MrPotatoHead wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 01:22
Honda stated on many occasions that even though it was an MGU-H or K that failed, rather than attempt to change those parts it's a lot more efficient timewise to just change the entire package ICE included.
Having said that, why not use the same ICE units over again in the pool unless they had hardware issues with the ICE?
I think I recall Hasegawa mentioning the ICE has been lost a few times as collateral from pretty violent MGU-H/Turbo failures, and considering its nestled right on top, I wouldn't be surprised. Ifthe MGU-H is lost, it nukes the Turbo as well, so it was assumed these things are basically one unit or at least majority of it is integrated in a housing. As for actual ICE failures.. I believe there has been one occasion (Canada) where that itself failed without any signs and as mentioned above, Hasegawa was very surprised, but he said its reliability so far has (and I quote) "proved the ICE's concept is sound in regards to reliability and performance" (I believe we speared off on theories of concepts or tricks they are using after this quote, fork conrods etc). The episode in Barcelona with the oil pouring out, hasegawa said they noticed zero oil pressure from a feed issue but couldn't stop Alonso in time, so it just went pop.
I'm on the same wagon as a few others in believing the ICE is actually very good, and ironically, this is causing major dramas in energy recovery efficiency, (they said in 2016 they were battling ICE efficiency increases causing MGU-H recovery losses so they made turbo modifications and engine management changes to compensate around Canada, this forum then started speculating they had an engine mode that deliberately allowed for greater harvesting at the sacrifice of outright power) - maybe we should note this...
Mix this fact with the MGU-H design this year unable to survive in general, then you've got where we are right now. Glory over 2 races without issue and 8th place..