Mclaren MP4-30 Honda

[damager21]

Honda as 3rd stronges ICE 30hp down on Ferrari,50 down on Mercedes and 20 up on Renault.
-The problem is ERS,Honda built the smallest turbo and expected to achieve the needed power by running at maximum permited revs 125,000 rpm, whereas Mercedes have a much bigger turbo that spins @little over 100,000 rpm.
-there are no bearings to withstand that kind of rotation
-Honda has set up a working group at the Research Centre of Sakura to address and resolve the issue

https://translate.google.de/translate?s ... t=&act=url

I am surprised that Arai believes that Honda engine is not far behind Ferrari. 30hp is a lot of power difference. Also lets not forget that Ferrari has 7 tokens in hand as compared to Honda which has only 4 tokens. Also, I would say Honda is only 20 hp ahead of Renault which has 12 tokens in hand.

Having said that, if these numbers were true, I would applaud Honda for producing a strong ICE despite this being their first year in this new engine era. I hope they can turn around the shortcomings of their ERS for next year and McLaren comes up with a better aero package.

This is what Arai said about McLaren package.

"The car generates a resistance (drag) too large - attacked Arai - We have improved the engine power, but it did not do anything because of the resistance of the car. As for the engine, we can express the deficit to rivals in numbers, while the shortcomings of the frame is not so simple "

In fact Eric has also confirmed that McLaren does not have the best package. From that point of view it will be unfair to blame only Honda. They produced a tightly package engine to help McLaren come up with a superior package. Unfortunately, McLaren did not manage to do that.

[Jef Patat]

Amus:

The new packaging has resulted in a leaner and flatter bonnet (below). Above the neck of a fin can be seen below some bulges are gone.

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/McL ... 891676.jpg

Honestly, the engine cover on the bottom looks bulkier and larger. The bumps have dissapeared because the engine cover expanded to cover them I think. Look at the bulge running below the Honda log - it's much less shrink wrapped in the below picture.

I don't think so, look at it from a different angle:
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 96#p595996

[Sixbarboost]

Honda as 3rd stronges ICE 30hp down on Ferrari,50 down on Mercedes and 20 up on Renault.
-The problem is ERS,Honda built the smallest turbo and expected to achieve the needed power by running at maximum permited revs 125,000 rpm, whereas Mercedes have a much bigger turbo that spins @little over 100,000 rpm.
-there are no bearings to withstand that kind of rotation
-Honda has set up a working group at the Research Centre of Sakura to address and resolve the issue

https://translate.google.de/translate?s ... t=&act=url

There are no bearings to withstand that rotation ? ..... Yes there are. Passenger car turbos run maybe 200k rpm or more, even commercial vehicle has turbos that can run more than 100k.

If there is a problem with 125 kRpm, I would suspect it's down to the MGU-H rather than the turbo?

[GoranF1]

Here is what a detailed GPS readings from SPA say about how much is down to Honda PU and how much is down to Mclaren chassis and aero.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/re ... gp-report/

[Sixbarboost]

Here is what a detailed GPS readings from SPA say about how much is down to Honda PU and how much is down to Mclaren chassis and aero.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/re ... gp-report/

Can you be a bit more specific, where?

[damager21]

Here is what a detailed GPS readings from SPA say about how much is down to Honda PU and how much is down to Mclaren chassis and aero.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/re ... gp-report/

Can you be a bit more specific, where?

Detailed GPS analysis suggested that 60 per cent of that deficit (1.6 sec) was accounted for by the power unit. 30 per cent (0.8 sec) from the chassis and 10 per cent (0.27 sec) from accumulated losses due to not being able to run the car in optimum trim because of the power shortfall.

[jk-27]

Here is what a detailed GPS readings from SPA say about how much is down to Honda PU and how much is down to Mclaren chassis and aero.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/re ... gp-report/

Can you be a bit more specific, where?

Detailed GPS analysis suggested that 60 per cent of that deficit (1.6 sec) was accounted for by the power unit. 30 per cent (0.8 sec) from the chassis and 10 per cent (0.27 sec) from accumulated losses due to not being able to run the car in optimum trim because of the power shortfall.

Interesting that the same article says the McLaren was the fastest of all in the slow corners (although this may be due to running lower tyre pressures), and 3rd to 4th in the medium speed, but mediocre in the high speed (probably due to running less wing to compensate for the engine). So Arai's comments don't really stack up, the chassis seems honest.

