F1technical.net

Double engine change for Button this weekend. On race 18 of 20. Phase 4 and they still don't feel they can count on a brand new engine to last for three events.

___ wrote:Double engine change for Button this weekend. On race 18 of 20. Phase 4 and they still don't feel they can count on a brand new engine to last for three events.

Introducing one new engine does basically carry the same penalty (starting at the back of the grid) as introducing two new engines during one weekend. So it might just as well be a case of "better safe than sorry".

Does anyone knows about top speed or speed traps of two spec engines in Austin?

Button mentions the compressor does niet like the high altitude thin air. He must be regering ti the fact Honda cannot increase the turbo rpm, to compressie the thin air to requered pressure.

The big question is how do you get a small turbo that has to spin fast to achieve the correct boost, to impart enough torque to the MGU-H for it to make a worthwhile charge? They banked on using revs to get the mgu-h to charge, it's obvious from the compact package they have. I think they can make it work, I think they underestimated the importance of turbine torque in generating power in the mgu-h.

Torque and rpm have equal influence on power. No problem reducing one as long as you increase the other by the same ratio.

Built the mgu in a way it spins in its optimal working area i guess.

For what i understand, Honda techs have a hard time cooling the turbo and mgu, spinning at that higher rpm, running it reliable. And more shocking, underestimated that it is possible to harvest enough to deploy mgu-k for a full lap.

That's the thing, you have to think backwards. First get the MGU-H to harvest the maximum and eliminate lag. Then size the turbo. THEN build the ICE. Then optimize the lubes and fuel. I have to wonder if the lack of clear partnership between Mobil and Honda is hurting the MacHonda development. Fuel and lubes are incredibly important this year. You'd think that MacHonda would have a good idea what Petronas is burning, but maybe they can't get the same combustion concept to work?

I thought I heard Alonso say there was a problem with the "rotating assembly". If that is the case, it would seem Honda can't even get the ICE part down. This is seriously worrisome as it seems Honda has had a harder time than Renault getting their PU to work. Honestly, I would like to see Honda produce something competitive; somebody needs to.

NL_Fer wrote: And more shocking, underestimated that it is possible to harvest enough to deploy mgu-k for a full lap.

I doubt that, I think it's just more they hit a fundamental issue with the way they wanted to harvest and deploy. Mclaren would know how much power they'd been able to harvest and deploy with the Merc for Honda to work from anyway.

tuj wrote:That's the thing, you have to think backwards. First get the MGU-H to harvest the maximum and eliminate lag. Then size the turbo. THEN build the ICE. Then optimize the lubes and fuel. I have to wonder if the lack of clear partnership between Mobil and Honda is hurting the MacHonda development. Fuel and lubes are incredibly important this year. You'd think that MacHonda would have a good idea what Petronas is burning, but maybe they can't get the same combustion concept to work?

I thought I heard Alonso say there was a problem with the "rotating assembly". If that is the case, it would seem Honda can't even get the ICE part down. This is seriously worrisome as it seems Honda has had a harder time than Renault getting their PU to work. Honestly, I would like to see Honda produce something competitive; somebody needs to.

I think Honda knew it since last year. Mobil also has a very good know how since it works, and wins, with Porsche in LMP1.

PhillipM wrote:

NL_Fer wrote: And more shocking, underestimated that it is possible to harvest enough to deploy mgu-k for a full lap.

I doubt that, I think it's just more they hit a fundamental issue with the way they wanted to harvest and deploy. Mclaren would know how much power they'd been able to harvest and deploy with the Merc for Honda to work from anyway.

I still can't get my head around it. We know they hit a serious issue, reaching their target turbo rpm, without overheating the whole assembly. But to limit rpm, the Mgu-H would brake harder and harvest more, so i don't think harvesting is troubled by the turbo rpm issue. It must be something else.

The turbine is really small, and it's not mounted in the V. Maybe they kept it small, to reach the target rpm, which is very high.

To bad we have to wait to see, how the 2016 turbo will look like. And then till, someone spots it.

Sorry guys, but what is the advantage of operating your turbo at a higher target RPM (if it is to be understood that Honda is running 125k and Merc 100k)? Smaller turbo for better packaging? That seems like the only advantage to me. Operating in a lower RPM regime is certainly better for longevity and perhaps efficiency no?

tuj wrote:Sorry guys, but what is the advantage of operating your turbo at a higher target RPM (if it is to be understood that Honda is running 125k and Merc 100k)? Smaller turbo for better packaging? That seems like the only advantage to me. Operating in a lower RPM regime is certainly better for longevity and perhaps efficiency no?

They've put the compressor part inside the V of the engine, so it has to be a very small one.

Yes, I understand the compressor is in the V. What I don't understand is why Honda hasn't realized that its packaging "brilliance" has given them the worst engine of the field. Unless there is another reason to run a small compressor at higher speeds? Surely this has to be worse for heat management, leading to bigger cooling demands, negating a small savings in frontal area.