Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GoranF1]

Boulier on Ted Notebook;

There will be some upgrade from Honda already next week, and that will let's say a more definite 2016 PU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TGGt2q ... e=youtu.be MIN 10:00

[PlatinumZealot]

I bet the moderators are engineers...


Sincerely

The Machinist

No... Trust me on that! lol.

[GoranF1]

Boulier and Hasegawa

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... rgets.html

[frosty125]

Boulier on Ted Notebook;

There will be some upgrade from Honda already next week, and that will let's say a more definite 2016 PU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TGGt2q ... e=youtu.be MIN 10:00

Actually he says

"....there will be some upgrade already next week from Honda, errr towards lets say what should be the definitive 2016 power unit homologation"

[Webber2011]

I heard Wazari is coming out of retirement to take over the project.....

I'm not sure what you mean there, but it sounds quite disrespectful considering Wazari's knowledge.
I could be totally wrong, and I'm sorry if I did indeed read it the wrong way, but Wazari contributes slightly more to the forum than you ever have.

I only meant it as a tease, Wazari said that the 'geriatric crew' was one of teams working on the power unit. I have heard elsewhere that this will be the mark 2 unit. He then says that he will be busy and will have to stop posting here, an obvious joke perhaps but that was all it was.

I am - to be honest - puzzled at how i offended you, I certainly hope i didn't offend Mr Wazari.

As to your second point i take exception only to the word 'slightly'!

Absolutely my fault mate.

Over the last few days I've seen some somewhat sarcastic remarks , and even some doubting the fact that Mr Wazari was as experienced, or "in the know" as much as he claimed.

I took your post completely the wrong way, and once again I apologise.

[RicME85]

Woah! Did I just see someone on the internet apologise?
Fair play.

[isullivan]

Speed trap from day 3 of testing
1 Nasr, 338.5km/h
2 Hamilton, 337.5km/h
3 Massa, 334.3km/h
4 Hulkenberg, 333.3km/h
5 Haryanto, 333.3km/h
6 Magnussen, 332.3km/h
7 Grosjean, 331.2km/h
8 Raikkonen, 331.2km/h
9 Rosberg, 328.2km/h
10 Sainz, 327.2km/h
11 Kvyat, 322.3km/h
12 Button, 320.4km/h

[vantage87]

New Honda chief discusses 2016 power unit targets

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... rgets.html

[Phil]

I've been thinking a bit about the McLaren-Honda situation and figured what I am about to write is probably best in here. Excuse me quoting a post from a few days ago, but it pretty much emphasizes what I've been thinking about:

Anyhow, the news from Honda is not good and i think it shows how politics has a way of misdirecting a whole project.
Having the right leadership is very crucial. If you have a project leader/manager that is close minded you will have a lot of problems along the way and i say this looking on what Honda has done from 2015. They refused to listen to outsiders and they were hell bent on pursuing some pipe dream "size zero" philosophy in a blind and very vein manner.
I hope there is levelheadedness and logic applied to how they run things now. The engineers are tools, and their energies need to directed in the right fashion. No matter how good they are, if they are asked to design and develop rubbish, it will just be a well engineered piece of rubbish at the end of the day (not to say the Honda PU project is rubbish, but just using an extreme).
So hopefully Honda gets things back on track with this new for 2016 engine. And it would make 2017 even more optimistic if they just scrap size zero alltogether and make a kick ass brute of a PU.

Why is it that Honda here is singled out again and again as the one within the chain that is underperforming? As far as I understand, the size-zero concept is not something that originated from Honda, but from McLaren, because they obviously have certain aero goals they want to achieve. Naturally, it takes two to find the right balance - the aero is only as effective if the engine is not too compromised, but it also takes a certain amount of expertise and confidence to know what can be achieved with the PU within the boundaries that are set.

On some level, this failed last year and to some degree, one could argue that Honda had a bigger challenge to face last year, not only in playing catch up, but also having much more (space) and probably cooling restrictions by the boundaries that were set in order to achieve that size-zero.

