Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[ME4ME]

I do not know what I'm wishing for? Just a little more transparency. That's all. Some people bring up cooling and claim it's all Honda's doing as McLaren had nothing to do with the "internals". That couldn't be further from the truth as an example. Why wasn't it disclosed that Honda's proposed and recommended cooling package was dismissed as it would "compromise" the aero work and Plan C cooling package had to be implemented against Honda's initial wishes. That's just one example. There are many others. Sorry, I'm just venting.

Anyway, as others have mentioned it's water under the bridge.

Must be highly frustrating for Honda employees to get invalid blame from uninformed people. I do agree however with what was written earlier that it's better for Honda to accept or ignore some unfair blame rather than to start (No. Respond to) a blame game.

As for the technical part, even with the info that you so kindly shared, it is impossible for us to draw any conclusions regarding wether the correct decision was made. From a reliability viewpoint i guess it's likely that Honda's proposed cooling package would've been better. From a performance viewpoint, nothing can be said. Aero performance might've exceeded any added PU output, or vise-versa. We'll never know.

[Andres125sx]

Sincerely, IMHO this is showing the main differences between japaneese and people from Europe. Before assuming any stupid conclusion, you must know my aunt in law is japaneese so I know japaneese culture a bit.

An european in Hasegawa position would have tried to dodge the blame, maybe even when it was his own fault as that´s what we usually do (as always there will be exceptions, but gerenally speaking we tend to do so)

While Hasegawa sense of pride didn´t allow him to defend anything, because he didn´t feel he was deserving a defense. His product was not decent enough to defend it, so he didn´t want to start a blame game he couldn´t win. To me it is this simple, and I applaud him


The european point of view is better to keep your own ego high, but in situations like this it would have been a bomb, no team can survive a public blame game.... or maybe yes, looking at RBR- Renault... but it will be quite difficult

The japaneese point of view on the other hand is better to keep the team spirit, even when it means your own ego will suffer as you´re taking blame for things you didn´t do. That must hurt, but it´s by far the best for the team, not for teams individuals ego, but the best for the team as a whole.


To me Wazari point of view is perfectly understandable, it must be frutstrating when it´s your own job, but I sincerely think Hasegawa did the best for the team. Maybe not the best for Honda in that week, but the best for Honda in the long term. Imagine Honda underperforming, with reliability problems, and also on a constant fight with McLaren about who´s more responsible about the failures... That could have perferctly been the last nail in Honda´s coffin. With that politics Honda could perferctly be out of F1 right now.


They think you must be proud of your product before defending it, and I agree with them, if it´s not reaching your own standards, any reason to start a fight to defend something you don´t like? And european would have easily started an useless discussion to defend his product even when he doesn´t like it himself, making a fool of himself probably. Japaneese first need to feel proud about the product precisely to avoid making a fool of himself

[Postmoe]

An european in Hasegawa position would have tried to dodge the blame, maybe even when it was his own fault as that´s what we usually do (as always there will be exceptions, but gerenally speaking we tend to do so)

So no blame dodging is necessary.

Should we then assume Hasegawa was the only japanese in his team and that there is none participating in this thread?

[diffuser]

I think, much of this has to do with the expression "Things are never as GOOD as they seem when things are going well, conversely, things aren't really as BAD as they are when things are going bad." Basically when things go well, everybody is fat/dumb and happy. When things go bad, every little gripe turns into a huge thing.


The year started poorly; there was little hope on the PU side that we'd get anywhere close to competitive by the end of the year. You add to that McLaren threatening to break the relationship. If you believe the reports , they knew in January that they had a big problem.

At the end of the day Hasegawa wasn't removed because of what he said or didn't say. Who/what he defended or didn't defend. He was removed cause the PU he promised for March didn't show up till October. I understand that many will think that I'm generous that the October PU was what was expected in March.

[Andres125sx]

An european in Hasegawa position would have tried to dodge the blame, maybe even when it was his own fault as that´s what we usually do (as always there will be exceptions, but gerenally speaking we tend to do so)

So no blame dodging is necessary.

