F1technical.net

amho wrote:

NL_Fer wrote:I suspect Honda is using some late ignition on partial throttle tricks to increase the exhaust gasses and recover more energy on the slow parts.

Could u explain how late ignition leads to better harvest of energy?

Delay the expansion till the exhaust and turbine?

NL_Fer wrote:I suspect Honda is using some late ignition on partial throttle tricks to increase the exhaust gasses and recover more energy on the slow parts.

this would be much less fuel-efficient than just driving the ICE against the load of the gu-k action
and much less effective when in cylinder-cutting mode

and, when the accelerator is only partially down, the throttle plate(s) are not necessarily in a partial (flow) position

Yes it is inefficient, but from what we noticed in Sochi, Honda's qualifing mode is very inefficient. Also we noticed better ERS deployment than Renault. So i suspect Honda is hot-blowing the turbo to power the MGU-H under qualifying and look how they fly on the 2,2km straight.

They actually tried running the full Sochi race in this mode, but it caused to much consumption.

is the Renault overall ratio in 8th gear maybe lower than the Honda's ?
the least laptime-valuable place to use energy of any kind is near the end of a long straight

Tommy Cookers wrote:

NL_Fer wrote:I suspect Honda is using some late ignition on partial throttle tricks to increase the exhaust gasses and recover more energy on the slow parts.

this would be much less fuel-efficient than just driving the ICE against the load of the gu-k action
and much less effective when in cylinder-cutting mode

and, when the accelerator is only partially down, the throttle plate(s) are not necessarily in a partial (flow) position

That is correct and I expect it would none-the-less be considered as a control strategy.

If my pre-coffee brain is working ... The above-mentioned throttle, spark retard and cylinder cut are all ways you can use to reduce ICE torque, for example under braking.

The potential attraction of spark retard (and/or AFR change) is that it will increase the enthalphy dumped into the turbo whilst also reducing ICE torque.

The fact that it is inefficient matters less if you are not at risk of consuming >100kg/hr over the race distance.

It's acontrol strategy you'd want as an option?

techman wrote:

mclaren runs with low downforce to hide the real deficit, so the car seems worst than it is. But mclaren can not do anything else

nothing to do until next year without tokens

mclaren ran heavy downforce wing in canada, just compare the rear wing size an and the new front wing wit a steep wing angle on the sides and also only a few team along with merceds that ran monkey wings , redbull and torro rosso did not run monkey wings. mclaren i think lack good aero efficiency, it pretty evident in monaco, the pace was horible, mclaren would not qualify in top 10 if not for max crash, and in the race, rain help and fatastice pitstops gave a good result for them, let see if they can do good in hungary, without rains help. i doubt they will do well, hopefully mclaren bring improvement to their inefficient chaassis.

Thats wright, in canada exceptionally ran with high downforce as other teams, waiting for rain. The result was a very easy to overtake car.

They were at high DF in Canada (for McLaren).The configuration is still less DF than what RBR racing ran in Canada.

In light of Baku, seeing the difference between highly developed PU layouts of Renault Mercedes and Ferrari.

If Honda are planning on carrying out a layout change why would they not go for the Mercedes model?

hemichromis wrote:If Honda are planning on carrying out a layout change why would they not go for the Mercedes model?

Engineering a shaft that long which can rev safely to 125,000 rpm repeatedly in the heat/vibration/G-loading environment of an F1 engine with the compressor at one end and the turbine at the other, with an MGU-H and probably clutching in the middle without whirl is not an easy task. It might not be possible in the time Honda have (or have had) with the engineering resources available to them. There are resonance/damping/vibration/critical speed which are harder to solve than iterative solving to get a working solution can cope with in a sensible timeframe.

Of course this is only part of the issue. It would also mean a total revision of the McLaren approach to chassis design in order to accommodate not only a front-mounted compressor but also the assorted cooling and intercooling solutions.

I'm not saying they can't do it, or that they won't. I just think that with the time and resources they have, it's an unlikely thing to try for next year.

