The rules are set up to accommodate placement of the MGUK & its transmission in a variety of locations with no weight penalty for more distal locating. In front of the ICE or alongside the ICE (previous precedent). diffuser pointed out the transmission attachment point which encourages forward placements. Inside the vee would be elegant, if just for symmetry & structural efficiency--replacing the MGUH.
Maybe. Inside the V would increase the center of mass height quite a bit, but if there is a performance advantage in spite of this, then it is possible.
The rules are set up to accommodate placement of the MGUK & its transmission in a variety of locations with no weight penalty for more distal locating. In front of the ICE or alongside the ICE (previous precedent). diffuser pointed out the transmission attachment point which encourages forward placements. Inside the vee would be elegant, if just for symmetry & structural efficiency--replacing the MGUH.
Inside the V would increase the center of mass height quite a bit. Either in front of engine or inside the transmission (somehow) seems ideal.
Yes, hence my earlier post. PU COG is mandated so the COG of the assembled mass is the is the goal not necessarily the locations of individual components considered independently. Vee or forward centerline locating, whether atop or splitting the ES, provides symmetry, which frees up space on both sides of the ICE beneath the exhaust ports for airflow or header routing. Rearward MGUK locating (if the legality box allows for it) would require a long driveshaft back to the front of the engine.
The rules are set up to accommodate placement of the MGUK & its transmission in a variety of locations with no weight penalty for more distal locating. In front of the ICE or alongside the ICE (previous precedent). diffuser pointed out the transmission attachment point which encourages forward placements. Inside the vee would be elegant, if just for symmetry & structural efficiency--replacing the MGUH.
Inside the V would increase the center of mass height quite a bit. Either in front of engine or inside the transmission (somehow) seems ideal.
Yes, hence my earlier post. PU COG is mandated so the COG of the assembled mass is the is the goal not necessarily the locations of individual components considered independently. Vee or forward centerline locating, whether atop or splitting the ES, provides symmetry, which frees up space on both sides of the ICE beneath the exhaust ports for airflow or header routing. Rearward MGUK locating (if the legality box allows for it) would require a long driveshaft back to the front of the engine.
You only have 100MM of space there before it start protrude out the front, not sure that's enough space for the MGU-K. That's gonna be prime Fuel cell real estate there.
Yes, hence my earlier post. PU COG is mandated so the COG of the assembled mass is the is the goal not necessarily the locations of individual components considered independently. Vee or forward centerline locating, whether atop or splitting the ES, provides symmetry, which frees up space on both sides of the ICE beneath the exhaust ports for airflow or header routing. Rearward MGUK locating (if the legality box allows for it) would require a long driveshaft back to the front of the engine.
You only have 100MM of space there before it start protrude out the front, not sure that's enough space for the MGU-K. That's gonna be prime Fuel cell real estate there.
No, this is only a reference to the mechanical connection area. They want to continue using the nose of the crankshaft as the connection point, driven alongside the cam gears, hence it must be within the first 100mm of the ICE volume. There's no rules about where specifically within the PU volume that the MGUK needs to be placed (that I've seen). This why C18.5.7 exists--to provide the freedom of placement for packaging reasons with limited mass penalty. Hugging it right next to the ICE vs hanging it from the front of the ICE vs attaching it to the monocoque, etc., are all accommodated as teams/builder may find certain configurations more advantageous than others.
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 15 Jan 2026, 21:15
by AR3-GP
This shows where battery is located relative to engine. Based on Honda's teaser photos, it will be a side mount MGU-K
Well, it makes sense. Being that it delivers significantly more power than 2025's, it will likely have more windings and therefore more weight. Having all the weight as low as possible helps.
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 17 Jan 2026, 16:22
by Juzh
Again the race is saying honda is behind in battery tech (at 3:43). That's now at least the second time they've mentioned it. Personally I don't buy it at all. How could they possibly know this.
Again the race is saying honda is behind in battery tech (at 3:43). That's now at least the second time they've mentioned it. Personally I don't buy it at all. How could they possibly know this.
They also said the power units became 35kg heavier...
Again the race is saying honda is behind in battery tech (at 3:43). That's now at least the second time they've mentioned it. Personally I don't buy it at all. How could they possibly know this.
They don’t. By saying that, they know people will click to find out.
Again the race is saying honda is behind in battery tech (at 3:43). That's now at least the second time they've mentioned it. Personally I don't buy it at all. How could they possibly know this.
They don’t. By saying that, they know people will click to find out.
They sell views, not information
100% agree, click bate but I can't tell you my source or he'll get fired!
Again the race is saying honda is behind in battery tech (at 3:43). That's now at least the second time they've mentioned it. Personally I don't buy it at all. How could they possibly know this.
They don’t. By saying that, they know people will click to find out.
They sell views, not information
Redbull powerunit head think the battle front will be on the engine side he expect all manufacturers to be 99 percent efficient on the electrical side. Honda started their project by focusing on small light efficient motor and batteries for them they believe that's were the advantage will be.Honda are the only manufacturer who has raced with synthetic fuels via their indy program. Aramco and shell are the only ones with vast racing experience with these fuels,so if the the race want start a romour they need to say something believable because wanatabe has gone on record and say they have a great batteries so do these media people know better than Honda chief.Apprantly Redbull thinks talks of merc incoming dominance where started by merc themselves.
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 18 Jan 2026, 20:32
by Hoffman900
Indy doesn’t run synthetic fuel, they run ethanol.
IMSA / WEC runs synthetic fuel, and they all have experience with oil dilution from it in the 24hr races.
Indy doesn’t run synthetic fuel, they run ethanol.
IMSA / WEC runs synthetic fuel, and they all have experience with oil dilution from it in the 24hr races.
Its the same thing you can run on efuels or biofuels the difference is sattle. Ferrari will run on biofuels the majority will run on efuels.sythetic in these context just mean it's not petrol it's man-made fuel.
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 20 Jan 2026, 06:23
by Snorked
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 20 Jan 2026, 07:19
by Ashwinv16
what's the two things sticking out....? I thought it was twin throttle body set-up but like since like eons f1 cars where always individual throlle trumpets wasn't it?