Given that they are still pursuing that size-zero, I can only imagine 3 scenarios:

1.)
McLaren is stubborn in wanting to keep it in order to gain an aero advantage and confident the engine can produce enough within that space they have given it

2.)
Honda is confident they can achieve whatever performance levels that is required/targeted within those boundaries

3.)
as a team, one or the other, they are confident that both elements (aero + engine) working at their full potential is fast enough to be 'competitive' and race winning

Having read a lot in this topic and what Wazari has posted, I can see why they are pursuing that design choice, but I do wonder if it is a "winning formula/package". Maybe the struggles that are to be seen from the outside are simply a logical conclusion to a design philosophy that is too hard to achieve or simply not possible? In other words; a design choice leading into a dead-end because it just won't be good enough, no matter how elegant or efficient it ends up being?

And if this is really the case, I do wonder how much of it is Honda's fault. I think I'd look at it more as a failing of both parties, or setting too high goals/targets that are practically unachievable, where a more conservative approach might have yielded better results?

Even worse, if this is even half way accurate and the reason for their on-going struggles (if you could call it that), how easily could this be changed? It's not as if you can simply change your design direction - following a different design choice would also mean an entire new car would have to be built, potentially setting them back by another 1 season? Seems to be they're stuck at least to go with the size-zero for this season, regardless how well they can get the package to work.

[Thunder]

As far as I understand, the size-zero concept is not something that originated from Honda, but from McLaren, because they obviously have certain aero goals they want to achieve.....

I wouldn't be to sure about that.

Interview with Arai:
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Compani ... ear?page=2

... McLaren once told us that we don't have to be aggressive in downsizing our power unit. But we are determined to shrink the size by whatever means possible.

Boullier:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclar ... er-665545/

“We told them we wanted the tightest car as possible. But we never imposed on them in terms of size of whatever.”

Boullier and Hasegawa:
http://www.speedweek.com/formel1/news/8 ... rdigt.html

I mean of course nobody at Mclaren complained about having more space to play with. But i don't think Size Zero was solely based on one Party. Honda wanted to show what's possible and McLaren was happy with potential Aero gains.

[Jef Patat]

I think I'd look at it more as a failing of both parties, or setting too high goals/targets that are practically unachievable, where a more conservative approach might have yielded better results?

If MCL were asking the impossible (which is not the case, just check Thunders' post) and Honda didn't tell them that what they are asking is impossible I would interpret that as being mainly Honda's fault. You cannot blame one of asking something (in a partnership there is no room for dictates). You can blame someone for promising someone to achieve something and then not achieving it.

[dren]

Honda seems to take pride in engineering the impossible, or improbable. They often do things different and eventually get it right. Let's hope they do with the PU. It seems to be a marked improvement, but not quite on par yet with the top teams.

[Alexitation]

Boulier and Hasegawa

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... rgets.html

So problems were: reliability, ICE, the ERS (harvest and deployment).

After day 3 they did 250 laps (let's assume they only used one engine), which is not even close to the target of 4 week-ends distance. From where I stand, reliability isn't fixed and those 250 laps were quite slow as well. So power isn't there either.

I can't see any reason to be optimistic here...

[amho]

Speed trap from day 3 of testing
1 Nasr, 338.5km/h
2 Hamilton, 337.5km/h
3 Massa, 334.3km/h
4 Hulkenberg, 333.3km/h
5 Haryanto, 333.3km/h
6 Magnussen, 332.3km/h
7 Grosjean, 331.2km/h
8 Raikkonen, 331.2km/h
9 Rosberg, 328.2km/h
10 Sainz, 327.2km/h
11 Kvyat, 322.3km/h
12 Button, 320.4km/h

so Mclaren top speed is lower than last year (326 km/h) which says that they are not running the engine at full power so which should wait for true picture of honda engine..

[Phil]

I mean of course nobody at Mclaren complained about having more space to play with. But i don't think Size Zero was solely based on one Party. Honda wanted to show what's possible and McLaren was happy with potential Aero gains.

Great links, thanks. I guess that clears it up then.

I must say I am finding it all rather strange. Sure, building a compact engine has advantages, but only if the aero team can effectively use it as well. On some level, I'm sure there were concepts discussed on what was achievable and what was to be expected. If this year turns out similar like last year, I think I'll simply conclude that either Honda or McLaren or both severely overestimated what could be achieved following this design path. Perhaps by setting too high goals that are too ambitious.

I hope not and I do hope I'm wrong, but seeing their progression (even if it is testing), I must say that I am not very confident that all the pieces will fall into place to the point we all will be stunned come Melbourne or any time this year.