Honda Withdrawl from F1

[steve nielsen]

Red Bull appoints Ben Hodgkinson as Technical director of Red Bull powertrains

https://www.redbull.com/int-en/redbu...ical-director?

[steve_r]

Oh - so RBR will not only take over the Hondas, but they are going to develop their own engines too.

Looks like a good opportunity to partner up with a car manufacturer either as a fully integrated technical partner or just a badge.

[Richard C]

Honda giving details on this year's engine. It was heavily revised.

https://honda.racing/f1/post/behind-...nda-power-unit

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Honda giving details on this year's engine. It was heavily revised.

https://honda.racing/f1/post/behind-...nda-power-unit

Richard

Very interesting thanks for posting. Having read that and as Asaki-san says: ''I'm sure you'll appreciate this is a completely new engine.''

[chillibowl]

Yeah thank you for the share.

Why does honda seem to do their best work as they are out the door? Coincidence , bad timing, or something else?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Very interesting thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Yeah thank you for the share.

It's the advantage of reading on multiple sites online that allows you to find stuff like this. Even in 10/10th is my home.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Why does honda seem to do their best work as they are out the door? Coincidence , bad timing, or something else?

I suspect it's mostly just bad timing. It is interesting that they were planning to bring this forward in 2021, then not, then it was back on again. I know there have been rumblings for a long time that Honda had alternate concepts inside their F1 engine program and that if/when to bring those forward was always a topic of discussion. I think at some level, they were highly burnt by the McLaren experience. And that incremental improvements became the desired (and safe) path forward. That works to mitigate risk of very public failure, but it may also prevent you from making leaps forward (which has it's own risk of going wrong). Who knows, maybe with the exit, someone said, "lets stop sitting on a potentially great upgrade and just go for it"? Or maybe this is just the output of a very methodical approach.

In the end, I think Honda drastically under estimated the time, money and effort to match Mercedes. In the end it appears they have been able to match Mercedes (or nearly so). It's unfortunate it took so long. I think Honda can still be proud of what they have achieved even if it has been a very bumpy road.

I don't know if it's bad form to post links to other forums, but I think F1technial.net is catering to a different audience than here. But if anyone is curious, look at this thread starting at this link.

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/vi...74&start=18075

The CNC head covers (which also are part of the spec attachment points) are a work of art.

As is typical with Honda, they can be very open (to a point) with their technology and expose details of what other teams would consider to be very secret. Usually this level of detail is provided to the domestic market. In this case via a NHK program. Someone was able to download and extract some images from the NHK program (plus translate details discussed in the program). I am mostly paraphrasing details from there, but it looks like...

1. Honda wasn't able to extract full power from the prior engines. It sounds like it was a question of longevity of the cylinder/piston interaction. The implemented a new internally developed coating to address that (reduce wear, and allow for more power but with the required longevity).
2. Extensive examination of the prior unit resulted in the conclusion that significant rework was required to move it forward. So a desire for improved combustion efficiency lead to need for higher compression which changed the valve angle to be very narrow, which changed the cam location which then resulted in a more compact design head design.
3. Improved combustion efficiency meant more energy being converted directly to power in the ICE and less energy available to the MGU-H. To recover the loss in the turbo, they worked with turbine experts from Honda Jet to the increased the turbine efficiency and to claw back the losses.
4. New material usage in block construction allowed for a reduction in distance between bores which allowed for a more compact design which provided lower CG and more option on the aero side.

I assume that things like the proprietary Honda cylinder coating process would be licensed to RedBull in a very controlled way. Or Honda may even provide that as a service.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Excellent summary Richard Casto!

Originally Posted by steve_r

Looks like a good opportunity to partner up with a car manufacturer either as a fully integrated technical partner or just a badge.

This badge?



It would be nice to see, but if I'm not sure if Honda are keen to buy that sponsorship. Horner was adamant they will be Red Bull power units and not rebranded under sponsorship, be it Tag Heuer, Honda or whichever.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think at some level, they were highly burnt by the McLaren experience....

could this be the most fascinating F1 story of the past decade?

would love to read an insiders view type story all the way from Ron going back to Honda (and Alonso) and everything in between.

[Casper]

>And we've been able to bring it to a point where in just six months we've taken it testing without any issues.<

An interesting choice of words...testing in what? Have they finally worked out that track testing is a good idea?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

1. Honda wasn't able to extract full power from the prior engines. It sounds like it was a question of longevity of the cylinder/piston interaction. The implemented a new internally developed coating to address that (reduce wear, and allow for more power but with the required longevity).

I suspect that Honda have very few issues in that area given their bike racing pedigree in both two and four stroke. I had a motor built by an ex HRC employee and it was an interesting time learning stuff I had never even thought about.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I suspect that Honda have very few issues in that area given their bike racing pedigree in both two and four stroke. I had a motor built by an ex HRC employee and it was an interesting time learning stuff I had never even thought about.

