Mclaren Honda 2015

This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
Post Reply
Thunder18
0
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 13:29

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120494

McLaren-Honda Formula 1 driver Jenson Button has revised his ambitious pre-season target of winning a race this year, as he believes even a podium is now unlikely.

McLaren has struggled for both reliability and performance in 2015 and currently sits ninth in F1's constructors' championship, ahead of only Manor, with just 17 points.

Progress has been made, with Fernando Alonso scoring the team's best result of the season with fifth in Hungary before the summer break.

However, last Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix was a reality check, as Button and Alonso finished a lap down despite a major upgrade to the Honda engine.

When reminded of his pre-season comments, Button said: "I think the aim is getting both cars in the points. A podium? It's unlikely.

"For us, you have to think our best race is going to be Singapore; it's a slow-speed circuit with low-speed corners which we're very strong in.

"So that's probably the race where we will pick up the most points I should think."

Alonso echoed his team-mate's thoughts and added the remainder of the season was still important for McLaren in the context of ensuring 2016 is more productive.

"In the remaining races, we need to score and maximise every opportunity," he said.

"But if it doesn't come, we don't need to get frustrated.

"Despite the results, good or bad, we need to focus especially next year's car and use the remaining races as a test.

"We are trying to increase the performance, which is not good enough in terms of the power unit, aero stuff and mechanical grip.

"There are still many things we have to put in place to be competitive and fight for world championships.

"Monza will probably not show the progress we saw in Hungary, when we were more or less in the top 10.

"But hopefully we can see something similar in Singapore and the following races.

"For future races and next year things will look pretty different."

User avatar
adrianjordan
24
Joined: 28 Feb 2010, 11:34
Location: West Yorkshire, England

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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?

I know Honda might not like it, but could be a stop-gap as Mclaren have more experience in that area from recent seasons.
Favourite driver: Lando Norris
Favourite team: McLaren

Turned down the chance to meet Vettel at Silverstone in 2007. He was a test driver at the time and I didn't think it was worth queuing!! 🤦🏻‍♂️

User avatar
McG
-19
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 17:45

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

JB with a bit of expectation lag. May as well copy and paste it for the 2016 thread :(
F1 is dead.

Moose
52
Joined: 03 Oct 2014, 19:41

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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. :(
I don't think this is a viable explanation though.

To exit the Eau Rouge/Radillon combination fast at Spa you don't need a good engine. You need good downforce. The car doesn't get overtaken at the end of Kemmel (where you could reasonably say "it ran out of batteries"), it gets overtaken on the exit of Radillon, where everything is to do with how fast your lowest speed in the corner was.

taperoo2k
14
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 17:33

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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?
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.
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 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).

alexx_88
12
Joined: 28 Aug 2011, 10:46
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

@Moose: They said that they ran out of electric power after about half a lap (you can see the red light blinking). Makes sense, really, given how their level of performance changes according to how "power hungry" the circuit is. By their own admission, their biggest chance of another good classification will be Singapore, which is a high-downforce, start-stop circuit where plenty of time is spent in the lower gears which are traction limited, thus reducing the usage of electrical power, but helping harvesting through the number of braking points. If the PU unit would've been good and aero the problem, they would've said Monza.

I honestly don't think it's feasible to have one company produce the hybrid part in the UK, while another produce the ICE in Japan. The level of integration between modules in these PUs is immense, there's no way you could achieve that by having two completely different teams, which don't even speak the same language, working on completely different timezones.

Mclaren is a very small company and I seriously doubt they'd have the resources to compete with Mercedes, Ferrari or Renault. You need a big OEM as a partner, working side by side, if you are to succeed in the first years of these formula. After a few years things will be similar to the V8 era, where all manufacturers were pretty much on par.

KeiKo403
7
Joined: 18 Feb 2011, 00:16

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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)

alexx_88
12
Joined: 28 Aug 2011, 10:46
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

That's true, but Honda would be able to control the input of the personnel they bring in from outside. It's not a black/white area where if some engineers from Merc come in, then the Honda PU will become a copy of the old Merc PU within a few months. It's more of a way to fast-forward through maybe wrong design paths, not necessarily at the architecture level, but in the implementation work. Also, good engineers more often than not have their own ideas about how things could be improved on existing designs, so the additional experience can only benefit Honda. :)

Reading the tales of people who've worked with and within Japanese companies and the vibe that mr. Arai transmits, it seems to me that the pride of being able to say they've sorted everything out themselves surpasses the desire to succeed ASAP.

max_speed
4
Joined: 29 Oct 2012, 04:33

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

Honda insists it is not solely to blame for McLaren’s woeful 2015 Formula 1 season and have pointed to some chassis issues which have not helped matters a fact which team boss Eric Boullier admits.

With the MP4-30 raced by champions Fernando Alonso and Jenson Button still seriously off the pace, most fingers of blame have been consistently pointed at Honda, the obviously-struggling Japanese engine maker that returned to F1 this year.

But Yasuhisa Arai, Honda’s under-fire F1 chief, insists: “The [McLaren] car does not have the best mechanical and aerodynamic grip.

“Compared to Red Bull there is still a big difference,” he is quoted by El Confidencial, referring to data obtained by GPS.

McLaren has been piling the pressure on Honda to improve, but even team boss Eric Boullier admits the MP4-30 chassis is not perfect, “To be fair to Honda our chassis is better than last year’s, but not the best in the pitlane.

“Our car is quite draggy,” Boullier reportedly admitted, “we still have to improve things here and there.”

And Alonso is quoted as saying: “We are trying to improve performance. We are not good enough in power or aerodynamic and mechanical grip, so there are still many things to put in place to be competitive and win championships.”

With a mere 17 points on their scorecard so far this season, McLaren lie ninth in the constructor’s standings only ahead of perennial back markers Manor.

ChrisF1
7
Joined: 28 Feb 2013, 21:48

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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
317
Joined: 19 Apr 2013, 20:37

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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)
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.

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.

User avatar
diffuser
207
Joined: 07 Sep 2012, 13:55
Location: Montreal

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

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.

@SPA the Chassis had very little to do with how far behind they were.

I saw two clear issues, others might of seen more.

1- TOP Speed was still down on many other cars.
2- the ability to sustain top speed for long distance was lacking.

I didn't see a LOW DOWNFORCE Package(well aside from removal of the Gurneyy flap from the rear wing), I think that is cause McLaren are too busy trying to get the over all AERO right. That they don't have the time to spend on s SPA specific package but rather work on changes that can be used at many future GPs(Singapore seems to be their target).

I suspect they're carrying extra drag which is why they're top speed is down.

Then the PU can't sustain the MGU-K power output long enough.

This is what it looked like from my couch.

Thunder18
0
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 13:29

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

trinidefender wrote:
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)
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.

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.

bergie88
8
Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 12:20

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

Thunder18 wrote:
trinidefender wrote:
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)
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.

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.
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.

User avatar
Wazari
623
Joined: 17 Jun 2015, 15:49

Re: Mclaren Honda 2015

Post

Thunder18 wrote:
trinidefender wrote:
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)
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.

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.
“If Honda does not race, there is no Honda.”

“Success represents the 1% of your work which results from the 99% that is called failure.”

-- Honda Soichiro

Post Reply