F1technical.net

ASSUMING AMuS somehow knows the figures. We are looking at close to a 10hp bump since Hungary. We are also looking at a hugely improved low engine speed torque curve allowing improved upshifting, dropped vibrations and better driveability (from Hasegawa himself). This Monza "3.7", we really have no info on apart from a speculative hp figure... It would be foolish to assume they'd bring the engine if all it did was bring 3-5hp, it must have other improvements. The updates are rollling in quicker and quicker. I will not be surprised if we see a resurgence in Singapore, away from these two super unfavourable tracks.
Vandoorne's 14th in Spa in front of a Haas and with Renault, Toro Rosso, Williams all scattered within a 15 second margin is not as horrendous as this forum has made out for the last 5 pages. If Alonso could of continued.. who knows. He took a precaution it seems.

Anyway... it is really painful right but I still think stick with Honda, next years engine will be the first true year 2 engine, it will be an evolved version of this year with the architecture they they've gotten right, every weekend is essentially a test for next year, this hasn't been true for any previous year, it provides a confidence we haven't been allowed since this project began. Renault who is testing "a new concept altogether" for 2018 and who have zero confidence in their ability to supply a 4th team... this frightens me far more.

A 100hp jump over the winter is not going to happen.

Renault has a better chance of bridging most of the 40hp they are behind. Even better they would let them brand it Mclaren.

And they still will be behind the top as Merc has 4 months development time as they are done for this year.

FW17 wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 06:01

A 100hp jump over the winter is not going to happen.

Renault has a better chance of bridging most of the 40hp they are behind. Even better they would let them brand it Mclaren.

And they still will be behind the top as Merc has 4 months development time as they are done for this year.

100HP... that you're final guess?
And even if that were the case, it is entirely possible they can make up a majority of that deficit by the Australian GP 2018. I mean we've had bumps of around 15hp since this "Honda power comparison" has been hot topic. We are being told there are future updates coming this year with the largest due in a few races time. It's a feasible stretch to assume the deficit would be halved by seasons end and if Hasegawa is confident they can overthrow Renault by then, well let's see what they can do, I reckon they could at least get mighty close.
Add in the fact they will likely be working overtime on perfecting the engine during the winter break and like I've said before, 2018 will be the first year Honda can finally debut a second generation, without major architectural change, engine since it's return. They'll be able to steam train the development the whole way through without the changes and risks like years prior.
What I assume will be called the RA618H could POTENTIALLY be the engine we have been aching for. Honda used to nickname their PU's, like Erica and Greyhawk in the past, they should call the 618 "Fatebringer"...

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2017, 23:03

henry wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2017, 19:27

In case you don't understand the relevance. Imagine if when the wastegates open the pressure in the exhaust goes down and ICE makes extra crank power. If in this mode the turbine still extracts energy from the exhaust pulses ( blowdown) that power can supplement the power provided by the MGU-H to drive the compressor. The more blowdown power the longer the wastegate open mode can be deployed.

The topic I reference above was topic 5 in a bing search for "blowdown turbine".

I'd refer you to my earlier post in this thread on the need to respect others terminology and mental models but I think I'd be wasting my time.

Yup. I remember that topic clearly - I participated in that "blowdown" discussion and I even remember the articles he posted. They were useful. Most of the materials were on older aircraft and diesel engines. I did say that I respect his terminology. You didn't even read my post but are quick to villainize. Check that topic again.

I apologise unreservedly. I was wrong in every way.

This horsepower talk is useless in this engine formula.

Better talk would be.....

Who has better ERS mapping?
Who can deploy the recovered energy the most per lap without hurting ICE performance?
Who can turn up the wick(ICE) longest during the race?

Sasha wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 09:02

This horsepower talk is useless in this engine formula.

Better talk would be.....

Who has better ERS mapping?
Who can deploy the recovered energy the most per lap without hurting ICE performance?
Who can turn up the wick(ICE) longest during the race?

yup, Honda's biggest weakness is powering down the straights we know, but lots of work going into low-end torque and driveablilty. Focus on power delivery at the moment rather than the straight line speed.

I'd love to know more about the ERS mapping systems, especially since Alonso's lap where it lost track of car and didn't deploy, I always thought the driver had control of all this.

wuzak wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 00:55

radosav wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2017, 23:34

Well, if difference between 3.6 and 3.7 engine is 3hp, then 4.0 spec should have 12 hp more than 3.6 spec.
Spec 5.0 should have 42 hp more than 3.6 spec engine.

Only 100hp more to go then!

According to the BBC they are around 80BHP down on the customer Mercedes and sources have indicated that the big update should bring around 40BHP and it will come after the Japanese GP. Seeing these updates come in, it at least seems that they are finally on the right path.

FW17 wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 06:01

A 100hp jump over the winter is not going to happen.

Renault has a better chance of bridging most of the 40hp they are behind. Even better they would let them brand it Mclaren.

And they still will be behind the top as Merc has 4 months development time as they are done for this year.

Renault is only 15-20 BHP down in racetrim.

dear god, that is such a huge top speed diference...

anyway i think more dificult than bridging that 100hp gap , is to close that gap for everylap.. i mean i think they have less of a gap over a 1 lap qualy, but they just cant maintain that many HP over the race...

so even if they close down the 100hp gap.. i think the challenge is how are they going to close the gap in race trim over the GP... as far as i can see.. they just dont have the ES deployment after 1 or 2 laps.. is almost non existent compared with the other teams...

BrunoH wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 11:57

dear god, that is such a huge top speed diference...

anyway i think more dificult than bridging that 100hp gap , is to close that gap for everylap.. i mean i think they have less of a gap over a 1 lap qualy, but they just cant maintain that many HP over the race...

so even if they close down the 100hp gap.. i think the challenge is how are they going to close the gap in race trim over the GP... as far as i can see.. they just dont have the ES deployment after 1 or 2 laps.. is almost non existent compared with the other teams...

You forget drivers are getting a tow now and then so the gap seems ridiculous.


I find it incredible that the 2004/5 cars were going over 350km/u without a tow back then

According to portuguese Autosport, Mclaren was testing the Singapore setup:

https://www.autosport.pt/formula1/gp-it ... ro-treino/

It's okay saying 10hp update here, 15hp update there - we'll soon be up front!
But, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, Merc, Ferrari, Renault are also bringing 5hp here, 10hp there, 15 with an update...you're trying to hit a moving target, even if it's easier for you to find power than them.

That's the frustration with all these tiny updates - a 60bhp upgrade now is worth more than 4 x 20bhp updates over 6-7 months...

Sasha wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 09:02

This horsepower talk is useless in this engine formula.

Better talk would be.....

Who has better ERS mapping?
Who can deploy the recovered energy the most per lap without hurting ICE performance?
Who can turn up the wick(ICE) longest during the race?

Yes, the ERS as a whole is likely an area for future gains. The combustion update may have a negative knock on effect on the ERS if the ICE efficiency is improved. The entire PU system should be designed accordingly. Maybe that was Wazari's statement saying he thought it was odd the order the updated parts have been put on the PU.

GhostF1 wrote: ↑

01 Sep 2017, 06:50

100HP... that you're final guess?

Fair

Let us not put numbers on it.

Which do you believe is true?
1) Gap between Merc and Honda on 1st Sept 2016 is same as 1st Sept 2017
2) Gap between Merc and Honda on 1st Sept 2016 is more than on 1st Sept 2017
3) Gap between Merc and Honda on 1st Sept 2016 is less than on 1st Sept 2017

So what would be the gap on 1st Sept 2018?

I feel sorry for the mods who have to moderate this thread.