Should we then assume Hasegawa was the only japanese in his team and that there is none participating in this thread?

What?

[G'dayBruce]

Mclaren was quite polite if you compare the relantionship between Renault and RB. I cant even imagine what RB, Horner and Marko, would have done in Mclaren's position.

Well I guess we might find out in a year or so. I certainly hope Honda is very confident in their product by then, as if they think they've had a hard time with McLaren, it'll be a relative honeymoon compared to the public lambasting RB will give them.

From a marketing perspective, Honda has little to gain and everything to lose with partnering with RB, if the Renault relationship is anything to go by (no credit when things go well e.g. wins and podiums, plenty of blame when things don't go well e.g. lack of power and reliability, and then we'll slap a different label on the engine and car anyway, just to completely nullify the unfortunate association with a PU manufacturer e.g. TAG and Aston Martin stickers).

What a shame the McLaren Honda thing didn't work out.

[HPD]

This is a good example, a whole year, and people still criticize Honda for the oil tank, and it really was a problem for Mclaren. Why did Hasegawa remain silent for so long?

Can we get a summary? I looked but couldn't see it.

Of course.

Hasegawa: "Then, at the Barcelona test, we found more issues on the car, such as the oil tank issue. It was a car-related issue. This is not a complete engine issue, but of course it is very important.”
http://en.hondaracingf1.com/newsroom/in ... pment.html

I think Mclaren demanded a lot about packing.

[HondaRaceReplica]

Mclaren was quite polite if you compare the relantionship between Renault and RB. I cant even imagine what RB, Horner and Marko, would have done in Mclaren's position.

Well I guess we might find out in a year or so. I certainly hope Honda is very confident in their product by then, as if they think they've had a hard time with McLaren, it'll be a relative honeymoon compared to the public lambasting RB will give them.

From a marketing perspective, Honda has little to gain and everything to lose with partnering with RB, if the Renault relationship is anything to go by (no credit when things go well e.g. wins and podiums, plenty of blame when things don't go well e.g. lack of power and reliability, and then we'll slap a different label on the engine and car anyway, just to completely nullify the unfortunate association with a PU manufacturer e.g. TAG and Aston Martin stickers).

What a shame the McLaren Honda thing didn't work out.

Red Bull and Honda are already partners in other racing series and have been very successful together....They are more of a natural fit than Mclaren and Honda ever where....The glory days of the 80's being more the exception than the rule...

[restless]

This is a good example, a whole year, and people still criticize Honda for the oil tank, and it really was a problem for Mclaren. Why did Hasegawa remain silent for so long?

Can we get a summary? I looked but couldn't see it.

Of course.

Hasegawa: "Then, at the Barcelona test, we found more issues on the car, such as the oil tank issue. It was a car-related issue. This is not a complete engine issue, but of course it is very important.”
http://en.hondaracingf1.com/newsroom/in ... pment.html

I think Mclaren demanded a lot about packing.

Your claim is outrageous. Oil tank is designed by Honda... if they bent too much its entirely their problem - don't promise if you can't deliver

[bigblue]

OK, a certain amount of debate about what went on is interesting, but can we avoid this thread then degenerating into arguments about each other's attitudes, biases, abilities to see 'obvious' truths ?

[bigblue]

RA617H end-of-season report ! I started to make some notes about what was supposedly changed between the various specs, and when the changes happened, some way into the season, as I was beginning to lose track and was curious. I also tried to dig out some points about the things that had already happened, but wasn't super-thorough about it. I also tried to stick to plausible sources, but it's hard to know what's reliable - e.g. quotes from Hasegawa-san, but these are often themselves obscured by machine-translation or vagueness in human translation. Lastly, I tried to keep track of where the snippets of information came from - quite a few were links mentioned by the posters on the autosport forum, so the references often refer to that forum (e.g. post 5#2937 means part 5 (!) of the McLaren-Honda thread, post 2937).

