F1technical.net

godlameroso wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 19:26

ringo wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 16:48

I think the rules changes don't point to what is being done. The new rules are being proactive in preventing such things from being done.
I think oil burning is a non-story; just a distraction from the real performance differentiators; the combustion, MGUH and deployment scheduling.

The combustion is as general as you can get, the process requires CFD, chemistry, thermodynamics, engineering and a certain amount of luck to get right.Do you have any guesses as to why nailing pre-chamber combustion is so difficult? Is it a lack of precision on the engine management side? Is the combustion chamber geometry wrong? Valve timing profile? Honda has been making lots of upgrades to the fueling, induction, and exhaust systems, all of which are related to combustion.

I'm no expert but it may be down to fundamentals as the injected fuel spray pattern over a range of engine speeds, air temperatures, and number of injections and when this happens, the piston crown shape, valve angles. Many variable that require loads of engineering and scientific time and resources. I feel any engine maker can get it right once they have the time and resources, and also outsourcing data from branch industries which mercedes has the luxury of. Mercedes can outsource from their truck, autocar, and other segments. Honda may not have such a broad reaching pool of data to access and this may be soleley down to willingness to invest and involve those resources in their engine program.

Wazari wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2017, 18:05

ringo wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 16:48

I think the rules changes don't point to what is being done. The new rules are being proactive in preventing such things from being done.
I think oil burning is a non-story; just a distraction from the real performance differentiators; the combustion, MGUH and deployment scheduling.

This is a reactionary move by the FIA not a proactive one. There is definitely a significant role with lubricants that some manufacturers are using in the combustion process, not just in qualifying but at all times.

From James Allen F1. Not disagreeing with you but showing that it's not responsible for the huge power gaps that we think are possible.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/ ... eers-view/

These moves definitely where reactionary as anyone seriously following Formula 1 knows.....They might not be responsible for immense power gains but they where enough that Ferrari suffered noticeably after their implementation...

ringo wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2017, 18:35

Wazari wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2017, 18:05

ringo wrote: ↑

22 Sep 2017, 16:48

I think the rules changes don't point to what is being done. The new rules are being proactive in preventing such things from being done.
I think oil burning is a non-story; just a distraction from the real performance differentiators; the combustion, MGUH and deployment scheduling.

This is a reactionary move by the FIA not a proactive one. There is definitely a significant role with lubricants that some manufacturers are using in the combustion process, not just in qualifying but at all times.

From James Allen F1. Not disagreeing with you but showing that it's not responsible for the huge power gaps that we think are possible.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/ ... eers-view/

A good article and one that everyone here should read!

When talking here some people seem to forget that engines will always use a certain amount of oil. Especially F1 engines where they keep the piston ring pressure on the low side to reduce friction. Some of that oil has always found its way into the combustion chamber and the result is burning oil.
Are they taking advantage of that in these engines? No doubt they are - tweaking the recipe to make it more combustion friendly.
But - the oils primary job is lubrication, not fuel.
Anyone that thinks burning the oil in qualifying is what gives Mercedes their Q3 power mode does not understand how complex these power units are. The article posted gives some insight into this but there is far more to it than that.

Wait and see the performance of the Mercedes cars next year. If all of this oil burning is to be believed they will lose power / performance in 2018

restless wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2017, 17:02

HPD wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2017, 04:11

Hasegawa:

"We have another six races left, so we may introduce one more engine as a plan. That could maybe be in Malaysia, Suzuka or the U.S. [COTA]. From that point of view we will try and avoid the penalty in Suzuka obviously, and the U.S. could be a very good potential circuit for us based on the last year's results. So from that point of view Malaysia could be a chance but it's too soon to say. It will be difficult so I cannot confirm."

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/144413-hon ... -penalties

Damn it but almost sounds like no spec4 this year...

how you reached this conclusion?
this quote says something else

"I prefer to score more points this year – I'd like to contribute to this team, most of all. But of course if we can get some huge upgrade then we don't need to wait and don't need to hesitate to take a penalty."

ain't it obvious there will be no other engines unless if brings significant performance boost!!

Dear mister Wazari

i read this article.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... 52330/?s=1

How do jou compare the Honda PU to this 50 % ?
Are we far of ? can we reach that point next year ?
Thanks

jesa7271 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 08:09

Dear mister Wazari

i read this article.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merc ... 52330/?s=1

How do jou compare the Honda PU to this 50 % ?
Are we far of ? can we reach that point next year ?
Thanks

On the dyno very close. No and I think so.

[/quote]
On the dyno very close. No and I think so.
[/quote]

Kinda feel that Merc might have more in the bank but as always they like to give false hope to the rivals.
Mr Wazari, this figure you quote, is it the latest development for 18 or last year figure?

McMika98 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 21:05

On the dyno very close. No and I think so.
[/quote]

Kinda feel that Merc might have more in the bank but as always they like to give false hope to the rivals.
Mr Wazari, this figure you quote, is it the latest development for 18 or last year figure?
[/quote]
Spec 4 or 5, whatever they decide to name it.

Helmut Marko is happy with what he sees at Honda:

"And from what we learned, we have an optimistic view of the future.

"We saw both McLarens in the top 10 in Singapore, we see an engine that is developing, and we know what is going on in the background."

http://en.f1i.com/news/280591-marko-kno ... honda.html

I don't want to sound negative but Marko will act like that even if the 2018 Honda engine was exploding on the dyno (let's remember make history, we're gonna catch Ferrari before the end of the season...).

What Marko heard from Honda is the same thing that convinced McLaren to split. I don't think we can read much into it.

Joseki wrote: ↑

25 Sep 2017, 10:19

What Marko heard from Honda is the same thing that convinced McLaren to split. I don't think we can read much into it.

McLaren was commited to the split from the start of the season. I doubt they would change their mind even if Honda showed up with a Renault-level PU in Monza.

Maybe Redbull not sure for Renault level for 2018 or at least start of season but they expect and need better Honda for 2019. If they were sure they'll switch too

It is hard to imagine how Mclaren and Red bull (Toro Rosso) could come to completely different opinions while looking at the same data and receiving the same assurances.

It could be simply that Mclaren doesn't trust Honda after the last 3 years.
Honda promises may have convinced Marko and he's no fool.

Given that title sponsor of RB in 2018 will be Aston Martin... hopes for Rb-Honda union look like "hopes"