JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 09:30
Obviously, as it turned out the compact packaging, axial compressor, size zero MGUH and size zero turbine ultimately hindered performance & especially cooling and was a poor decision, a decision taken at McLaren's insistence...
Compressor as well as turbine of 2015 unit was centrifugal, not axial.
JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Dec 2018, 09:30
McLaren obviously hindered Honda a lot with the size zero requirement which ultimately wasted the 2015 and 2016 seasons (due to the token system), plus an annual $100m is far better spent on the power unit than thanklessly donated to the McLaren chassis, so it is for the best they are apart.
Smaller turbo was not forced upon by McLaren, it's works partnership so overall packaging is collaboration but Honda lacked comprehensive understanding of the PU esp ERS-H and ICE at first hence wrong route. That's what very Honda project leaders and engineers said, plus even after the split with McLaren, Honda side dont say anything about it. Development is done by making demand/request each other to seek the best possible compromising point so of course there were areas where McLaren asked Honda and vice versa, you can notice every bit of traces of Brackley demanding Brixworth and vice versa as well (ditto for Ferrari and Renault), but saying size zero hindered Honda is as pointless as saying Honda forcing shorter and bigger inlet pipe (i mean just for example) hindered car design. btw so many people are obsessed way too much with the term size zero, it's just Ronspeak and making things as small/light as possible while maintaining/increasing performance is the most basic principle of engineering, V10 of mid 1990s weighed like 130kg but Yamaha's engine was below 100kg and it was said that they were ridiculous or too ambitious, but within less than 10 years V10/8 weighing comfortably less than 100kg became norm, so V10/8 of 2000's was "size zero V10/8", current gearboxes are "size zero gearbox" compared to gearboxes of 1990s,portable CD player was "size zero CD player", SD cards are "size zero memory media", and so on and on. Forget about size zero already, that's the main reason that's distorting perception of everything.
Also there is no evidence for this 100m cash giveaway stuff, it looks like Honda were paying for drivers salary, plus quite a bit as some sort of consultant fee (Honda relied on McLaren for various things from manufacturing PU parts like inlet plenum and intake, ES development, arrangement of components in Europe (battery and all those miscellaneous parts) to whatever industry info and methodology), but 100m cash unattached? quite doubtful.
Blackout wrote: ↑09 Dec 2018, 11:09
Not very impressed with Honda's progress this year. Thir progress appears logical and normal to me; nothing groundbraking. And to say they're better than Renault now is a joke... Maybe their PU has produced more peak power than the Renault in two or three qualy sessions, but what about reliability, fuel consumption, race power etc? how many Honda engines did and are capable of doing 7 gps? how many gps did their spec 3 run without breaking? Will Honda keep that peak power or increase it and sort out the reliabilty and the efficiency at the same time?
Seems you are not really aware of actual contents of issues encountered and strategy they are taking but only seeing superficial things. Spec 1 ICE did 5 races, MGU-K, ES and CE did 6 races. New TC and MGU-H introduce at 2nd race for both cars after suffering from issue in 1st race, meanwhile Hartley's first ICE plus all the other components were wiped out at 5th race by crash. Spec 2 suffered some initial hiccups but they made 5 races. Both specs didnt go through 7 GPs but new specs have arrived before 7th race and in terms of development it is disadvantageous to postpone the introduction, there is no reason to prioritize reliability evaluation over pushing performance, so. Plus once exceeding 3rd components, it's just better to introduce whole new set of PU rather than just exchange 1 or 2 components, because 1.more specimen that has been actually used on track the better for accelerating development, 2.by swapping everything you can make calibration on dyno before coming to races so you can concentrate on more important stuffs at circuit, 3.you can have more stocks in pool.
Regarding spec 3 it seems they were not supposed to introduce it this year initially but changed strategy to go aggressive and trial and evaluate it on real environment right away by using the rest of the season more as a test session (but doesnt mean they threw away race result).
Blackout wrote: ↑09 Dec 2018, 11:09
I'm not writing off honda, they can succeed, catch Renault (without having to bring a new pu every 3 gp) and really catch the others, but in 2018 did none of that, contrary to what many medias say.
I'm curious what media you are reading, because as far as I know even all those tabloids like autosport etc do not write/say such things as "they can succeed, catch others" next year let alone 2018.
Maybe it's an engine designed for not the absolute best chassis, so let's hope Newey get something slightly wrong 
