Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[DFX]

Wazari said Honda offered them the choice of engines for the start of this year and Mclaren were insistent on the one they've taken, but that implies Spec 4 was in a state they believed ready enough to hit the start of the season with which makes no sense in so far as how bad the other engine is and why spec 4 is continually being pushed back. If Spec 4 was an option for the start of the season why wasn't it switched to very early on when the other option proved useless in performance and reliability.

Actually now I think about it, when did Illien start working with Honda, I thought it was earlier this year and Spec 4 is supposed to be the first engine he's had input on, as such I simply can't believe Spec 4 was an option at the start of the season.

That being one of the responses from Wazari on spec 4 being an option at the start, it seems Illien stopping working with Renault was reported in Feb 2017, reports he was working with Honda started in March 2017, rumoured strongly everywhere now is that Spec 4 has Illien working on it and will be the basis of the 2018 engine combined with the fact that Spec 4 still isn't ready suggests there is zero chance it was an option for the start of 2017 yet we have Wazari saying it was an option and Mclaren turned it down. Mclaren turning down a supposedly faster engine only makes sense if they are told another engine is slower but more reliable, the second that engine proves to have awful reliability there is no viable reason not to use Spec 4 if it's ready which is yet another indication it wasn't ready.

I might be wrong, but I remember quite clearly Wazari san saying that the actual spec and the spec 4 were a subject of a dispute between the teams that developed each one, Wazari involved in the development of the former. We hadnt the information at any time that Mclaren refuse Spec 4 in the start of the season, quite the contrary, this information was bring on in the latest weeks only.

[PlatinumZealot]

Back on topic - how did the speed trap numbers look during friday running?

Hah. I don't think the mods consider track by track performance to be back on topic. But the thread has gone to mess anyway.

[PlatinumZealot]

Wazari san how do you explain that hasegawa said they will continue updates this year? i remember you saying that Spec 3 was not really Spec 3 and Spec 4 is really spec 3. Or is your Spec4 really a Spec 5 to hasegawa?

We need to know this discrepancies.

[Mattchu]

I have a question and it`s about the Engine/PU, is that allowed

Anyway, we hear quite a lot about Mario Illien/Illmor engineering and that they were working on the Renault PU last year but are now contracted to and helping Honda with theirs. I notice the two companys have worked together before in Indycar and produced a pretty good unit by all accounts, then they moved to Chevy with more success.
The question is what does Illien [the company because it`s not just one guy] bring to the table? Is it just experience of working with high performance units or does his company bring a certain technology with them (something like TJI/combustion efficency) or a good knowledge of energy recovery systems?
I think its quite clear that Honda have needed some outside engineering expertise to help with certain technologies and probably validate some designs, lets hope this makes for 4 competitive engines...

[MrPotatoHead]

Back on topic - how did the speed trap numbers look during friday running?

Hah. I don't think the mods consider track by track performance to be back on topic. But the thread has gone to mess anyway.

Well we have been using that before to compare performance so it seems on topic to me

[MrPotatoHead]

I have a hard time believing that McLaren would have a choice of a good engine and a (relatively) terrible one and decide to go with the lesser of the two choices and never go back to the other engine.
I just don't buy that. That would mean they wanted to perform badly.

As far as spec 4.0 it is in Hondas best interest to run it as soon as it's ready this year as they would get mileage on it and be able to correlate the dyno to the track - something they have had big problems with this year as they themselves admitted.

As far as Wazari being involved in F1 - if he says he is then all we can do is take his word for it. I have an involvement in F1 also, but I have zero desire to explain it or prove it to anyone. Let's be adults here.

As far as McLaren performing very well so far at Singapore - the team have been saying all year long that this track would suit them as it is a chassis track not an engine track - further evidence of the McLaren having a good chassis.

[restless]

Wazari, the thing I don't understand here is, you're saying Spec 4 was a possibility for the start of the season but I can't see how that can be true if they are still delaying Spec 4. Okay you seem to be implying that Spec 4 will have gone through a sensible amount of testing by the time it's introduced but considering the reliability of everything leading up to spec 4, does that make any difference?

