Otromundo wrote: ↑13 Mar 2026, 04:16
Last week or maybe the week before I saw a video of a Japanese reporter interviewing a big boss from HRC. He had a life-size model of the engine behind him where you could see that the electrical part + battery were in staggered positions. They asked him the reason. He replied that AN had asked them for the MGU-K to be as low as possible and that they had to modify the engine. That the electrical part above the MGU-K housed "electrical components" (I suspected they could be capacitors, which is something I think is important to confirm, by the way) and that the lower part housed the battery. And that AN's reason was to move the center of gravity as low as possible, something logical and also typical of AN. At no point was AN or AMR criticized.
I've been looking for it for 2 days because I didn't save its address and I would like you to see it. But there is no way. Let's see if I can find it while I wait for P1 to start.
Isn't that the point of a works deal? To have a collaborative relationship and be able to better fit engine and chassis and integrate them together? If AMR should be expected to sit back and wait for an engine from Honda without any say in the design and Honda sit back and wait for a chassis from AMR without any say, what is the point of the works deal? Both should be able to make requests to each other and both should be able to push back when something cannot be done and both should be able to come to a well tested "compromise" solution when designing / integrating chassis and engine. That's the whole point of a works deal.
The blame game doesn't work. AMR is not at fault for Honda's pitfalls and Honda is not at fault for AMR's pit falls. Both share the blame for their poor performance and both need to rectify their issues and collaborate properly.
If both are gonna work independently without communicating and making requests to each other then what's the difference between that and a customer engine?
