Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Juzh]

The undercut was only good at Fernando Alonso. The Spaniard came to the pits one lap ahead of Felipe Massa and had his entire energy budget stashed for the one lap after the pit stop. At first the plan seemed to go awry. Massa rejoined Alonso again.
But on the long straights, the McLaren driver then struck. With a Honda engine against Mercedes power. But full-zero battery power, as confirmed by Williams engineering chief Paddy Lowe. The 163 hp difference can not even make up for a Mercedes engine.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 35721.html

Good but I think commenter(or journalist) forgot mgu-h supply on mgu-k. Their lost must not be full of 120 kw power.

If the battery was indeed emtpy on the williams, the MGU-H would have almost guaranteed prioritised filling it up for the next straight, instead of dumping directly into mgu-k. Given that honda ICE is around 80-90 bhp inferior to the merc, alonso would have enjoyed a net 70-80 bhp advantage in that instance.

Brundle said a couple of times during the abu dhabi weekend that honda ICE is 11% down on mercedes in outright power (told so by the engineers). That would indeed make it around 90 bhp down.

[HPD]

Interesting points for the engine thread.
Thanks @Hasika. (full article in the thread Toro Rosso Honda)

--What was the specific problem with the problem of the turbo?

"This year the shaft got longer due to changing the location of the turbo.There was a problem with the bearings supporting that shaft.It is MGU-H rather than the turbo itself, after all the bearing breaks. It is not a responsibility of the bearing maker but a problem of how to use it, because it was not supposed to use it, it is a matter of design.The problem of the turbo has indeed drawn the tail. "

--The performance of the engine can be measured by fuel efficiency, but Honda has obtained sufficient figures?

"I think that the current F1 engine is going up to 50% as Mercedes said in terms of the efficiency of the power unit, which of course its a target figures, but i think what they said includes exhaust regeneration.So i think the difference in fuel efficiency from ICE is not that big.Honda was not good enough, neither the engine side nor the motor side.We are not good,but that does not mean we are far apart, but the difference of a few% will decide your competition in F1 world. "

[dren]

The few % difference in efficiency is compounded by how much fuel weight you have to carry which would make the HP deficit appear larger than it might be. You'd still have to look at total PU efficiency. The ICE may be close when looked at in isolation.

Based on HPD's quote, it looks like it was the bearings that were causing the reliability issues with the MGUH shaft that supposedly is housed within the block, which means the bearings are housed by the block. I would expect this design to change next year.

[stevesingo]

Interesting points for the engine thread.
Thanks @Hasika. (full article in the thread Toro Rosso Honda)

--What was the specific problem with the problem of the turbo?

"This year the shaft got longer due to changing the location of the turbo.There was a problem with the bearings supporting that shaft.It is MGU-H rather than the turbo itself, after all the bearing breaks. It is not a responsibility of the bearing maker but a problem of how to use it, because it was not supposed to use it, it is a matter of design.The problem of the turbo has indeed drawn the tail. "

--The performance of the engine can be measured by fuel efficiency, but Honda has obtained sufficient figures?

"I think that the current F1 engine is going up to 50% as Mercedes said in terms of the efficiency of the power unit, which of course its a target figures, but i think what they said includes exhaust regeneration.So i think the difference in fuel efficiency from ICE is not that big.Honda was not good enough, neither the engine side nor the motor side.We are not good,but that does not mean we are far apart, but the difference of a few% will decide your competition in F1 world. "

Reading the bolded above, I can't help but think they have no idea how far away they are in ICE of H recovery.

[etusch]

Interesting points for the engine thread.
Thanks @Hasika. (full article in the thread Toro Rosso Honda)

--What was the specific problem with the problem of the turbo?

"This year the shaft got longer due to changing the location of the turbo.There was a problem with the bearings supporting that shaft.It is MGU-H rather than the turbo itself, after all the bearing breaks. It is not a responsibility of the bearing maker but a problem of how to use it, because it was not supposed to use it, it is a matter of design.The problem of the turbo has indeed drawn the tail. "

--The performance of the engine can be measured by fuel efficiency, but Honda has obtained sufficient figures?

"I think that the current F1 engine is going up to 50% as Mercedes said in terms of the efficiency of the power unit, which of course its a target figures, but i think what they said includes exhaust regeneration.So i think the difference in fuel efficiency from ICE is not that big.Honda was not good enough, neither the engine side nor the motor side.We are not good,but that does not mean we are far apart, but the difference of a few% will decide your competition in F1 world. "

Reading the bolded above, I can't help but think they have no idea how far away they are in ICE of H recovery.

