F1technical.net

I think I mentioned this in the Renault thread about Renault, Honda and maybe even Ferrari taking a fourth power unit and an extra set of electronics and batteries at Monza where we know the Mercedes will be strong.

Roostfactor wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2018, 07:32

IIRC Wazari San stated months ago that the spec 4 was a few cm's longer and heavier. Primarily at the heads due to the combustion concept. Wasari San I hope I am correct and not misquoting you.

You are correct.

I was told that 3 PU's were used first week. One with only 47 laps, the rest with the other two. No failures but planned this way. One PU for the entire week this week, STRAT 1,2,3 and 4 used out of 6 is my understanding.

Wazari wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2018, 06:15

You are correct.

I was told that 3 PU's were used first week. One with only 47 laps, the rest with the other two. No failures but planned this way. One PU for the entire week this week, STRAT 1,2,3 and 4 used out of 6 is my understanding.

Wazari, would like to know your thoughts on why Honda used 3 PU in first week? Were the 3 engines more aggressive than the australia spec used in week2. I sensed that the output kinda dropped in week 2 even though they used various modes, can u please update?
Also anomaly on last day, anything to worry?

Roostfactor wrote: ↑ IIRC Wazari San stated months ago that the spec 4 was a few cm's longer and heavier. Primarily at the heads due to the combustion concept. Wasari San I hope I am correct and not misquoting you.

Wasari wrote: You are correct.

I was told that 3 PU's were used first week. One with only 47 laps, the rest with the other two. No failures but planned this way. One PU for the entire week this week, STRAT 1,2,3 and 4 used out of 6 is my understanding[/quote]

I believe you (Wazari) also stated this heavier but more robust design was the culmination of your design teams efforts but the lighter and more fragile design (from another Honda design team) was originally picked over yours either by Honda or Mclaren or both, primarily for the weight savings. Correct?
It must be bittersweet to finally see your efforts beginning come to fruition and we can just hope now that Honda builds and improves on the foundation you helped to create.

McMika98 wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2018, 08:43

Wazari wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2018, 06:15

You are correct.

I was told that 3 PU's were used first week. One with only 47 laps, the rest with the other two. No failures but planned this way. One PU for the entire week this week, STRAT 1,2,3 and 4 used out of 6 is my understanding.

Wazari, would like to know your thoughts on why Honda used 3 PU in first week? Were the 3 engines more aggressive than the australia spec used in week2. I sensed that the output kinda dropped in week 2 even though they used various modes, can u please update?
Also anomaly on last day, anything to worry?

I really don't know. I am not there and not privy to their planned testing agenda. I do know that two specs PU are built and have been dynoed. I am under the understanding that the more conservative spec was run this week and will be used at the start of the reason. I assume it is because at this time it has shown more reliability the more hours run on the PU. An anomaly could be anything and since it was on a PU with quite of few KM's run on it, it could be just about anything but probably something minor.

Roostfactor wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2018, 08:55

It must be bittersweet to finally see your efforts beginning come to fruition and we can just hope now that Honda builds and improves on the foundation you helped to create.

Well we will see. It was frustrating for me that a variation of a PU that became the 617 was IMO the wrong choice. Of course I am biased but numbers don't lie (at least most of the time). The McLaren - Honda relationship has been discussed ad nauseam and water under the bridge. It is nice to see that some of your work actually makes it to the track although it is a very, very small piece of the puzzle. I really believe the pieces are now in place for a reliable PU that has the potential to be just as competitive as the other 3. It takes time and I really thought the 616 would be competitive to the others and I was wrong. In retrospect, to expect Honda to achieve in three years what took some of the others seven years was overly optimistic and unrealistic. However the gap is shrinking and I think will continue to shrink.

Is Sakura surprised at the good mileage so far? How os the confidence level for Melbourne?

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2018, 14:58

Is Sakura surprised at the good mileage so far? How os the confidence level for Melbourne?

I don't know about confidence level for Australia but I'm sure it's cautiously good. No one at Sakura is surprised over winter testing outcome.

Wazari wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2018, 09:30

However the gap is shrinking and I think will continue to shrink.

Mercedes' continued development seems to be finding incremental improvements. We won't know for sure until we see them in Melbourne qualifying. Photos show the Toro Rosso Honda appears to have a less tightly packaged rear end than many others. So with presumably a bit less rear downforce and lower cornering potential, the Honda engine would have to have a significant performance advantage....

I presume the rate of development is limited to a degree by the performance targets set. To have a chance to leapfrog requires a more ambitious target and more money.