I would have to believe Mclaren were told before the start of the season that Honda have two different versions of the engine, one (apparently) notably faster than the other, neither confirmed for reliability but presumably the upside of the slower engine is they expected it to be more reliable. I can understand Mclaren taking the decision to use the slower more reliable engine. But considering they weren't limited by engine regulations effectively, why didn't they try the spec 4 in preseason and compare them, or B, switch to this unreliable faster spec 4 after 2 races when it turns out the more reliable slower engine is completely unreliable.

I can't come up with a way that spec 4 could have been used at the start of the season but wasn't, wasn't used in preseason and wasn't switched to at any point in the season up till now. if it's unreliable yet faster, they had nothing to lose by using it sooner and Honda had nothing to lose bringing it sooner.

I think, if McLaren had to choose it was obviously BEFORE making final v6 engine, eg, Honda made 2 1cyl versions - and tested on dyno
Then said - "here we have 2 variants, 1st is ligher, lower center of gravity, faster, could be bitch to finetune and 2nd, more reliable/easy to tune, but few kgs heavier and higher CoG."
Then Mc choosed nr1... and 2nd become spec4.
Obviously after hitting problems with 6cyl version for some time Honda tried to fix these and only in march-april decided to go for 2nd variant (spec4)

The problem however is that Honda were unable to solve the transition from 1cyl to 6cyl ... frankly I can't imagine why.

[MrPotatoHead]

The problem however is that Honda were unable to solve the transition from 1cyl to 6cyl ... frankly I can't imagine why.

There are huge differences in dynamics from a single cylinder to a 6 on these engines. You cannot test the ERS system as part of the mix on a single cylinder or the dynamics of the intake and exhaust system. Very different.

[HPD]

As far as McLaren performing very well so far at Singapore - the team have been saying all year long that this track would suit them as it is a chassis track not an engine track - further evidence of the McLaren having a good chassis.

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 6956084224 Albert Fabrega says that in this circuit, 10 hp equals 0'12" and 10 kg equals 0'22"

However in Q3, we are 1.7 seconds behind the leader and 1.5 Red Bull (Renault)
Come on.. the chassis is good but very far from the best

[MrPotatoHead]

As far as McLaren performing very well so far at Singapore - the team have been saying all year long that this track would suit them as it is a chassis track not an engine track - further evidence of the McLaren having a good chassis.

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 6956084224

Albert Fabrega says that in this circuit, 10 hp equals 0'12" and 10 kg equals 0'22"

However in Q3, we are 1.7 seconds behind the leader and 1.5 Red Bull (Renault)
Come on.. the chassis is good but very far from the best

i didn't say it was the best.
But when you consider that at Monaco, Hungary and Singapore both McLarens made it to Q3 in qualifying it's obvious that the chassis is in the top 4 or 5. Behind Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull.
When it is a power circuit or one where the engine has to last the entire race (sarcasm) they are down in the mid teens.

[HPD]

As far as McLaren performing very well so far at Singapore - the team have been saying all year long that this track would suit them as it is a chassis track not an engine track - further evidence of the McLaren having a good chassis.

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 6956084224

Albert Fabrega says that in this circuit, 10 hp equals 0'12" and 10 kg equals 0'22"

However in Q3, we are 1.7 seconds behind the leader and 1.5 Red Bull (Renault)
Come on.. the chassis is good but very far from the best

i didn't say it was the best.
But when you consider that at Monaco, Hungary and Singapore both McLarens made it to Q3 in qualifying it's obvious that the chassis is in the top 4 or 5. Behind Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull.
When it is a power circuit or one where the engine has to last the entire race (sarcasm) they are down in the mid teens.

Yes, I agree with your opinion.
We can say that Honda has a lot of work to do and Mclaren has a lot of work to do too.