My take away from some of the stuff written elsewhere was that they were very much able to solve problems internally. But they just needed to figure out who knew the answer. Or which of the various internal potential solutions actually was "the" solution. It may very well have come from the bike side. Or it might have been used for something else. But supposedly in the NHK Video Honda said (regarding the coating)...

For the new power unit, they developed a recipe that made the cylinders five to ten times more resistant than that used in Honda motorcycles.

That quote doesn't specify commercial vs. bespoke racing bikes (i.e. MotoGP)

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

>And we've been able to bring it to a point where in just six months we've taken it testing without any issues.<

An interesting choice of words...testing in what? Have they finally worked out that track testing is a good idea?

That is an interesting question and presumption. I think years ago, the topic of why Honda wasn't using test mules had lots of traction. I wonder if looking back their problems would have been revealed in test mules or not. Maybe

If I was to summarize what I think the problems were with Honda (and this is just off the cuff) it might be...

1. Generally getting an initial architecture wrong on the solution they provided McLaren. I don't think mule testing would have exposed this.

2. Some level of oil foaming/pickup issues that "might" have been discovered faster in a mule. However this was quickly fixed.

3. Some type of turbine lubrication issue which I think still remains a mystery to the public. I think this was some MGU-H fragility. Mule might have helped here as well. This did take them awhile to fix, but what that was remains a mystery.

4. Harmonic issues with respect to the integration of power unit, transmission, drive shaft, tires and road interaction. I think this was/is solvable by doing earlier total integration. This didn't require a mule, but a mule may have exposed this... Or not as a mule would have had different mass, etc. and may not have exhibited the same issues, or in the same way. But I think this was solved (cause exposed) along with Red Bull with better total system integration.

5. Electronics/MGU-H fragility. A mule could have exposed, this but I suspect correct simulation modeling on four post shaker rig might have as well. They eventually solved this as well.

6. Various fundamental architectural issues (improved combustion efficiency, various tricks with regarding to power flow through the hybrid system, etc.) I expect most of these were just learnt as they went. And mule testing wouldn't have driven answers to these problems.

I think in the end, would they have been able to expose and solve problems earlier if they had been able to do more "on track" testing? Sure. But given the structure of the regulations, it required hoops to be jumped through. And I think that is why you still don't see teams trying to do it today.

I would speculate that broadly Honda understands more now than they did when they jumped back into F1 regarding the parameters and conditions they need to test again. For example if running the curbs would unsettle sensors in the car and shut down the power unit, that was about understanding the shock loads that the sensors may experience. Once they learn those limits, they can both design against them, and test the design in dynamic testing setups (shaker rigs). Same applies to the dynamic interactions of their power unit and the rest of the car (transmission, etc.) and how that impacts undesirable resonance in the ICE. Once they see and understand the issue, it is on the list of things to design around and test against (integration testing scenario). I don't think this type of integration testing happened with McLaren until the car showed up for testing on the track.

Richard

[VIVA GT]

I suppose one fundamental difference regarding 'testing' is that compared to the McLaren days Honda engines are now running in twice as many cars so they will be getting a lot more feedback.

[S griffin]

I think the development in testing is the same, but as you say they have more feedback to use now, so it's probably better than when they were just supplying McLaren

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

That is an interesting question and presumption. I think years ago, the topic of why Honda wasn't using test mules had lots of traction. I wonder if looking back their problems would have been revealed in test mules or not. Maybe

If I was to summarize what I think the problems were with Honda (and this is just off the cuff) it might be...

1. Generally getting an initial architecture wrong on the solution they provided McLaren. I don't think mule testing would have exposed this.

As someone who has an extensive competition background building and racing I have to ask how you came to that conclusion as Honda admitted early on the major issues only arose when the unit was installed. It is amazing what issues arise when motors are installed and the aha! moment happens because of problems arising from the installation.

[P38 in workshop]

I have a feeling that we may be about to see a repeat of the situation that occurred when Honda last departed-they have done the groundwork for success and the success will arrive after they have left. That they ought to have the resources to solve any problems they found with the PU shouldn't have been in question and the company culture traditionally allowed all areas to access the knowledge that had been derived across their wide range of activities.Could we be facing a season next year that sees Red Bull as champions and Alpha Tauri as runners up?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

As someone who has an extensive competition background building and racing I have to ask how you came to that conclusion as Honda admitted early on the major issues only arose when the unit was installed. It is amazing what issues arise when motors are installed and the aha! moment happens because of problems arising from the installation.

I called out the need for earlier and better integration testing? Are we not agreeing here?

I also called out a few examples in which a mule could have possibly helped? However my larger personal opinion was that in general, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Power unit manufacturers can legally run mules today, but there is no evidence that they do so.

Lastly, the "architectural issue" I commented on was not about reliability, but rather a design concept that was not going to work. While Honda struggled at first with reliability, they also had to make significant changes to the overall concept to get to where they are now (power and efficiency)

Richard

[S griffin]

With testing limited prior to this season, they had to make sure they got it in all done in that time

There’s no doubt the current Honda engine is up to scratch, but I think there won’t be much development now they are pulling out. So Red Bull need to keep a close eye on the engine.