Did you read what @mrpotatohead said about team's knowledge about other teams. My be 10 hp is not true but they have better knowledge than us in every condition. At the article you shared here Hasegawa san also said they have data about other teams. And also he always says they are close to Renault. He says this according to numbers they have.
In power side Mercedes and Ferrari are close ( close but still merc is better ) in efficiency side Mercedes front of Ferrari.
Big probably redbull has same advantage over Renault's works team with smaller margine. If your all grip is not based on aero you can get lower consumption with completely same engine

[stevesingo]

I suppose it depends on which number Hasagawa is using to compare. Probably the number which he thinks is closest to a Renault. The problem is, there are many characteristics of these PUs which are important, all of which can be measured and/or calculated from other data. In more respects the Honda is not close to the Renault than it is close.

2% less thermal efficiency deficit on a 50% TE ICE is 30hp. Add in 5% less MGU H recovery and all the othe single figure deficits and it is easy to see how the PU could be 75hp down and use more fuel.

[etusch]

I suppose it depends on which number Hasagawa is using to compare. Probably the number which he thinks is closest to a Renault. The problem is, there are many characteristics of these PUs which are important, all of which can be measured and/or calculated from other data. In more respects the Honda is not close to the Renault than it is close.

2% less thermal efficiency deficit on a 50% TE ICE is 30hp. Add in 5% less MGU H recovery and all the othe single figure deficits and it is easy to see how the PU could be 75hp down and use more fuel.

I believe Hasegawa doesn't lie about their job and I am very sure he knows far better that many characteristics you talked about. Improving from 100 hp deficit to 50 hp easier than improving remained 50 hp to 25 I think. It's getting harder when they close.

[McHonda]

He definitely doesn't strike me as a liar either, I've always found him a very honest man. Its just a typical vague statement you get from bosses when talking about things like this.

A 'few percent' can be whatever you want it to be. It can be Brundle's figures*, it could be closer. You could describe Brundle's figures in a few ways that make it sound quite good. 'Closer to Renault than Renault are to Mercedes' or 'A few percent' or 'Quite close to Renault'.

But on track it would still be a big performance gap between them.

(*For those that missed it.Gap to Mercedes(ICE)..
Renault +6%
Honda +11%)

[carisi2k]

How much of the Honda PU issues over the last 3 years could be due to mclaren dictating space in their chassis instead of letting honda build a good engine and building a chassis around it?

I ask because it seems that with recent comments coming out of RB bosses mouth. The spec 4.0 unit has fit in nicely to the torro rosso chassis and it's performance seems to be pretty good on the RBT Dyno.

[godlameroso]

It is only a matter of time.

In 2015 they had a non functional MGU-H, 2016 they got it working but the turbo size was less than ideal and the power unit was a developmental dead end, not to mention they didn't even have the combustion process of the others. 2017, brand new power unit with brand new everything. So new they couldn't test it as much as they wanted. So many issues that they had to run the power unit in compromised settings. As they got on top of their issues, the power unit started making regular gains.

I think the step from 2017 to 2018 will be bigger than the step from 2015 to 2016. And the development rate will be even more aggressive than ever before. Whether that will be enough, we'll see, they certainly won't be 11% down on power.

[PlatinumZealot]

And yet its still IC engine, all the money and effort to improve IC will be wasted if researcher found large capacity battery. I think the only Way to move forward is keep or increase hybrid dependant so manufacturer can invest their money in correct technology. Thats why even if honda and renault cant win in current formula, they said it is a shame to move to less sophisticated electrical side.

It think you just lost your right to be a part of this thread. Unforgiveable!

[Zynerji]

I think it all comes down to the TensorFlow.

[PlatinumZealot]

He definitely doesn't strike me as a liar either, I've always found him a very honest man. Its just a typical vague statement you get from bosses when talking about things like this.

A 'few percent' can be whatever you want it to be. It can be Brundle's figures*, it could be closer. You could describe Brundle's figures in a few ways that make it sound quite good. 'Closer to Renault than Renault are to Mercedes' or 'A few percent' or 'Quite close to Renault'.

But on track it would still be a big performance gap between them.

(*For those that missed it.Gap to Mercedes(ICE)..
Renault +6%
Honda +11%)

Nooooo!
Remember when the calculations were done earlier in the thread the Brundle fuel usage figures tranlated to ICE efficiency of Honda @44% at WORST... Which is indeed a few percent from 50%.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I was quite impressed with the number of laps Honda have done in post season testing. Compared to the pre season disaster it certainly looked good and I'm generally pessimistic about their engines.

Were there any statements in the press about how it went, what engines they ran etc? Are they limited to race pool engines or can they bring new ones ?

[Postmoe]

I was quite impressed with the number of laps Honda have done in post season testing. Compared to the pre season disaster it certainly looked good and I'm generally pessimistic about their engines.

Were there any statements in the press about how it went, what engines they ran etc? Are they limited to race pool engines or can they bring new ones ?

The 2016 effect. I hope this time they are able to counter their dramatic drop of performance after 31th-December.

Changes in architecture cannot be accounted for the full range of their pre-season problems, IMO it has stunk of somethingstructural