves. You have one set of people working for Honda who underestimated the task at hand, fair enough. Pretty much the same thing happened to Ferrari in the first year, they went down a road that yielded less performance than the competition. But the solutions found in both cases couldn't be farther apart. Ferrari recruited heavily from the people who got it right, Mercedes. That allowed them to bypass a big chunk of Mercedes development, saving money (maybe), but more importantly, time. Honda chose to keep going on their own route, with their own inexperienced engineers. Obviously the greatest benefit to that is that they might reach a better end solution, but that's with the cost of spending time they don't really have.

- The development Honda was able to do in first two seasons is similar to the development any other manufacturer would do in... 6 months? due to the severe restrictions wich didn´t allow to solve problems as they show. Traditionally when some manufacturer had some faulty design it was solved in no time, as there were no restrictions about allocations, tokens or costs, so they were able to bring a completely new ICE next GP. For example they could develop two or three different routes for same ICE, and if first was a fail, they could bring the second or third one in next race and solve the problem instantly. But that´s no longer possible because of both tokens and allocations, so Honda was forced to keep their 2015 faulty design for two full seasons, as not even in 2015-16 winter they were allowed to change their architecture due to the limited tokens. What I´m trying to say here is Honda 2017 PU whould have been their 2016 PU, or even some spec 3 or 4 from their 2015 PU, with rules similar to past eras, but they are what they are now so they couldn´t introduce a new PU until 2017.

That was true only for in-season development in 2015 and 2016. So, while I agree that they couldn't have shown spectacular progress in-season (because of the tokens), nothing was stopping them from developing an amazing PU in Sakura and bringing it to the first test of next year. From season to season there were enough tokens to completely change the architecture, which they've done.

[restless]

That was true only for in-season development in 2015 and 2016. So, while I agree that they couldn't have shown spectacular progress in-season (because of the tokens), nothing was stopping them from developing an amazing PU in Sakura and bringing it to the first test of next year. From season to season there were enough tokens to completely change the architecture, which they've done.

No, between 2015 and 2016 tokens were NOT enough, for big enough change

[GhostF1]

http://au.eurosport.com/formula-1/motor ... tory.shtml

This almost confirms McLaren are sticking with Honda and basically dispels any theories otherwise. Also explains the sudden mood change from Alonso and Boullier. Decision has been made, Honda has shown (in one way or another) it will be competitive and now the team must be seen as united moving forward.

[PlatinumZealot]

The chassis is also key. Look at how williams and force india is one second off mercedes with the same engine. In other words a small engine deficit will have disastrous consequences if the chassis is not top shelf.

[godlameroso]

The Honda engine loses like a second per lap just from the power unit deficit, the rest is the chassis, and both are making progress. I still think McLaren Honda's season starts this coming weekend.

[GhostF1]

The Honda engine loses like a second per lap just from the power unit deficit, the rest is the chassis, and both are making progress. I still think McLaren Honda's season starts this coming weekend.

Haha you have said this from the start months ago, and that prediction is looking increasingly more likely! What was the give away?

[alexx_88]

No, between 2015 and 2016 tokens were NOT enough, for big enough change

What do you mean? Afair, they never mentioned the lack of tokens as a reason for not doing all the changes they've wanted between two seasons.

More to the point, Ferrari did a big architecture change right after the first season, setting them up for the competitive force they are now.

[diffuser]

I disagree, I beleive they did say it. Regardless their action speaks volumes. If the token system wasn't a hinderance, they wouldn't have completely redesigned the PU the second they dropped tokens from the rules.

[alexx_88]

I disagree, I beleive they did say it. Regardless their action speaks volumes. If the token system wasn't a hinderance, they wouldn't have completely redesigned the PU the second they dropped tokens from the rules.

But they did redesign the PU. Correct me if I'm wrong:
2015 : 1st Honda year, severe architecture problems, basically undersized MGU-H and turbo
2015 - 2016 season break: the PU's architecture is redone, increasing the size of the MGU-H and turbo, but deciding to keep the compressor inside the engine's V for packaging reasons.
Feb 2016 : Arai is replaced by Hasagawa
2016 - 2017 : another architecture change is done, essentially accepting their first solution wasn't the optimum and mirroring what the others are doing by moving the compressor from the engine's V

Looking back at what happened during the season break between 2016 and 2017 and what Wazari said, it's clear to me that Honda's issues are not only technical, but also relate to project management. That can be seen clearly in how they manage expectations and announce updates. When you arrive at the first test and race of the season with something that barely runs, while announcing publicly that everything is on the right track, it's quite clear you've done something wrong in how you've managed to project's resources and the customer's expectations. I feel that this whole relationship would've gone much better and Honda's image would've been in much better shape if they'd have set realistic targets and announced them publicly, without making promises that they couldn't keep. Basic PR.

[GoranF1]

Will Alonso use spec 3 in Silverstone?

[Andres125sx]

- The development Honda was able to do in first two seasons is similar to the development any other manufacturer would do in... 6 months? due to the severe restrictions wich didn´t allow to solve problems as they show. Traditionally when some manufacturer had some faulty design it was solved in no time, as there were no restrictions about allocations, tokens or costs, so they were able to bring a completely new ICE next GP. For example they could develop two or three different routes for same ICE, and if first was a fail, they could bring the second or third one in next race and solve the problem instantly. But that´s no longer possible because of both tokens and allocations, so Honda was forced to keep their 2015 faulty design for two full seasons, as not even in 2015-16 winter they were allowed to change their architecture due to the limited tokens. What I´m trying to say here is Honda 2017 PU whould have been their 2016 PU, or even some spec 3 or 4 from their 2015 PU, with rules similar to past eras, but they are what they are now so they couldn´t introduce a new PU until 2017.

That was true only for in-season development in 2015 and 2016. So, while I agree that they couldn't have shown spectacular progress in-season (because of the tokens), nothing was stopping them from developing an amazing PU in Sakura and bringing it to the first test of next year. From season to season there were enough tokens to completely change the architecture, which they've done.

I can´t find it now, but I can remind as if it was yesterday Honda people claiming their 2016 PU was only a compromise because they couldn´t change all they need due to the tokens restriction, because they would have need to change everything in the PU, components, layout... and there was not enough tokens for such a dramatic change. They changed a lot of things, true, but not all they needed to change, or in other words, they were stuck with 2015 PU concept and were not allowed to change it until 2017.

I remember it perfectly because to me that was one of the most dissapointing statements I´ve ever read in F1. It was a confirmation 2016 season would be a disaster again even before the winter tests.


btw, it was pretty similar to 2017 season in the aspect Hasegawa said their PU design was risky and it would probably bring unintended reliability problems, but then when those reliability problems showed people started to bash Honda as if they don´t know what they´re doing.... when they warn everyone about that before the season start