F1technical.net

ME4ME wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:42

dren wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:32

ME4ME wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:30

Just a resonance problem.

Edit: See that the quote already had been posted on the previous page.

Which will still require a redesign in some form, right?

Yes. But where is the evidence that there is anything wrong with the transmission? That it isn't structurally sound? Hasagawa even diverts blame away from Mclaren in this case. I think Honda got taken by surprise and didn't account for the whole car when they developed the PU. Just like they realized issues when they went from a single cylinder to a V6; it didn't work as thought.

Lets hope they figure it out quickly.

Yes resonance has a lot to do with structural stiffness and mass. Mclaren gearbox structure and or internals may be too flexible. The weight maybe to light in the wrong places and too heavy in other places which can create the perfect cocktail of resonating parts.

Let's hope they wake up out of their "Earth Dreams" and get to work on creating a blueprint for organizational development, performance level improvements and a vision for renewed racing success.
F1 needs more engine mfgs.

ME4ME wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:42

dren wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:32

ME4ME wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:30

Just a resonance problem.

Edit: See that the quote already had been posted on the previous page.

Which will still require a redesign in some form, right?

Yes. But where is the evidence that there is anything wrong with the transmission? That it isn't structurally sound? Hasagawa even diverts blame away from Mclaren in this case. I think Honda got taken by surprise and didn't account for the whole car when they developed the PU. Just like they realized issues when they went from a single cylinder to a V6; it didn't work as thought.

Lets hope they figure it out quickly.

Yeah, and MCL would not honda either if they believe there is nothing wrong in transmission. It is kinda joke for me, as they are WORKS team. How frustrating it is.

ME4ME wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:42

dren wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:32

ME4ME wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 21:30

Just a resonance problem.

Edit: See that the quote already had been posted on the previous page.

Which will still require a redesign in some form, right?

Yes. But where is the evidence that there is anything wrong with the transmission? That it isn't structurally sound? Hasagawa even diverts blame away from Mclaren in this case. I think Honda got taken by surprise and didn't account for the whole car when they developed the PU. Just like they realized issues when they went from a single cylinder to a V6; it didn't work as thought.

Lets hope they figure it out quickly.

For me it sounds like it is mostly down to transmission. It seems that the internals is too flexible, and maybe they need a small damping mass on the driveshaft to temporary solve this issue.

I wonder if part of the issue is integration between the various combustion modes. I.e. HCCI to jet ignition to maybe some sort of 'low jet' assisted HCCI. I can't imagine it's easy to nail down a design that does all of them well.... Switching between them must also be difficult with varying temps (between the modes and how they affect each other) and having to accurately control boost etc.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 17:19

. . I still think the problem is ultrasonic vibrations, which of course wouldn't be picked up by any listening instruments, is causing fuel to vaporize in weird ways. That to shift the resonance from the ideal rev range requires revising the combustion chamber, particularly the pre-chamber. Or requires more understanding of resonance induced fuel vaporization, when it happens it makes combustion faster, which is hard to compensate with static engine maps(if in fact they strictly use a MAP sensor)

The vibrations are not in the ultrasonic range - they are at much lower frequencies - why?
1. You don't "shake chassis components to bits" with high frequencies.
2. Ultrasonic vibrations ie combustion related, would have been present on the single cylinder test engines.

I'm unfortunately not able to understand what you guys are talking about. So is it more or less these vibrations that you are referring to? http://www.dssmicro.com/theory/th_recip_vibs.htm

Sent from my SM-A700F using Tapatalk

Mudflap wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 22:42

I know from experience that tire torsional frequencies are VERY low and unlikely to interact with anything else in the driveline.

Are you talking about F1 tires? Fair question, as I guess the high rigidity of F1 tires makes them a lot more prone to suffer higher frequency resonance than any other soft road tire

nzjrs wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 22:11

What's the predictive power of a single-cylinder engine to an integrated V6? Or stated differently, at what point does one usually make a full pilot engine and does one presume Honda did this too late?

Well, Wazari hinted that Honda too late went from adding "features" to real world tests

Webber2011 wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 23:28

Wazari San hinted that Honda may have wasted too much time exploring different designs, when they would have been better off narrowing it down to one or two, and then thoroughly testing them on the dyno.

I think that will depend on your target. If your target is being competitive from first race, then yes I agree, they should have made a decision earlier to develop the concept further before first race.

But if your target is developing a competitive PU thoughout the season to be competitive next season, then no, I disagree, wasting some time doing some R&D for different concepts may be worth even if the final concept is too immature at first race. If that´s not your target that´s not a problem, you have the whole season to improve it, but then you´re sure your concept is the one wich can be developed further, so the one wich will provide better results next season

gruntguru wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2017, 10:45

godlameroso wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2017, 17:19

. . I still think the problem is ultrasonic vibrations, which of course wouldn't be picked up by any listening instruments, is causing fuel to vaporize in weird ways. That to shift the resonance from the ideal rev range requires revising the combustion chamber, particularly the pre-chamber. Or requires more understanding of resonance induced fuel vaporization, when it happens it makes combustion faster, which is hard to compensate with static engine maps(if in fact they strictly use a MAP sensor)

The vibrations are not in the ultrasonic range - they are at much lower frequencies - why?
1. You don't "shake chassis components to bits" with high frequencies.
2. Ultrasonic vibrations ie combustion related, would have been present on the single cylinder test engines.

That's what they thought too, showing up on single cylinder, and yet here we are.

If they have an AVL like rig then I imagine they can make relatively quick progress.

This season is a write off for all teams not in the top three so as long as Hondo can get the engine competitive for 2018 that is all that matters. The only drawback is the brand damage that they and McLaren will both take along the way.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2017, 14:36

If they have an AVL like rig then I imagine they can make relatively quick progress.

They don't have or want an AVL rig.

Speaking to AUTOSPORT, Arai said:
"For example, it would be difficult for them to work with us as the culture is quite different, the equipment, the simulation, everything. "

http://www.eurosport.com/formula-1/cult ... tory.shtml

Andres125sx wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2017, 12:58

But if your target is developing a competitive PU thoughout the season to be competitive next season, then no, I disagree, wasting some time doing some R&D for different concepts may be worth even if the final concept is too immature at first race. If that´s not your target that´s not a problem, you have the whole season to improve it, but then you´re sure your concept is the one wich can be developed further, so the one wich will provide better results next season

They literally lost 2 tests , 4 days each. Thats is unacceptable and simply dumb

A lot can change in two years.