What interests me about Mercedes is their mentality this year seems to be very chassis and aero focussed on small gains here and there instead of wholesale revolutionary chunks like we see with RedBull, Williams, McLaren, Renault et al. This may indicate the Mercedes engine has reached the realm of slim returns according to scientific models that they are putting all their stock into Chassis development now? Honda might just know the power target is asypmtotic at this stage?

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 02:31

What interests me about Mercedes is their mentality this year seems to be very chassis and aero focussed on small gains here and there instead of wholesale revolutionary chunks like we see with RedBull, Williams, McLaren, Renault et al. This may indicate the Mercedes engine has reached the realm of slim returns according to scientific models that they are putting all their stock into Chassis development now? Honda might just know the power target is asypmtotic at this stage?

I think there's a point where an increase in PU output no longer translates into a lap time gain due to aero/weight penalties. Unfortunately only Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari are well placed to find the ideal compromise.

Mudflap wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 17:07

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 02:31

What interests me about Mercedes is their mentality this year seems to be very chassis and aero focussed on small gains here and there instead of wholesale revolutionary chunks like we see with RedBull, Williams, McLaren, Renault et al. This may indicate the Mercedes engine has reached the realm of slim returns according to scientific models that they are putting all their stock into Chassis development now? Honda might just know the power target is asypmtotic at this stage?

I think there's a point where an increase in PU output no longer translates into a lap time gain due to aero/weight penalties. Unfortunately only Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari are well placed to find the ideal compromise.

Perhaps McLaren challenging Honda with the packaging of the powertrain might have been a blessing in disguise, unfortunately to McLaren's detriment. Honda now knows better about the packaging requirements, and the compromise between packaging for chassis performance, or for engine performance. This year Honda at least has the luxury of working it out step by step for next year when Red Bull take over.

McLaren's philosophy is more towards keeping schedule vs having things go according to plan, Honda has taken the opposite approach, ignoring the schedule and simply going according to plan. Probably why the car is so conservative in the rear with huge openings, a very large central section that occupies almost 1/5th of the total diffuser volume, and wide body work. However I have no doubt as Honda becomes more comfortable with the power unit they'll continue aggressive development. I suspect by spec 3 power unit of this year the car will be completely different, as the power unit is made both lighter and more compact, and the body work shrinks around it.

I think that if Spec2 of the Honda engine this year turns out to be a big winner in performance and reliability, that Honda will increase its "development grant" that it gives to STR to continue to push the chassis side forward to keep pace of the integration.

I believe this may backfire for RBR in the long run. Unless the contracts that are in place are worded with caveats concerning the Honda/STR works status, Honda may simply fall in love with STR as a partner, and not allow the works status to move to the parent team. Success seems to be much more than just numbers on paper, and if the human aspect of the Honda/STR relationship is a natural synergy, and they have success together, they may become inseparable.

Let STR steal a pole position, or a crazy win, and see if Honda just doesn't make an offer to buy the team. That would put RBR in a customer role yet again, and they may simply be better off staying with Renault at that time.

Only time (and success/failure) will tell this tale.

Zynerji wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2018, 18:23

I think that if Spec2 of the Honda engine this year turns out to be a big winner in performance and reliability, that Honda will increase its "development grant" that it gives to STR to continue to push the chassis side forward to keep pace of the integration.

I believe this may backfire for RBR in the long run. Unless the contracts that are in place are worded with caveats concerning the Honda/STR works status, Honda may simply fall in love with STR as a partner, and not allow the works status to move to the parent team. Success seems to be much more than just numbers on paper, and if the human aspect of the Honda/STR relationship is a natural synergy, and they have success together, they may become inseparable.

Let STR steal a pole position, or a crazy win, and see if Honda just doesn't make an offer to buy the team. That would put RBR in a customer role yet again, and they may simply be better off staying with Renault at that time.

Only time (and success/failure) will tell this tale.

The moment I read last week that STR would stay the works team, even when RBR would become a customer to Honda I had my doubts. After all it is sport, meaning you are in it to win it (ignoring the big investments made by Honda and the commercial aspects which only makes this scenario even more urealistic). It is unlikely that Honda does not want to win more than an occasional race. As soon as the engine proves to be reliable, which has started already, and the performance improvements mean the powerunit aproaches Renault, RBR will overrule the agreement and become the works team; if not on paper than in reality. I do have a weakness for STR so I would like to dream for a while as well, but I do not believe it. Thrilling to watch the evolution of the Honda power unit for sure. Buying the team... well that would be the end of formula 1 as we end up with a situation where only factory teams will be able to be competative.

To break the STR/Honda contract would require Honda approval, unless it is already part of the STR contract. I imagine that if RBR tried to take the status (like they swapped engines for 2008) that Honda would have a say if they wanted to re-sign with RBR after the break. It will need to be handled very delicately, or we might just have Force Honda in 2019!