I can't be bothered to post this over there in the McLaren-Honda thread (which would seem to be the more natural home since many quotes came from links named in posts there), as anyone who says anything even neutral about Honda tends to get lynched So, excuse inaccuracies etc etc, for what it's worth, here's a summary of what happened according to various press reports - may be true, may not, there are undoubtedly things missing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spec 1 / 24-26 Mar / Race 1 / Australia.

Spec 2 / 12-14 May / Race 5 / Spain.

Spec 3 / 23-25 Jun / Race 8 / Azerbaijan (only tested on Fri, was not raced, will race at Race 9 / Austria).

Spec 3.5 / 25-27 Aug / Race 12 / Belgium.

Spec 3.6 / 25-27 Aug / Race 12 / Belgium (only used on Fri by Stoffel, as problem was detected, so reverted to 3.5).

Spec 3.7 / 01-03 Sep / Race 13 / Italy (only used on Fri by Alonso, preparation for Race 14 / Singapore).

Spec 3.8 / 20-22 Oct / Race 17 / USA (Vandoorne)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spec 2, ~+10bhp.

Spec 3, +10 to 30 bhp, depending on who you believe.

Spec 3.x, +0 to 3 bhp, aimed at low-end torque.

Spec 3.x, +27 bhp (+20kW) quali mode ?, not sure which exact 3.x.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I incline to at least 20bhp for Spec 3 based on what Boullier said on camera, and Hasegawa's remarks of ~0.3sec per lap, but I am not doing any rigorous analysis here, others may know better. Benson's tweets seem to change day by day

Spec 3 was called Spec 2.something by press, and even Honda (I seem to recall), as it was part of some bigger revisions that are coming, but this part was fast-tracked to come a bit earlier, and so Honda and everyone else are now calling it Spec 3 for simplicity's sake.

Was going to dig around and try to see what was changed for Spec 2 and 3, but haven't done so yet. Seem to remember induction/injection for 2, and something similar mentioned for 3, but Hasegawa also said combustion chamber completely different for 3 - take those as off the top of my head, can't vouch for accuracy. Search for muramasa's translated posts if you want to find what the Japanese press reported for Spec 2 (probably the best source ?).

Spec 3.5 was penalty-free induction (bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41039407)) / exhaust changes mostly aimed at boosting low-end torque (via rudex, translation of yahoo.co.jp, post 5#2937 (http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20652 ... ?p=8071160) & 5#2942), Hasegawa estimates ~0.1s a lap (via Taylo207, translation of sportiva.shueisha.co.jp, post 5#3779).

Spec 3.6 was as 3.5 plus one penalty inducing reliability change.

Spec 3.7 is similar but with some weight reduction (via hasika, translation of yahoo.co.jp, post 5#3896), new turbo (via hasika, translation of f1sokhuo.mopito.com, post 5#4020).

At Belgium, one (some ? all?) of the 3.x specs had a rumoured +20kW 'quali mode' added, with the hope this would also be usable in races subsequently when required (think this is a quote from Hasegawa, but not 100% sure, via hasika, translation of sportiva.shueisha.co.jp, post 6#166 (http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20733 ... ?p=8088457). Subsequently rumoured that the mode was deemed illegal by tightened FIA regulations at a subsequent event, Japan or earlier ? (http://members.f1-life.net/race/59657/).

Spec 3.8, small improvements for reliability and performance (via hasika, members.f1-life.net, post 6#3165, and others quoting Fabrega tweet). Spec 3.8 improvement over spec 3.5 is 0.3-0.4s, improvement over previous spec is 0.1-0.2s (Hasegawa, quoted at http://www.racer.com/f1/item/145573-hon ... ance-gains).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wazari]

RA617H end-of-season report ! I started to make some notes about what was supposedly changed between the various specs, and when the changes happened, some way into the season, as I was beginning to lose track and was curious. I also tried to dig out some points about the things that had already happened, but wasn't super-thorough about it. I also tried to stick to plausible sources, but it's hard to know what's reliable - e.g. quotes from Hasegawa-san, but these are often themselves obscured by machine-translation or vagueness in human translation. Lastly, I tried to keep track of where the snippets of information came from - quite a few were links mentioned by the posters on the autosport forum, so the references often refer to that forum (e.g. post 5#2937 means part 5 (!) of the McLaren-Honda thread, post 2937).

