Whether Honda’s placing of the MGU-k alongside the battery ahead of the engine (rather than remote and behind the engine) was as a result of Newey’s request to shorten the PU isn’t a level of detail anyone is giving at the moment, but it would certainly be consistent with that. Being able to place the MGU-k there is one of the freedoms opened up by the new PU regulations. But it’s possible this has contributed to the battery-damaging vibration issue.
We don’t know the potential performance of the Honda PU until the vibration issue allows the full harvesting/deployment to be used. At no stage in testing were we comparing like-with-like relative to the four other PUs and the difference is likely to be stark when that basic issue is corrected. The gearbox problem is apparently a six-month fix. An overheating PU is not a fundamental technical problem, but it may require some compromise on that tight-fitting bodywork. Correcting these issues will all eat into the separate cost caps of the team and Honda and thereby slow development. But none of them sounds like a core problem requiring a rethink of the whole concept. They sound much more like how a complex project looks when compared to others several months ahead. But the calendar doesn’t wait. So the public pain of the whole team will have to be endured.
But don’t mock ambition. Think of where we might be six months from now, with the full aerodynamic potential of the car coming on song.
Ask Mark
Put your questions to Motor Sport’s grand prix editor, who answers a selection each week in the Motor Sport F1 Show podcast
Can’t see the form? CLICK HERE