If those deficits were overcome the McLaren would be right on pace with Mercedes. That's asking too much of course, but unfortunately even a 50% improvement still won't get them in to the top 10. And of course other teams are improving so even more is needed. With every statement of improvement from McLaren, they seem to be going further and further backwards.

[trinidefender]

Checking out garrett's turbocharger page a lot of the turbos have a limit of about 125,000 rpm for the amount of massflow these engines are looking at through the compressor, 53lbs/min to 63lbslbs/min. These are mainly for roller bearing turbos which are on the high end of the scale and usually equate to a pressure ratio of 3:1 to 3.5:1, similar to what is being run in F1.

Where you guys are getting the passenger car turbos run 200k rpm figures from I don't know.

[trinidefender]

Here is what a detailed GPS readings from SPA say about how much is down to Honda PU and how much is down to Mclaren chassis and aero.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/re ... gp-report/

Can you be a bit more specific, where?

Detailed GPS analysis suggested that 60 per cent of that deficit (1.6 sec) was accounted for by the power unit. 30 per cent (0.8 sec) from the chassis and 10 per cent (0.27 sec) from accumulated losses due to not being able to run the car in optimum trim because of the power shortfall.

What this data doesn't seem to account for is the speed scrubbed off in the corners. In a comparison video posted earlier by somebody it shows the McLaren going around a slight rich hand corner flat out (driver does not lift off). When you go around a corner flat out and you scrub off speed it means that the some of the energy previously put into going straight is now countered by extra friction of the car turning around the corner. The McLaren lost so much going around those corners because the engine was simply not powerful enough. You can see it on the telemetry that the drivers do not lift but the car loses a lot of speed through the corner. This is more a function of lack of power rather than not enough downforce.

[Sixbarboost]

Agreed, I find that "GPS analysis" somewhat suspicious to put it mildly, cornering speed is often a function of power as the driver is on the throttle very early through the bends.

[Pieoter]

Checking out garrett's turbocharger page a lot of the turbos have a limit of about 125,000 rpm for the amount of massflow these engines are looking at through the compressor, 53lbs/min to 63lbslbs/min. These are mainly for roller bearing turbos which are on the high end of the scale and usually equate to a pressure ratio of 3:1 to 3.5:1, similar to what is being run in F1.

Where you guys are getting the passenger car turbos run 200k rpm figures from I don't know.

It appears that the 200,000rpm turbos are the small turbos used on "economy" engines.

http://www.full-race.com/articles/insid ... f-150.html
"BorgWarner Turbo Systems K03 turbochargers...Spooled before 2000 RPM and spinning over 200,000 RPM"

https://turbo.honeywell.com/whats-new-i ... esel-cars/

Also mentions 200,000rpm.

[diffuser]

Agreed, I find that "GPS analysis" somewhat suspicious to put it mildly, cornering speed is often a function of power as the driver is on the throttle very early through the bends.

I find it hard to argue with the GPS data. It did say that the PU was 60% of the lap time problem vs 30% for aero.

With how poor the aero was last year and with all the lack of running issues they've had to endure this year, I find it hard to believe they've improved that much.

[rgava]

I don't think bearings are the problem for the MGU-H to reach 125.000 rpm. There are several bearing thechnologies to work on this range.
For me, the problem is the generator itself.
125.000 rpm in 25 mm radius meant 437 g of centrifugal acceleration. It's very hard to keep rotor components on site with this acceleration in a high temperature environment.

[Thunder18]

Arai says, now 30bhp down on Ferrari, what's going on exactly, is something getting lost in translation?

Before Spa, on par with Scud. Now way behind. Is he playing mind games. Is he talking ICE only?? What's going on?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120561

[superdowg316]

I hope McLaren and Honda can get all of their problems sorted before the start of next season at least. Seeing two guys who have been fighting for the championship in recent years and are some of the best talent to have stepped into a F1 car finish P-Nowhere for most of the races is heartbreaking, especially with a team with such heritage and a large resource network like McLaren.

Unless, of course, McLaren-Honda know that the 2017 regulation changes are happening and aren't too far away and are putting all of their resources into producing a bulletproof car for Fernando and Kevin/Stoffel like they did back in 1998. But they wouldn't be that bold and risky, would they?