F1technical.net

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2020, 19:46

nzjrs wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2020, 19:30

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2020, 19:23

some of the areas they have been caught out in are really amateur. (I’m thinking the oil tank debacle when they first returned and now the H shaft).

Why do you belive these topics, at the level and as close to the margins F1 teams operate at, are easy 'amateur'?

Because with all of their technical ability they fell down twice (oil tank and H shaft) on the basics. Regarding the H, a big company like Honda should not have divisions operating in isolation, there needs to be cross pollination of the engineering teams (and I am sure they do have it but for whatever reason it came too late). While some think this is cutting edge and hard to solve, it was in their own article that shows that it just took exposing it to another Honda division who understood the issue immediately and solved it with the first try. I hardly think that classifies as cutting edge problem solving...

Remember it took Mercedes 30% longer to solve this issue. 30% more resources, 30% more lead time. It isn't easy to solve these things, engineering challenges always exist when designing from scratch. Things which end up being amateur mistakes often go unchecked even with professional engineering firms. Hindsight is 20/20 just like this year.

Do you remember how McLaren was at odds with Honda's reluctance to seek outside help? What were they supposed to do, ask Mercedes how they did it? That wouldn't be fair to Mercedes, wouldn't be fair to the competition. The Japanese do have concepts of honor and responsibility. If either of the other two manufacturers do go split turbo, Ferrari has the best knowhow, and resources to make it happen on their own. Renault is stretched thin and if Ferrari goes split turbo(BIG IF), it would only be a matter of time before Renault follows suit.

Then it would be obvious that FIA would step in and make parts standard facilitating the change, which would make transitioning much easier and cheaper for Renault, by letting them bypass all the engineering and resources it took to solve the MGU-H shaft problem. This also goes for any manufacturer that may be tempted to join.

I feel that Honda is mulling this over as they consider 2021 and beyond. Because like it or not, Honda and Mercedes would rather all that IP not be standardized and shared freely, but at the same time having a standardized layout would reduce prices. Perhaps some financial negotiations are at play.

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2020, 19:46

nzjrs wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2020, 19:30

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2020, 19:23

some of the areas they have been caught out in are really amateur. (I’m thinking the oil tank debacle when they first returned and now the H shaft).

Why do you belive these topics, at the level and as close to the margins F1 teams operate at, are easy 'amateur'?

Because with all of their technical ability they fell down twice (oil tank and H shaft) on the basics. Regarding the H, a big company like Honda should not have divisions operating in isolation, there needs to be cross pollination of the engineering teams (and I am sure they do have it but for whatever reason it came too late). While some think this is cutting edge and hard to solve, it was in their own article that shows that it just took exposing it to another Honda division who understood the issue immediately and solved it with the first try. I hardly think that classifies as cutting edge problem solving...

Then according to your logic Ferrari and Renault are still amateurs with their MGUK failures.

Ferrari and Renault had experiences with kers which is mguk so it's surprising that Honda are doing better realibility wise than them in that department. Ok Honda the first to do hybrid road cars but when first came to f1 in 2015 they had issues for which they solved so I don't get why big companies like Renault and Ferrari backed by fiat can't get on top of reliability.

What reliability problems did FERRARI had? FERRARI ended the 2019 season as having the most reliable power unit out of the four on the grid.

Bill wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2020, 09:59

Ferrari and Renault had experiences with kers which is mguk so it's surprising that Honda are doing better realibility wise than them in that department. Ok Honda the first to do hybrid road cars but when first came to f1 in 2015 they had issues for which they solved so I don't get why big companies like Renault and Ferrari backed by fiat can't get on top of reliability.

What's more interesting is if you look back, Honda never really had any substantial MGU-K issues. They had general lack of power (premature overall design, e.g the axial compressor dead end they started with) and after a decent 2016, 2017 brought severe MGU-H issues. They didn't have many other problems in comparison to other manufacturers. It was all H disasters which would detonate and nail the entire PU.
So they must of got a handle on the K pretty early on.

ispano6 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2020, 05:27

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2020, 19:46

nzjrs wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2020, 19:30

Why do you belive these topics, at the level and as close to the margins F1 teams operate at, are easy 'amateur'?

Because with all of their technical ability they fell down twice (oil tank and H shaft) on the basics. Regarding the H, a big company like Honda should not have divisions operating in isolation, there needs to be cross pollination of the engineering teams (and I am sure they do have it but for whatever reason it came too late). While some think this is cutting edge and hard to solve, it was in their own article that shows that it just took exposing it to another Honda division who understood the issue immediately and solved it with the first try. I hardly think that classifies as cutting edge problem solving...

Then according to your logic Ferrari and Renault are still amateurs with their MGUK failures.

My logic included the aero division stepping in and solving the issue at first glance and the first go. I didn't realize Ferrari or Renault had that support also...

