Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[PhillipM]

Going by the past record of fixes to this unit?
Don't hold your breath.

[AJI]

What in my opinion is even more surprising is why they limit the bore. Wouldn't the possibility of playing around with bore and stroke lead to some interesting outcomes? It would allow a bit more freedom to manufacturers, rather than an exact same formula for all. This one-for-all approach is what annoys me the most in modern F1.

It is all for the sake of cost control. By constraining some of the important engine dimensions they are trying to stop manufacturers from splashing out on expensive DOEs.

There's also the off-chance that a manufacturer might get it completely wrong and would need to invest time and money to recover, not unlike Honda.

Surely limiting things like bore and stroke and v angle and crank throws etc... means the engineers have to spend a huge amount of time investigating tiny variations on things like rod ratio and wrist pin offset etc..? If it's a cost saving measure then it's a classic 'F1 cost saving' measure.

Not that I'm disagreeing that that was their intention, but there's are huge amount of time and money to be wasted when the specs are so specific, yet are so open to deep exploration of the minutae

[Revs84]

Back to the current season:

Honda claimed to have upgraded the turbo/mguh. Considering they had about one week to inspect the failed components, redesign and manufacture new ones (most likely without any form of validation) what are the chances that the new bits turn out to be lemons too ?

Do we know if it is a repeat of the good old bearing issue from last year ?
Does that fact that they have pre-emptively changed Hartley's parts point to a design flaw or a manufacturing issue ?

My guess would be as good as yours but my hunch is design flaw.

If it is, I hope it is a minor one, as otherwise I can't understand how they managed to develop and test it in such a short time. However, if it really was a minor thing, then I do wonder how it wasn't captured earlier as it could point to probably a relatively obvious design issue?

All of which leads me to start thinking that it might be more than just a minor thing and we might be back to a trial and error saga until a solution is found.

I really hope that I'm wrong and that a solution was found out of sheer hard work in this short period of time.

[McHonda]

Honda's have had some issues with the sand around here playing havoc so honestly I'd keep expectations low and then anything good feels like a bonus.

[PlatinumZealot]

This track is power track. Hopefully they pull their pants up or they gonna get more sand in ther asses.

[carisi2k]

Certainly the Honda wasn't lacking power in Melbourne but maybe the aggressive kerbing might have introduced some vibration into the mgu-h not detected in testing. I see some mclaren fanboys are banging there chest but I don't think Honda should be worried since they are miles ahead of where they were last year.

It is interesting to note that they are replacing Hartley's engine purely as a precaution with nothing to suggest anything was wrong with that engine by the way.

[Rodak]

Unfortunately http://en.hondaracingf1.com/races/2018/ ... -prix.html

[AJI]

Unfortunately http://en.hondaracingf1.com/races/2018/ ... -prix.html

"During the race in Australia, we had an issue with the MGU-H and turbocharger on Pierre’s car and this had the knock-on effect of also damaging the ICE (internal combustion engine.) Therefore, in Bahrain, Pierre will use a new ICE, MGU-H and turbocharger. The MGU-H and turbo have both been modified, in light of what we learned in the first race.

Given the problems we encountered in Melbourne, we have decided, as a precautionary measure, to also change the MGU-H and turbocharger on Brendon’s car, fitting the new modified components.

Replacing components for the second race is obviously a difficult decision and not ideal, given that the number of Power Units and ancillary components is now limited to just three per season, however we believe this is the right way forward and we will continue our development in order to ensure the same issue does not reoccur."

21 races, may as well use 42 PU's.

[f1316]

Unfortunately http://en.hondaracingf1.com/races/2018/ ... -prix.html

"During the race in Australia, we had an issue with the MGU-H and turbocharger on Pierre’s car and this had the knock-on effect of also damaging the ICE (internal combustion engine.) Therefore, in Bahrain, Pierre will use a new ICE, MGU-H and turbocharger. The MGU-H and turbo have both been modified, in light of what we learned in the first race.

Given the problems we encountered in Melbourne, we have decided, as a precautionary measure, to also change the MGU-H and turbocharger on Brendon’s car, fitting the new modified components.

Replacing components for the second race is obviously a difficult decision and not ideal, given that the number of Power Units and ancillary components is now limited to just three per season, however we believe this is the right way forward and we will continue our development in order to ensure the same issue does not reoccur."

21 races, may as well use 42 PU's.

To be honest, they actually might as well.

This entire season should be a pure R&D exercise - results should be completely irrelevant - as their only job is to create an engine capable of being good enough for Red Bull next year (so minimum as good as or better than the Renault).

If they try to make the engines last, limiting themselves to only two more iterations of design, are they really going to improve at a faster rate than the other manufacturers? Or can they instead find a competitive advantage by completely sacrificing a season, creating up to 20 new specifications across the year - even if it means just changing/experimenting with tiny details that would otherwise be prohibited - and just accepting that they’ll always have penalties. It would be worth it to have a properly competitive PU next year.

