I don't think this is a viable explanation though.alexx_88 wrote:I think things can be explained a lot easier. I also don't believe the PU is even near Mercedes or Ferrari in terms of overall performance. Fact is that Mclaren performed best on 'twisty' circuits and sectors, not on fast circuits.
Their problem can be explained much easier and, for that, we need to look past the PR talk. If you take it word by word, they haven't really lied, but what the general public understands is completely different. Let me explain.
Firstly, let's take Arai's press releases before Spa. He said they already have an engine more powerful than the Renault and they want to get closer to Ferrari through this upgrade. Fact is that in terms of peak power, all engines are probably quite close. You have a turbo ICE which is flow limited, so all manufacturers will get very similar outputs and a fixed 160Hp output from the MGU-K. That's it! In terms of top values, they are all probably easily within 50Hp, if not less.
No, the key here is sustainability. At Spa, the Mclarens lost all electrical energy after 1/2 a lap, having to spend the other half recharging the batteries. On the other hand, you have Mercedes and Ferrari which are able to use the MGU-H to harvest exhaust energy and use that to recharge the batteries and power the MGU-K on the long straights. With simplistic calculations (2MJ/lap MGU-K harvesting limit with 120KW delivery limit), you get only 17s of MGU-K full power delivery each lap. Rest of the lap is then spent being 160HP down. That's why Honda's pains are way bigger on power circuits like Spa and Monza where a lot of time is spent at full-throttle.
I have faith though. If their only major design flaw is now that they are not able to harvest enough from the MGU-H, that's easily rectifiable over winter, as Ferrari have shown last year. However, corporate mentality seems to be different in the two companies and this might be Honda's pitfall.
Whereas Ferrari realized the design flaw last year and by this time in 2014 they had already employed highly experienced hybrid engineers, Honda are taking the DIY route by trying to solve everything themselves, with no help from the outside. This is not necessarily bad if they are thinking of becoming a university or a training center for their engineers. Very bad idea otherwise. Having not designed a modern KERS system ever, having a year down on the other manufacturers, having a smaller budget, having no meaningful hybrid turbo experience and in a formula where upgrades are heavily regulated. Time will tell obviously, but I'm afraid their pride in not taking in outside help might destroy this partnership and Mclaren with it.
Don't think there is, but I've not looked at the rules as carefully as others have. It's not really a case of McLaren building it's own hybrid systems and bolting them onto a Honda ICE and Turbo solving all the issues. I also suspect the PR guff is merely a distraction from whatever the problems are, which probably range from the design of the power unit to how McLaren and Honda are working together. If they are not on the same page, then they won't resolve the issues as quickly as they should. Which could be more of an issue with the management side of things, rather than the engineers.adrianjordan wrote:Is there anything in the rules that would prevent Mclaren building their own MGU-H and MGU-K and using those in place of the Honda ones?
The best way for Honda engineers to learn is for Honda to let them work more closely with McLaren's engineers on the hybrid side of things. However lets not panic, if the partnership comes good by 2016 or 2017 then the pain of 2015 will have been worth it. If the partnership fails ? I can see McLaren designing it's own power units if they can't get power units off Renault or Mercedes (Ferrari is probably off the table, given the history).I know Honda might not like it, but could be a stop-gap as Mclaren have more experience in that area from recent seasons.
The thing is for a manufacturer, designing and building these PU's is like a Masters/PHD student going about their research thesis. They are constantly trying to find new and innovative ways of doing things to improve on something. However if, for example, part of their project that has technology never tried before shows that the original solution was better then you can drop that one part and include a more conventional solution into an overall new idea/concept/design. Engineering is about making the best thing possible with the current resources and any limitations presented to you.KeiKo403 wrote:I think the people who are saying Honda are wrong for not taking expert advice/engineers need to look at the situation from a different point of view.
That view point being, Honda are in this to learn (not copy) new feats of engineering. There's a well known saying "if you keep doing what yopu've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got" suffice to say, if they take what McLaren have learnt from their time with Mercedes then they'll always be blinkered to "how to achieve what they McMerc did".
What they need to do is innovate without any outside influence, and they're in the best position to do that (both geographically and knowledge wise).
It's like saying to anyone, go build me Hybrid V6 Turbo engine which meets F1 regulations. All but some would start studying Merc AMG's PU and build from there as though the product that they see infront of them is a blueprint.