Red Bull might find it tough as the season goes the way things are atm. They’ve done well so far, but they need to use what they got to keep going

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

There’s no doubt the current Honda engine is up to scratch, but I think there won’t be much development now they are pulling out. So Red Bull need to keep a close eye on the engine.

I think Red Bull will be keeping more than a close eye on the engine

'Red Bull has concluded a deal to buy Honda's F1 engine technology and will run the engines until 2024.'

What were the key factors in getting a deal over the line?
Firstly, Red Bull needed Honda to commit to developing the engine for another year, ready for 2022.

With Honda opting to leave F1 when their current agreement expires at the end of this season, their commitment to development ended when they finished upgrading the power unit that would be frozen for the 2021 campaign.

But Honda were keen not to leave Red Bull in the lurch. So they agreed to develop their power unit through this season in the way they would ordinarily have done if preparing for 2022, which means Red Bull and AlphaTauri will have an upgraded engine for next year’s campaign.

So there should be plenty of engine development going on (at least comparitive to others on the grid).

Horner (Feb 21): “They [Honda] brought forward developments that they’d planned for next year already into this year which is an enormous effort, so the main challenge is the optimisation and the development of the E10 fuel.”

[S griffin]

They need to do something. There is no guarantee the engine will work next year. I do worry if Red Bull can do it on their own. They are lucky Honda have continued for this long. But I wish them the best.

The question is can they keep the engine to the same standard as before? It will be interesting what Alpha Tauri do if Red Bull can’t do anything with the engine.

There are no guarantees Red Bull can make it work, it’s a tough job. I think Red Bull want to make sure they keep the car developed enough for this year the way things stand. Then they will worry about the future

[steve_r]

Red Bull have already signed one of the main guys from Mercedes and are building the facilities to design and build the engines. I dont see any reason why they cannot make a decent engine as long as they get the right people in.

It's a brave and bold step. Hats off to them.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Red Bull have already signed one of the main guys from Mercedes and are building the facilities to design and build the engines. I dont see any reason why they cannot make a decent engine as long as they get the right people in.

It's a brave and bold step. Hats off to them.

This.

Also isnt there an engine development freeze starting next year?

[Richard C]

My preference would have been for less direct manufacture involvement in F1, but that was always unlikely to happen. So this is the best situation for Red Bull if they plan to remain in F1 long term. Previously they have been beholden to the whims to their engine supplier. Even if they have a great working relationship, something such as the Honda exit, was generally out of their control. Taking ownership of their future from a power unit perspective is the next step.

While the Honda departure is unfortunate, it may be a gift to Red Bull long term. They probably couldn't have asked for a better partner at this time. Red Bull is jumping into the deep end, but Honda seems to have a history of taking care of those they leave behind. Brawn in the past (cheap sale to Ross and I think a season worth of salary for the team??) and with Red Bull they have worked out an IP transfer of the entire power unit (a very competitive one as well), plus Honda has committed to push hard right up until the very end. Someone else could have just said "sorry" and moved on leaving Red Bull with not many options other than to just be another customer somewhere else.

I agree with the earlier comments in that my concern is the transition from Honda to Red Bull and if they are able to manufacture and support these engines themselves. They do seem to be hiring the right people. I expect that as soon as they can, they will be wanting to be building up test engines themselves to prove out that they can and to work out the kinks in their component manufacturing and final assembly. I also expect they are likely to heavily shadow the Honda support engineers this year so that they have people ready for next year.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I called out the need for earlier and better integration testing? Are we not agreeing here?

I also called out a few examples in which a mule could have possibly helped? However my larger personal opinion was that in general, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Power unit manufacturers can legally run mules today, but there is no evidence that they do so.

Lastly, the "architectural issue" I commented on was not about reliability, but rather a design concept that was not going to work. While Honda struggled at first with reliability, they also had to make significant changes to the overall concept to get to where they are now (power and efficiency)

Richard

No we are not agreeing at all. You may recall that at the very beginning of the hybrid era it was unseen installation issues that caused all sorts of issues and it took some time before the teams began to come to grips with the problems that arose. Before installation they obviously had very few problems because if they had foreseen them the problems would not have occurred.

Honda was in exactly the same place before the first race thus Honda had to sort out the issues they had and everyone was comparing them to all the other teams that had sorted out installation issues over a few seasons. This made them look particularly bad and if they had entered at the same time as everyone else the noise surrounding them would not have been so bad. Honda blew it because they did not take the time to do practise testing of their own to develop the PU in a car and on top of that the PU technically was not good enough anyway it was looked at.

[Casper]

The big test for RB will be developing a completely new PU when the rule change happens. Mercedes could have an issue also because they have had two of their leading people leave the team in a very short time. I bet RB tried to get Andy Cowell and took Ben Hodgkinson as the consolation prize. It also had the effect of removing BH from Mercedes when they are seemingly on the back foot or at least feeling the pressure from Honda. Did Toto's stress levels just go up?