In my opinion, F1's PU era isn't just about building excellent PUs - it's also about building a responsive PU design and development organisation.
Honda were up against teams that have had these bleeding-edge development teams for decades - organisations that can cope with the demands of F1 and rapidly moving technological change - so it's not a big surprise that they are struggling now.

Craigy wrote:

hemichromis wrote:If Honda are planning on carrying out a layout change why would they not go for the Mercedes model?

Engineering a shaft that long which can rev safely to 125,000 rpm repeatedly in the heat/vibration/G-loading environment of an F1 engine with the compressor at one end and the turbine at the other, with an MGU-H and probably clutching in the middle without whirl is not an easy task. It might not be possible in the time Honda have (or have had) with the engineering resources available to them. There are resonance/damping/vibration/critical speed which are harder to solve than iterative solving to get a working solution can cope with in a sensible timeframe.

Of course this is only part of the issue. It would also mean a total revision of the McLaren approach to chassis design in order to accommodate not only a front-mounted compressor but also the assorted cooling and intercooling solutions.

I'm not saying they can't do it, or that they won't. I just think that with the time and resources they have, it's an unlikely thing to try for next year.

In my opinion, F1's PU era isn't just about building excellent PUs - it's also about building a responsive PU design and development organisation.
Honda were up against teams that have had these bleeding-edge development teams for decades - organisations that can cope with the demands of F1 and rapidly moving technological change - so it's not a big surprise that they are struggling now.

Honda knew that the token system would be abolished last year couldn't they have managed it as Mercedes did?

Wouldn't moving the compressor to the back also require changes to the car?

hemichromis wrote:Wouldn't moving the compressor to the back also require changes to the car?

Moving anything anywhere by definition requires changes to the car, but this would be a smaller change than moving the compressor to the front.
Putting the compressor and turbine closer together than opposite ends of the engine means a smaller common shaft too, so smaller engineering challenges in that area.

I suspect it's aerodynamically beneficial to have less PU componentry at the back due to ducting and pipework, but I've also no doubt it can be made to work either way: Merc vs. Ferrari proves that either works (OK, Merc is ahead but both engines are pretty competitive). What seems fairly clear is that Honda's original packaging idea isn't working, so something's going to have to change.

Craigy wrote:

hemichromis wrote:Wouldn't moving the compressor to the back also require changes to the car?

Moving anything anywhere by definition requires changes to the car, but this would be a smaller change than moving the compressor to the front.
Putting the compressor and turbine closer together than opposite ends of the engine means a smaller common shaft too, so smaller engineering challenges in that area.

I suspect it's aerodynamically beneficial to have less PU componentry at the back due to ducting and pipework, but I've also no doubt it can be made to work either way: Merc vs. Ferrari proves that either works (OK, Merc is ahead but both engines are pretty competitive). What seems fairly clear is that Honda's original packaging idea isn't working, so something's going to have to change.

The much talked about length of that shaft is a bit misunderstood I think. It's easy to get caught up in the sheer distance between the turbine and the compressor and miss the fact that some of that is the MGU-h.

I know a lot of you guys doubt Wazari's legitimacy, but I talk to him quite regularly via pm.
I have no reason to think he is anything other than 100% genuine.

He recently told me that compared to Mercedes the Honda PU is down about 20% with regards to energy recovery, and 15 % as far as fuel efficiency.
His opinion is that it's almost impossible to regain that deficit using the current configuration

This next bit is just my own opinion.
If they have realised it's near on impossible to to match Merc' with the current layout, then the only option is to follow their design.
Unless they have something else up their sleeve I can't see any other way.

I'm lost compared to you guys when it comes to the real technical stuff, so I'm asking, is there a way they can do it apart from going the Mercedes route ?

Europe GP over, next is Spa then Silverstone.

The big token spend is at one of the next two, what will it be on? We know Honda have several options on the dynamo to choose from.

hurril wrote:(...) The much talked about length of that shaft is a bit misunderstood I think. It's easy to get caught up in the sheer distance between the turbine and the compressor and miss the fact that some of that is the MGU-h.

MGU is placed either on the same shaft as turbine and compressor, or is being somehow coupled.
In any case there is some fun to make things working involved.