[MrPotatoHead]

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 6956084224

Albert Fabrega says that in this circuit, 10 hp equals 0'12" and 10 kg equals 0'22"

However in Q3, we are 1.7 seconds behind the leader and 1.5 Red Bull (Renault)
Come on.. the chassis is good but very far from the best

i didn't say it was the best.
But when you consider that at Monaco, Hungary and Singapore both McLarens made it to Q3 in qualifying it's obvious that the chassis is in the top 4 or 5. Behind Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull.
When it is a power circuit or one where the engine has to last the entire race (sarcasm) they are down in the mid teens.

Yes, I agree with your opinion.
We can say that Honda has a lot of work to do and Mclaren has a lot of work to do too.

Indeed.
The early year reliability problems of Honda (and McLaren) hurt the both of them. It stopped McLaren from being able to develop the car and it stopped Honda from being able to develop as well.
Honda are also hampered by only having 1 team testing for them vs 3 for all of the other engine manufacturers. This of course is partly McLarens fault... so it goes both ways.

if I seem bitter at times about the performance of Honda it is because I want to see them do good. I had high hopes of seeing McLaren Honda back on top like they were in the 80s.

[DFX]

I don't think it's fair to compare Mclaren chassis to the cars in front strictly by the time delta.

Those teams can use full developed high DF kits to get the maximum out of those kind of tracks, meanwhile Mclaren have to make some sort of sacrifice to be able to extract the most of the engine without recurring to those kits which would make the lack of power more apparent.

[Nonserviam85]

Wazari, the thing I don't understand here is, you're saying Spec 4 was a possibility for the start of the season but I can't see how that can be true if they are still delaying Spec 4. Okay you seem to be implying that Spec 4 will have gone through a sensible amount of testing by the time it's introduced but considering the reliability of everything leading up to spec 4, does that make any difference?

I would have to believe Mclaren were told before the start of the season that Honda have two different versions of the engine, one (apparently) notably faster than the other, neither confirmed for reliability but presumably the upside of the slower engine is they expected it to be more reliable. I can understand Mclaren taking the decision to use the slower more reliable engine. But considering they weren't limited by engine regulations effectively, why didn't they try the spec 4 in preseason and compare them, or B, switch to this unreliable faster spec 4 after 2 races when it turns out the more reliable slower engine is completely unreliable.

I can't come up with a way that spec 4 could have been used at the start of the season but wasn't, wasn't used in preseason and wasn't switched to at any point in the season up till now. if it's unreliable yet faster, they had nothing to lose by using it sooner and Honda had nothing to lose bringing it sooner.

I think, if McLaren had to choose it was obviously BEFORE making final v6 engine, eg, Honda made 2 1cyl versions - and tested on dyno
Then said - "here we have 2 variants, 1st is ligher, lower center of gravity, faster, could be bitch to finetune and 2nd, more reliable/easy to tune, but few kgs heavier and higher CoG."
Then Mc choosed nr1... and 2nd become spec4.
Obviously after hitting problems with 6cyl version for some time Honda tried to fix these and only in march-april decided to go for 2nd variant (spec4)

The problem however is that Honda were unable to solve the transition from 1cyl to 6cyl ... frankly I can't imagine why.

+1 I believe this sums best on what happened pre-season and why the most risky/rewarding (theoretically) Gilles Simon design was chosen.

[ollandos]

As far as McLaren performing very well so far at Singapore - the team have been saying all year long that this track would suit them as it is a chassis track not an engine track - further evidence of the McLaren having a good chassis.

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 6956084224

Albert Fabrega says that in this circuit, 10 hp equals 0'12" and 10 kg equals 0'22"

However in Q3, we are 1.7 seconds behind the leader and 1.5 Red Bull (Renault)
Come on.. the chassis is good but very far from the best

0.12x100 ..+aero works better with more hp because the faster speed ....1.2sec its from engine ..0.4 from chassis ...chassis with modes for the lower power ...my opinion mclaren have little better car from red bull...