Honda is confident it will be able to improve its reliability record next season as a result of having a stable baseline to work with over the winter.
Honda's head of F1 project Yusuke Hasegawa said he was "ashamed" of the penalty during the race weekend, but he believes retaining the current power unit concept for next season will lead to a clear step forward in terms of reliability.
"This year, the biggest issue was we couldn't confirm the base power unit from the start," Hasegawa told RACER. "So all the time we needed to develop and we needed to update, and introduce [updates] at a grand prix before we could confirm the reliability or the performance.
"For next year, of course we haven't confirmed it yet, but at least we have the baseline that is the current engine. So we can use this engine at least, and we can circulate our development in the background. Then as soon as we have confirmed the reliability and the performance, we can introduce it at the grand prix.
"That way we have got more room to consider the performance and reliability before introducing upgrades."
"The car showed some good pace [at Suzuka]. I think we were quicker than Williams, quicker than Haas and quicker than Renault. So I think we had the performance to score a point if we had a good start."
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/144936-hon ... ty-in-2018
In this type of conflict, there are always good and bad. Have you defended yourself enough?
Hasegawa: I understand what you mean ... We had our problems, and McLaren was his. I could have pointed out the chassis problems encountered, but it would have been pointless to point who is responsible for what and for what. We had our problems, and we were not in a position to comment ...
http://www.autohebdo.fr/f1/actualites/h ... 89328.html
Remember knock damages power delivery. For street cars a fraction of a second of poor power is acceptable. For an F1 when a milisecond can lose you the race every bit of power is desired.. I don't think there is any advantage to running the engine in knock. None at all.dren wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pmActually, if it wasn't for Vandoorne running wide and Alonso starting from the back, they would have finished in the points on merit. Yes, there appears to be a qualification mode, which some have said is around 25hp, but it looks like the cars aren't bad in the race, either.NL_Fer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:26 pmAny ideas how Honda’s quali mode works? Power in Q3 looks good, almost comparible with Renault or even the customer Mercedes of Williams and Force India. But both drivers are going backwards in the race.
Is would it just saving the new (split)turbo, which still seems to be made from glass.
My guess is Honda is running different ignition timing to allow for better power, yet more knock for a brief period of time. It may also have something do do with the ERS and how it operates. The cars have a full lap to charge the ES to the max before they run the next lap. Then you have open waste gate running as others have speculated about.
I agree great article. Its interesting that a lot of posts think it doesn't belong in this thread and technically worthless, then spend time posting about an engine from 2005-2009. Conveniently forgetting that Darren Heath is McLaren official photographer with a full access to MTC and probably has more insight into the McLaren Honda relationship than majority of forum members.Lucky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 pmgreat article
It is technically worthless, however the insight is welcomed and would be a perfect fit in the team thread.Del Boy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:06 pmI agree great article. Its interesting that a lot of posts think it doesn't belong in this thread and technically worthless, then spend time posting about an engine from 2005-2009. Conveniently forgetting that Darren Heath is McLaren official photographer with a full access to MTC and probably has more insight into the McLaren Honda relationship than majority of forum members.Lucky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 pmgreat article
Since Mr.wazari's concern about efficiency I'm thinking about effect of every single element on efficiency and energy conversion.muramasa wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:42 pmthat's bosch's cam drive fuel pump yes, because it looks the same as last year's.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pmWhy is the fuel piping going into the valve cover (on the left side)?
I see the cam driven pump on the right.(or maybe it's just something else bolted to the valve cover?) but.. look.. no fuel lines to be seen otherwise? hmm..
Those spark plugs might be combination injectors.. TJI... with an internal passage built into the valve cover that goes into the injectors from there?
Or maybe i am just crazy, and the injector are side entry hidden from view..
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/438/32483 ... 4a2f_o.png
Last year's fuel rail or fuel line was above the coils, can not see from photos somehow but in person it's just too clear to miss.
2015's engine had side injection so fuel rail was not visible. 2016 they switched to top injection.
(sources: japanese motor magazine interviewing Honda engineers sometime in winter 2016)
This year's there is no visible fuel line on the cover. In person at least you can see that fuel line goes to the back of the cover from the pump but cannot tell if it's side or top but i'd guess internal passage in the cover as well.
All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.
Easy answer. Mechanical pumps a have higher energy density. Are not affected by heat. No magentic filed interferant. Lighter and more reliable.amho wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:23 pm
Since Mr.wazari's concern about efficiency I'm thinking about effect of every single element on efficiency and energy conversion.
Does anyone knows the advantage of using cam driven fuel pump against electrical motor driven fuel pump in these f1 engines?
correct me here as I guess that:
electrical pump has packaging advantages?
by electrical pump there is a possibility to adjust pressure-flow by pwm control of electro motor in neccessity? while by cam drive pressure increases while rev goes upward then pressure regulator adjust pressure and therefore some energy loss.
cam drive pump still consume power during off throttle phases while electrical pump could be deactivated.( I estimate that fuel pump consumes 3.5 hp ( fuel densuty 0.77 kg/lt, fuel consumption rate of 100 kg/hour, fuel rail pressure of 600 bar, pump efficiency of 85%), so in a lap of 75 sec that 20% of lap time is in off throttle state then 39150 j( for 15 sec off throttle time) could be recovered by mgu-k instead of loss by cam drive pump which is worthy of 2% of mgu-k max of 2mj.
cam drive has less energy loss caused by energy type conversion (while in electrical pump there is energy loss in mechanical to electrical then to mechanical again)?
Honda surprised the entire 'paddock' by saying they will seek to finish "in the top 3" next year. All this with Toro Rosso, one of the most modest teams, and with an engine that still gives problems.
"Those kinds of words are wrong." Hasegawa says.
- "But I want to justify Arai: I had motivation, a lot of faith and hope, what he did was transmit his wishes, as he did with Toro Rosso. we are not going to take such a big step forward, but they only convey their hopes. "
- "Maybe we sometimes fail to convey what we do, or it does not help to translate completely well"
It's all part of a larger picture where there are other factors, such as Honda's refusal to hire Western engineers. McLaren even took the reins by forcing some layoffs this year.
- "I think we have a good mix of Japanese and not Japanese ..."
https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes ... a_1461180/