I can't be bothered to post this over there in the McLaren-Honda thread (which would seem to be the more natural home since many quotes came from links named in posts there), as anyone who says anything even neutral about Honda tends to get lynched So, excuse inaccuracies etc etc, for what it's worth, here's a summary of what happened according to various press reports - may be true, may not, there are undoubtedly things missing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spec 1 / 24-26 Mar / Race 1 / Australia.

Spec 2 / 12-14 May / Race 5 / Spain.

Spec 3 / 23-25 Jun / Race 8 / Azerbaijan (only tested on Fri, was not raced, will race at Race 9 / Austria).

Spec 3.5 / 25-27 Aug / Race 12 / Belgium.

Spec 3.6 / 25-27 Aug / Race 12 / Belgium (only used on Fri by Stoffel, as problem was detected, so reverted to 3.5).

Spec 3.7 / 01-03 Sep / Race 13 / Italy (only used on Fri by Alonso, preparation for Race 14 / Singapore).

Spec 3.8 / 20-22 Oct / Race 17 / USA (Vandoorne)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spec 2, ~+10bhp.

Spec 3, +10 to 30 bhp, depending on who you believe.

Spec 3.x, +0 to 3 bhp, aimed at low-end torque.

Spec 3.x, +27 bhp (+20kW) quali mode ?, not sure which exact 3.x.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I incline to at least 20bhp for Spec 3 based on what Boullier said on camera, and Hasegawa's remarks of ~0.3sec per lap, but I am not doing any rigorous analysis here, others may know better. Benson's tweets seem to change day by day

Spec 3 was called Spec 2.something by press, and even Honda (I seem to recall), as it was part of some bigger revisions that are coming, but this part was fast-tracked to come a bit earlier, and so Honda and everyone else are now calling it Spec 3 for simplicity's sake.

Was going to dig around and try to see what was changed for Spec 2 and 3, but haven't done so yet. Seem to remember induction/injection for 2, and something similar mentioned for 3, but Hasegawa also said combustion chamber completely different for 3 - take those as off the top of my head, can't vouch for accuracy. Search for muramasa's translated posts if you want to find what the Japanese press reported for Spec 2 (probably the best source ?).

Spec 3.5 was penalty-free induction (bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41039407)) / exhaust changes mostly aimed at boosting low-end torque (via rudex, translation of yahoo.co.jp, post 5#2937 (http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20652 ... ?p=8071160) & 5#2942), Hasegawa estimates ~0.1s a lap (via Taylo207, translation of sportiva.shueisha.co.jp, post 5#3779).

Spec 3.6 was as 3.5 plus one penalty inducing reliability change.

Spec 3.7 is similar but with some weight reduction (via hasika, translation of yahoo.co.jp, post 5#3896), new turbo (via hasika, translation of f1sokhuo.mopito.com, post 5#4020).

At Belgium, one (some ? all?) of the 3.x specs had a rumoured +20kW 'quali mode' added, with the hope this would also be usable in races subsequently when required (think this is a quote from Hasegawa, but not 100% sure, via hasika, translation of sportiva.shueisha.co.jp, post 6#166 (http://forums.autosport.com/topic/20733 ... ?p=8088457). Subsequently rumoured that the mode was deemed illegal by tightened FIA regulations at a subsequent event, Japan or earlier ? (http://members.f1-life.net/race/59657/).