If Honda take advice they are at risk of being blinkered into the Merc's way of building the PU. They can't beat that PU with the same design philosophy, they need to be different. Yes Merc PU is the one to beat but for all we know the initial design of the Merc PU might only allow it to reach 90% of the potential that the regs allow for, Honda going down a different path might make it to 95%....time will tell.....but lets stop beating on Honda for wanting to do things their way (what could be argued, the right way to engineer)
ChrisF1 wrote:So, how much do we think the chassis is behind, 6-8 tenths, maybe a second? I don't think it's possible to make up more than 40% of the 3+ seconds they were behind at Spa.
trinidefender wrote:The thing is for a manufacturer, designing and building these PU's is like a Masters/PHD student going about their research thesis. They are constantly trying to find new and innovative ways of doing things to improve on something. However if, for example, part of their project that has technology never tried before shows that the original solution was better then you can drop that one part and include a more conventional solution into an overall new idea/concept/design. Engineering is about making the best thing possible with the current resources and any limitations presented to you.KeiKo403 wrote:I think the people who are saying Honda are wrong for not taking expert advice/engineers need to look at the situation from a different point of view.
That view point being, Honda are in this to learn (not copy) new feats of engineering. There's a well known saying "if you keep doing what yopu've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got" suffice to say, if they take what McLaren have learnt from their time with Mercedes then they'll always be blinkered to "how to achieve what they McMerc did".
What they need to do is innovate without any outside influence, and they're in the best position to do that (both geographically and knowledge wise).
It's like saying to anyone, go build me Hybrid V6 Turbo engine which meets F1 regulations. All but some would start studying Merc AMG's PU and build from there as though the product that they see infront of them is a blueprint.
If Honda take advice they are at risk of being blinkered into the Merc's way of building the PU. They can't beat that PU with the same design philosophy, they need to be different. Yes Merc PU is the one to beat but for all we know the initial design of the Merc PU might only allow it to reach 90% of the potential that the regs allow for, Honda going down a different path might make it to 95%....time will tell.....but lets stop beating on Honda for wanting to do things their way (what could be argued, the right way to engineer)
From what I can see is that Honda is trying to innovate in a set of very spec engine regulations. Especially as these regulations place a lot of emphasis on the ERS package which to be fair to honda, is still a new and young technology field. The ICE side is very spec and leaves very little to the imagination.
This is just my feeling and personal opinion but I can't help but think that Honda should have brought in a bit more help from the outside for the ERS side of things. For the simple reason that they have no experience in it except for in their road cars which doesn't translate very well into race technology. They didn't even have to go to F1 teams, they could have gone to teams from endurance racing and university researchers who are looking into this technology.
Back to my original point. Honda should stuck to what they know best which is the ICE and tried to recruit people for the ERS side of things. That is just my opinion.
Nice post, I think you are quite close to the problem. It is also very strange that Honda seems to make exactly the same mistake as Ferrari made last year, underestimating the importance of the MGU-H and therefore under-sizing the components related to it.Thunder18 wrote:trinidefender wrote:The thing is for a manufacturer, designing and building these PU's is like a Masters/PHD student going about their research thesis. They are constantly trying to find new and innovative ways of doing things to improve on something. However if, for example, part of their project that has technology never tried before shows that the original solution was better then you can drop that one part and include a more conventional solution into an overall new idea/concept/design. Engineering is about making the best thing possible with the current resources and any limitations presented to you.KeiKo403 wrote:I think the people who are saying Honda are wrong for not taking expert advice/engineers need to look at the situation from a different point of view.
That view point being, Honda are in this to learn (not copy) new feats of engineering. There's a well known saying "if you keep doing what yopu've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got" suffice to say, if they take what McLaren have learnt from their time with Mercedes then they'll always be blinkered to "how to achieve what they McMerc did".
What they need to do is innovate without any outside influence, and they're in the best position to do that (both geographically and knowledge wise).
It's like saying to anyone, go build me Hybrid V6 Turbo engine which meets F1 regulations. All but some would start studying Merc AMG's PU and build from there as though the product that they see infront of them is a blueprint.
If Honda take advice they are at risk of being blinkered into the Merc's way of building the PU. They can't beat that PU with the same design philosophy, they need to be different. Yes Merc PU is the one to beat but for all we know the initial design of the Merc PU might only allow it to reach 90% of the potential that the regs allow for, Honda going down a different path might make it to 95%....time will tell.....but lets stop beating on Honda for wanting to do things their way (what could be argued, the right way to engineer)
From what I can see is that Honda is trying to innovate in a set of very spec engine regulations. Especially as these regulations place a lot of emphasis on the ERS package which to be fair to honda, is still a new and young technology field. The ICE side is very spec and leaves very little to the imagination.
This is just my feeling and personal opinion but I can't help but think that Honda should have brought in a bit more help from the outside for the ERS side of things. For the simple reason that they have no experience in it except for in their road cars which doesn't translate very well into race technology. They didn't even have to go to F1 teams, they could have gone to teams from endurance racing and university researchers who are looking into this technology.