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2020, 16:36

ispano6 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2020, 05:27

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2020, 19:46

Because with all of their technical ability they fell down twice (oil tank and H shaft) on the basics. Regarding the H, a big company like Honda should not have divisions operating in isolation, there needs to be cross pollination of the engineering teams (and I am sure they do have it but for whatever reason it came too late). While some think this is cutting edge and hard to solve, it was in their own article that shows that it just took exposing it to another Honda division who understood the issue immediately and solved it with the first try. I hardly think that classifies as cutting edge problem solving...

Then according to your logic Ferrari and Renault are still amateurs with their MGUK failures.

My logic included the aero division stepping in and solving the issue at first glance and the first go. I didn't realize Ferrari or Renault had that support also...

The aero division started helping Honda mid 2017, still took a good year and change to get it sorted properly. They did pretty good in 2018, this still had shaft problems but they were much better than 2017. They had the luxury of over engineering the issue to largely limit it, then sculpted it down so that by late 2018 they had something that worked pretty good. 2019 had zero MGU-H issues, and I'm sure they're still improving the design.

I’m not making this up, it is what Honda have said....

"When I saw the long shaft, the turbines on both sides, and the place to support the bearings, I felt honestly," Is this really going around? ", Says Naomi Strawina.

"When I heard that it would break in a race, it was our first impression," Oh, after all. "The

biggest cause was the bearings that supported the shaft. The aircraft division changed the position and number of bearings and adjusted the installation method at each location. In addition, improvements were made such as changing the thickness of the shaft depending on the location. This enabled the shaft to rotate stably.

Yasuaki Asaki says, "It was skeptical whether it would be fixed as soon as I asked the jet."

"It was incredible to fix it in one shot. I was surprised. Even though my company, I thought that it was amazing that our company had great technical skills."

The last highlighted one is the basis of my comments about not coordinating with in-company knowledge. How does a senior engineer not realize, and is surprised, by his companies knowledge.

I’m not going to get caught up on my interpretation though, it’s fixed and that is good for Honda. I hope they learned to engage other engineering resources quicker in the future.

If Honda's skunkworks does what I expect them to, which is continue tapping into Honda's global R&D efforts, the MGUH and battery store could see new applications of carbon nanotubes and fluoride ion batteries paving the way for a new ERS. Honda F1 had been actively recruiting open positions for battery store and ERS management which must mean there is still work to be done to improve over what is currently utilized. The potential for a breakthrough is there. It will come from the contribution from another division of Honda, much like the Aircraft and fuel division.

That is why Asaki was tasked to head the secret think tank to tap into.

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2020, 17:33

I’m not making this up, it is what Honda have said....

"When I saw the long shaft, the turbines on both sides, and the place to support the bearings, I felt honestly," Is this really going around? ", Says Naomi Strawina.

"When I heard that it would break in a race, it was our first impression," Oh, after all. "The

biggest cause was the bearings that supported the shaft. The aircraft division changed the position and number of bearings and adjusted the installation method at each location. In addition, improvements were made such as changing the thickness of the shaft depending on the location. This enabled the shaft to rotate stably.

Yasuaki Asaki says, "It was skeptical whether it would be fixed as soon as I asked the jet."

"It was incredible to fix it in one shot. I was surprised. Even though my company, I thought that it was amazing that our company had great technical skills."

The last highlighted one is the basis of my comments about not coordinating with in-company knowledge. How does a senior engineer not realize, and is surprised, by his companies knowledge.

I’m not going to get caught up on my interpretation though, it’s fixed and that is good for Honda. I hope they learned to engage other engineering resources quicker in the future.

You are making a big deal out of nothing. This is normal across engineering bodies. A narrow two foot long shaft ratating over 100krpm is not what you would encouter in motorsport. According to the article it was external excitation that caused the problems too, likely jolts and jerks from the racetrack that cannot be replicated on a dyno, so I won't berate them for not catching it the first time out.

It is very unfortunate that the engineering became so compartmentalized. Solving such a "mysterious puzzle" was not that difficult in the older times where knowledge was more holistic. It takes a healthy dose of mechanical empathy to visualize something in operation - in this case it is enough when you watched a weight lifting competition or you saw the famous video of the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge...

What reliability problems did FERRARI had

Ferrari had realibility issues in Bahrain and Russia where victory was almost certain.measuring reliability by looking at the number of components used is misleading.

Measuring reliability over a season. Encountering reliability on track can sometimes be rectified without having to replacing parts that counts towards a parts replacement penalty, Honda, ‘to some extant’ had managed to avoid much of such encounters on track by pushing out numbers of parts used over the season although disguised as updates, but that sort of reliability can also result in point’s loss. Having said all that, the facts over last season still shows that the FERRARI power unit was the most reliable of the four on the grid statistically.

hollus wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2020, 21:19

Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

fix that for you Hollus