Spec 3.8, small improvements for reliability and performance (via hasika, members.f1-life.net, post 6#3165, and others quoting Fabrega tweet). Spec 3.8 improvement over spec 3.5 is 0.3-0.4s, improvement over previous spec is 0.1-0.2s (Hasegawa, quoted at http://www.racer.com/f1/item/145573-hon ... ance-gains).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice job. The overall power increase from the start of the season to the end was approximately 40 bhp with no increase in fuel consumption.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I bought the autosport magazine and they have a pretty good report on what went on with Honda throughout the year. There are quite extensive Hasegawa quotes - I'll try to summarize the ones I find important.

In 2015 their H recovery was very poor, so for 2016 they increased the turbine size and as a result had to move the turbo up. This however increased the CG height so for 2017 they decided to go for the split turbo. As the compressor housing was now forward of the block, the oil tank had to be redesigned into a mercedes-like crescent shape. Unfortunately this caused all the issues they had in pre-season testing and took 2-3 days to fix.

Now the way I see it, McL would have provided Honda with the oil tank accelerations. Honda would then have tested the oil tank on a shaker rig (I think these are also known as rodeo rigs) to validate the design. I don't think it can be determined from the statements whose blame it was - either McL's for miscalculating acceleration (or not providing any at all) or Honda's for not testing the oil tank correctly.

On the issue of power Hasegawa explicitly states that top end power (at the start of the season) was virtually the same as 2016 while bottom end power was lower. He describes a significant torque hole between 9000-10000 rpm which combined with higher than expected driveline inertia created very strong oscillations during gearshifts. Essentially, the engine side inertia was very low compared to driveline inertia, causing it to bog down under upshifts. As a consequence the driveability was very poor due to low end torque and having to shift at non-optimal engine speeds.

I see Honda as being solely responsible for the lack of engine performance, however in my view McL should take all responsibility for the issue of driveline inertia. It is very unlikely that they had communicated correct driveline specifications and Honda had chosen to ignore them.

Hasegawa then goes on to say that the low speed torque issue was addressed by a change in inlet manifold design (introduced in Barcelona). I suppose this had to do with the poor performance noted in media when testing the complete engine rather than the single cylinder. They also mention altering clutch settings - these I suppose have to do with reducing the clutch preload to allow a bit of slip and alleviate the torque spike.

Finally Hasegawa attributes the MGUH bearing failures to a new 'oil blowing' used for 2017. This is not explained at all but I suspect that oil blowing is just an air line from the 'foam side' of the oil tank that allows the bearing cavities to be scavenged. Unlike the crankcase which can be scavenged without an air line due to blow-by, other cavities typically require a 'breathing' orifice with a restrictor that is adjusted to achieve the required cavity pressure.

These scavenge breathers have been used for a very long time in dry-sump racing engines and are very well understood. I fail to see what could have gone wrong - most likely the oil was not well separated in the tank and made its way into the air line, effectively preventing the bearing from being scavenged? Could the excess oil on the bearing and shaft increase dynamic loads and cause bearing failures ?
Anyway, according to the article, it took Honda quite a long time to understand what was happening and in the end they had to modify the oil tank to stop this 'oil blowing' and increase the size of the bearing.
Unfortunately the way I see it the MGUH failures were entirely Honda's doing.

[MrPotatoHead]

Now the way I see it, McL would have provided Honda with the oil tank accelerations. Honda would then have tested the oil tank on a shaker rig (I think these are also known as rodeo rigs) to validate the design. I don't think it can be determined from the statements whose blame it was - either McL's for miscalculating acceleration (or not providing any at all) or Honda's for not testing the oil tank correctly.

This is a dead end. It's impossible to simulate the sustained g forces on any of the existing engine test beds. You can simulate instantaneous but not sustained. And the Honda engineers should know what the g forces are - this was not their first season in F1.
If the people on this forum knew the predicted cornering forces then what excuse do the engine manufacturers have for screwing it up?

I find the people trying to deflect the blame to McLaren for Honda failures are living in a dream world.
McLaren certainly didn't have all these supposed problems in the past.

[MrPotatoHead]

Unfortunately the way I see it the MGUH failures were entirely Honda's doing.

Absolutely.