I don’t think they would go that extreme and I’m sure TR/the drivers wouldn’t be happy if they did, but there’s actually a lot of logic in it.

[AJI]

21 races, may as well use 42 PU's.

To be honest, they actually might as well.

This entire season should be a pure R&D exercise - results should be completely irrelevant - as their only job is to create an engine capable of being good enough for Red Bull next year (so minimum as good as or better than the Renault).

If they try to make the engines last, limiting themselves to only two more iterations of design, are they really going to improve at a faster rate than the other manufacturers? Or can they instead find a competitive advantage by completely sacrificing a season, creating up to 20 new specifications across the year - even if it means just changing/experimenting with tiny details that would otherwise be prohibited - and just accepting that they’ll always have penalties. It would be worth it to have a properly competitive PU next year.

I don’t think they would go that extreme and I’m sure TR/the drivers wouldn’t be happy if they did, but there’s actually a lot of logic in it.

I couldn't agree more.
While my suggestion was extreme and provoked a neg (thanks for that whoever you are...) this is the only way Honda are going to make progress. If the engine freeze happens from 2019, and I can't see why it won't, Honda have only this year to get it together. Both drivers aren't top tier, they're not expecting to win races, so starting from the last position on the grid for every race isn't crazy if it means they can be free to develop. A solid result in Japan should be their main goal this year. A contract for supply from Red Bull is going to take a lot of work now if the deadline is May...

[johnny comelately]

This may have already been discussed, but if its a split turbo and it let go from a bump could it be from shaft flex, inadequate bearings? i guess it probably has the electrical gizmo in the middle which should mitigate flex....
2017 news item : Honda is not yet sure of the exact cause of the problem, which its F1 chief Yusuke Hasegawa says relates to the "rotation of the bearing" on the MGU-H.

[tok-tokkie]

This track is power track. Hopefully they pull their pants up or they gonna get more sand in ther asses.

The average speed of last years winner was 197 kph.
The average speed of the winner on the fastest track (Monza) was 244 kph & the slowest was Azerbaijan at 148 kph (but that had lots of safety cars & a red flag) Monaco average speed of winner was 149 kph.
So this track is right in the middle of the average speed table (196 kph) so I think it will be more indicative of where Toro Rosso stand than Australia - which was 4th fastest with an average speed at 219 kph last year.

[f1316]

21 races, may as well use 42 PU's.

To be honest, they actually might as well.

This entire season should be a pure R&D exercise - results should be completely irrelevant - as their only job is to create an engine capable of being good enough for Red Bull next year (so minimum as good as or better than the Renault).

If they try to make the engines last, limiting themselves to only two more iterations of design, are they really going to improve at a faster rate than the other manufacturers? Or can they instead find a competitive advantage by completely sacrificing a season, creating up to 20 new specifications across the year - even if it means just changing/experimenting with tiny details that would otherwise be prohibited - and just accepting that they’ll always have penalties. It would be worth it to have a properly competitive PU next year.

I don’t think they would go that extreme and I’m sure TR/the drivers wouldn’t be happy if they did, but there’s actually a lot of logic in it.

I couldn't agree more.
While my suggestion was extreme and provoked a neg (thanks for that whoever you are...) this is the only way Honda are going to make progress. If the engine freeze happens from 2019, and I can't see why it won't, Honda have only this year to get it together. Both drivers aren't top tier, they're not expecting to win races, so starting from the last position on the grid for every race isn't crazy if it means they can be free to develop. A solid result in Japan should be their main goal this year. A contract for supply from Red Bull is going to take a lot of work now if the deadline is May...

Also, if you’re in a TR, you’re not likely to start especially high up the grid anyway - especially with the current spec Honda in the back- so knowing you’re always starting at the back as opposed to sometimes/often starting at the back isn’t really a massive difference (this is the why being out of the McLaren limelight is good for Honda).

Also, if you are a TR driver, it suddenly takes off a lot of the pressure to perform - your objectives become around developing the engine not finishing in the points - with the knowledge that if you achieve those objectives you are likely to be rewarded with a more competitive drive next year.

It’s really an absolute no brainer to me.

[dren]

You have to have a sizeable upgrade package that makes sense to take the grid penalty.

Continuous running of 'used' PUs over race weekends will validate their reliability expectations.

Manufacturing new parts every two weeks isn't as easy as just proclaiming that Honda should do it.

Upgraded MGUH components in this short of time may be a modified bearing seal, a change in the bushings in the MGUH mounts, small baffle changes in the oil tank, or something else.

[dren]

It looks like the intake has a bit more height to it than last year, but it could be the picture angle.