Back to my original point. Honda should stuck to what they know best which is the ICE and tried to recruit people for the ERS side of things. That is just my opinion.
Honda went into F1 with plenty of knowledge on the energy recovery systems, (one of the first production Hybrid manufacturers out there) but they as they already stated they underestimated technology that's already being used.
They don't have enough tokens left to fix the ERS problem, so as this year was always going to be a testing year, testing will continue further.
From a person with knowledge over on vtec.net
"Honda's Turbo/MGU-H either is too small or wasn't designed to transfer energy directly to the MGU-K.(remember that is a grey area in the rules around 4mj per lap.....in the past Honda always see rules in black and white and never go for the grey area)
I pick they went to small with the Turbo/MGU-H and that is why they can't fix it this year(too many tokens and short on time)
So at tracks like Spa and Monza with long straits and very few corners......the MGU-H is the most important thing.
to correct the MGU-H.....they must redo the whole PU....it is like dominos falling....all parts work together.
So this year with their tokens they fixed the ICE and MGU-K(a must,it was overheating and eating seals)
Next season...new ERS(MGU-H,MGU-K and Battery) and Turbo.
Also more ICE upgrades.
I am going to disagree. Yes Honda does have experience in current "hybrid" technology. That is, mechanical recovery to recharge the batteries. Thermal recovery is a whole different matter and Honda does not a lot of experience in this area. I don't know if they went "too small" with their turbo/MGU-H but I really don't believe that is the problem.Thunder18 wrote:trinidefender wrote:The thing is for a manufacturer, designing and building these PU's is like a Masters/PHD student going about their research thesis. They are constantly trying to find new and innovative ways of doing things to improve on something. However if, for example, part of their project that has technology never tried before shows that the original solution was better then you can drop that one part and include a more conventional solution into an overall new idea/concept/design. Engineering is about making the best thing possible with the current resources and any limitations presented to you.KeiKo403 wrote:I think the people who are saying Honda are wrong for not taking expert advice/engineers need to look at the situation from a different point of view.
That view point being, Honda are in this to learn (not copy) new feats of engineering. There's a well known saying "if you keep doing what yopu've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got" suffice to say, if they take what McLaren have learnt from their time with Mercedes then they'll always be blinkered to "how to achieve what they McMerc did".
What they need to do is innovate without any outside influence, and they're in the best position to do that (both geographically and knowledge wise).
It's like saying to anyone, go build me Hybrid V6 Turbo engine which meets F1 regulations. All but some would start studying Merc AMG's PU and build from there as though the product that they see infront of them is a blueprint.
If Honda take advice they are at risk of being blinkered into the Merc's way of building the PU. They can't beat that PU with the same design philosophy, they need to be different. Yes Merc PU is the one to beat but for all we know the initial design of the Merc PU might only allow it to reach 90% of the potential that the regs allow for, Honda going down a different path might make it to 95%....time will tell.....but lets stop beating on Honda for wanting to do things their way (what could be argued, the right way to engineer)
From what I can see is that Honda is trying to innovate in a set of very spec engine regulations. Especially as these regulations place a lot of emphasis on the ERS package which to be fair to honda, is still a new and young technology field. The ICE side is very spec and leaves very little to the imagination.
This is just my feeling and personal opinion but I can't help but think that Honda should have brought in a bit more help from the outside for the ERS side of things. For the simple reason that they have no experience in it except for in their road cars which doesn't translate very well into race technology. They didn't even have to go to F1 teams, they could have gone to teams from endurance racing and university researchers who are looking into this technology.
Back to my original point. Honda should stuck to what they know best which is the ICE and tried to recruit people for the ERS side of things. That is just my opinion.
Honda went into F1 with plenty of knowledge on the energy recovery systems, (one of the first production Hybrid manufacturers out there) but they as they already stated they underestimated technology that's already being used.
They don't have enough tokens left to fix the ERS problem, so as this year was always going to be a testing year, testing will continue further.
From a person with knowledge over on vtec.net
"Honda's Turbo/MGU-H either is too small or wasn't designed to transfer energy directly to the MGU-K.(remember that is a grey area in the rules around 4mj per lap.....in the past Honda always see rules in black and white and never go for the grey area)
I pick they went to small with the Turbo/MGU-H and that is why they can't fix it this year(too many tokens and short on time)
So at tracks like Spa and Monza with long straits and very few corners......the MGU-H is the most important thing.
to correct the MGU-H.....they must redo the whole PU....it is like dominos falling....all parts work together.
So this year with their tokens they fixed the ICE and MGU-K(a must,it was overheating and eating seals)
Next season...new ERS(MGU-H,MGU-K and Battery) and Turbo.
Also more ICE upgrades.