Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
"Up until now, a big problem with Honda has been the MGU-H - thermal engine - that's their big headache, it does not have enough power, and if they force it 100%, it breaks down. I had to stop the whole race, but if they did everything right, I would have more or less the same power as Renault, because their combustion engine is good ... " Perhaps it is true, and Tetsuo points to a key factor to understand 2017 and what will come further. "2015 and 2016 have been two years in the trash, and they have left very expensive, this year's engine is almost 100% new." But it's good? "The base itself is promising, they are already close to the Top 10. And that is as if they were just starting." In this logic frames a 2018 even between Renault and Honda. And maybe the French are those who have already marked their glass ceiling with these engines. The Honda thing is yet to be seen.
"In 2015 and 2016, Honda did not have a clear concept of the engine," says Tetsuo. "It was a lack of absolute understanding about F1, they were told to work with McLaren and them, 'well, for that reason.'" Then they took people from the factory who did not work in F1, but in business and mechanics. They said: You go to F1 now, okay? And they all nodded, because as they had the technology, they thought that with that they were going to throw away. "
"They did it on a blank page and they failed in everything," says Tetsuo. "And it's true that Honda has a lot of technology and resources, but they did not know how to apply it to F1, now they have it organized, there is a way." The question, for now, is to wait for it to work. "Their people are quite young and I know they are motivated, there is a strategy, and next year it will be better, and it is a pity that there are only two years left with this type of engine, because although they will not reach Mercedes and Ferrari, the story will be different. "
Asked if Honda had seen a clear gain with its latest specification of power unit – titled spec 3.8 – to make that a realistic target, Hasegawa replied: "Yes, especially in the United States and Mexico. I think it's worth 0.1s or 0.2s.
- "As I've always mentioned we don't stop development because next year's engine is based on this year's engine, so we just keep going. But we don't say what next year's situation is at this moment.
- "I can't be satisfied until we get to the top level among the engines but it is fair to say we are doing a very good job from 3.5 to 3.8. The improvement is maybe 0.3s or 0.4s from spec 3.5, but we are still far behind the Mercedes engine so I'm not satisfied with that."
- However when asked if he felt Honda has closed the gap to Mercedes during the season, Hasegawa replied: "Yes I think so.
- "Of course some convergence should happen over the next few years. There last couple of races have shown the qualifying lap time deficit is not as big as it was at the beginning of the season so it's definitely going in the right direction."
I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between the power units is and always has been how long they can deploy max power down the straight, that Honda during 2015 was essentially using a power unit with no effective MGU-H, and could only harvest with MGU-K.
2016 allowed some MGU-H recovery, but it was weak compared to the others, probably in the range of 20-30kW, improved to 50kW by the end of the season.
This season, the big change took them back to 2015 levels of MGU-H recovery, and over the season they've improved it to just over 2016 levels, this is what they expected from the start of the season. And if this is what they had at the start, it would have been ok, they'd still be McLaren Honda in 2018, and it's a shame because Honda is now clearing the learning curve. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that the actual difference between the ICE by itself is only 15-20kW tops. That extra 160kW for 33.3+ seconds per lap depends so much on the MGU-H and not being able to use it to it's full potential kills you.
Brazil is a short track ..about 70 seconds. 50% full throttle. So that's around 35 sec of full throttle. Compare that to Japan that is a 90 sec lap at 66% full throttle or about 60 sec FT. or Austin also about 60 sec FT.
I don't know if this was discussed already, but by this table it seems like they have serious issues with TC/MGU-H integration. Maybe having issues with the split turbocharger adopted this year?
I can't remember in which thread there were experiments with simulation software
Lets assume Vertappen's "losing 0.5sec on straights" is correct
Then, how big is the difference between Renault and Mercedes?
Can someone measure time difference between Alonso and Verstappen on the straights only ?
And via simulation, assuming equal car setup, deliver power deficit?
I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between the power units is and always has been how long they can deploy max power down the straight, that Honda during 2015 was essentially using a power unit with no effective MGU-H, and could only harvest with MGU-K.
2016 allowed some MGU-H recovery, but it was weak compared to the others, probably in the range of 20-30kW, improved to 50kW by the end of the season.
This season, the big change took them back to 2015 levels of MGU-H recovery, and over the season they've improved it to just over 2016 levels, this is what they expected from the start of the season. And if this is what they had at the start, it would have been ok, they'd still be McLaren Honda in 2018, and it's a shame because Honda is now clearing the learning curve. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that the actual difference between the ICE by itself is only 15-20kW tops. That extra 160kW for 33.3+ seconds per lap depends so much on the MGU-H and not being able to use it to it's full potential kills you.
what is the source of numbers that you said about mgu-h recovery or how did u estimate them?
I estimated them by looking at their performance relative to the others, it's all available if you know where to look, PM me I'll give you some pointers. Don't focus too much on the numbers, I'm not using any equations or anything fancy, just my grease monkey intuition. Instead focus on the point of the message, the unlimited MGU-H is the key to unlocking the power and efficiency these engines are capable of. It's the MGU-H that lets your run the engine at it's peak by controlling the turbo, it's the MGU-H that lets you harvest and deploy electrical energy at or in excess of what the regulations allow. The MGU-H and turbomachinery is easily the most upgraded, most experimental, most expensive, most complex piece on the whole car, it's the FIA's own fault really, they're the ones that put zero regulations on it.
Alonso:
"I was very, very close to Felipe a couple of times on the exit of the last corner, but even with the DRS he was pulling away.
"The lack of power is quite worrying for Toro Rosso next year.
"It's still a shame that we have this incredible power deficit and that with all the battery, the DRS and everything they are still quicker on the straight.
"Yesterday I think it was 25 km/h, today when someone uses the DRS it must be 40 or 50, so it's pretty incredible that we finish in front of some cars."
Of all the tracks on the calendar, Brazil (and Austria) should be the least troublesome for deployment because of the shortness of the lap. And from that statement it sounds like Alonso was using all the power the Honda could muster, including all the ERS, and he was still getting smoked by a Williams.
No I think Monaco 33% FT and Hungry is 44% FT are...
Brazil it tougher cause of the uphill climb, long flat out Section (1.4 km) and there isn't much of a gap between the straight in S3 and the straight in S1... time to harvest.
Just to remember everyone i'll quote myself from a few Pages Ago (again):
Speed Trap figures (as a main Subject of the Post) also don't belong in here. There are however slight exceptions. If for instance someone was able to point out that Vandoorne and Alonso had different types of PU, but otherwise same set up and aerodynamic profiles, than that would be acceptable as we can scrap all significant variables in that case. Just don't Post "Verstappen 322, Vandoorne 310 "
"
