F1technical.net

Lucky wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118626

no wonder they got safety issues

A detailed review of the Honda PU in the latest colum from Craig Scarborough on http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118626. All I can say is that it looks good on paper, we will see what the time will tell. [-o<

Lucky wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118626

That's quite some 'facts' that are still not backed up by pictures I have seen and that other members on the forum have doubts about.

Although Honda continues to have reliability problems, the fundamental design of the power unit is valid and will eventually become both powerful and reliable.

And the winning lottery numbers are...

Rather than a large centrifugal fan, there are a series of smaller fans along a shaft.

Surely that would not be permitted?

I think Scarbs should be a bit more careful with his conclusions, the other day he said compressor was in front of the engine.

Jef Patat wrote:

Lucky wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118626

That's quite some 'facts' that are still not backed up by pictures I have seen and that other members on the forum have doubts about.

Although Honda continues to have reliability problems, the fundamental design of the power unit is valid and will eventually become both powerful and reliable.

And the winning lottery numbers are...

Because you are never going to see one single picture backing it up. Understand that behind those sketches ALOT of work was done, a lot of observation.

Also Scarbs frequently is actually at the pitlane He missed the Bahrain GP, but all other race weekends he was there.

So I think you should trust him on this one. He has at the very least the credibility backing it up. Maybe his last line was a bit subjective, but personally I also believe Honda will get it right eventually.

Nothing against Scarbs, I feel he is doing beautiful work, but just two days ago he said compressor is at the front od the engine. Girogio Piola actually draw Honda PU with centrifugal compressor in the V, and mgu-h between it and turbo a month ago.

ferkan wrote:Nothing against Scarbs, I feel he is doing beautiful work, but just two days ago he said compressor is at the front od the engine. Girogio Piola actually draw Honda PU with centrifugal compressor in the V, and mgu-h between it and turbo a month ago.

Right. Scarbs has been wrong before, as have others in his line of work. It doesn't mean we don't appreciate it. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. And he may be correct here, too.

As for the dualboost, I am not sure how the rules would qualify it. Maybe as long as the one side of the wheel doesn't compress and feed into the second side, it could be considered one stage?

It looks like, after a bit of reading, you can achieve pressure ratios over 2 for a single stage in an axial compressor.

turbof1 wrote: Because you are never going to see one single picture backing it up. Understand that behind those sketches ALOT of work was done, a lot of observation.
...
So I think you should trust him on this one.
...
He has at the very least the credibility backing it up.

That's too easy. That way everybody can state assumptions as facts. I'm not saying he is wrong I'm just saying that I have not seen anything that points in that or another direction. In my opinion that makes it an educated guess, admittedly from a very educated individual, but still not a fact. And the tone of the article is facts, as was his post a couple of days ago: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 83#p576883

I have nothing against scarbs, I respect him, I've learned a lot thanks to him, but I remain critical/skeptical.

turbof1 wrote:Maybe his last line was a bit subjective, but personally I also believe Honda will get it right eventually.

As a MCL fan I hope that as well, but I'm hoping, not stating.

hurril wrote:

Rather than a large centrifugal fan, there are a series of smaller fans along a shaft.

Surely that would not be permitted?

It's not, only one stage is permitted.

scarbs knows what is on the line, he would not publish something like this, without being fairly sure that its correct, i think/hope , well atleast the cat is out of the bag a little bit, and tv should follow up on this story in barcelona

Multi-stage compressors are not permitted by the regulations. So stating "there are a series of smaller fans along a shaft." is against the regulations. There will only be one rotor and one stator set of blades -if- it is an axial compressor.

The article is nice, with a lot of good information. A lot of it I agree with: the variable intake trumpets, the ES combined with the controls, and the MGUH placement. The characteristics of an axial compressor are also valid, but for multi-stage compressors.

dren wrote:

ferkan wrote:Nothing against Scarbs, I feel he is doing beautiful work, but just two days ago he said compressor is at the front od the engine. Girogio Piola actually draw Honda PU with centrifugal compressor in the V, and mgu-h between it and turbo a month ago.

Right. Scarbs has been wrong before, as have others in his line of work. It doesn't mean we don't appreciate it. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. And he may correct here, too.

As for the dualboost, I am not sure how the rules would qualify it. Maybe as long as the one side of the wheel doesn't compress and feed into the second side, it could be considered one stage?

It looks like, after a bit of reading, you can achieve pressure ratios over 2 for a single stage in an axial compressor.

Mind sharing sources that show data to backup the claim of an axial compressor with such high pressure ratios?

trinidefender wrote:

dren wrote:

ferkan wrote:Nothing against Scarbs, I feel he is doing beautiful work, but just two days ago he said compressor is at the front od the engine. Girogio Piola actually draw Honda PU with centrifugal compressor in the V, and mgu-h between it and turbo a month ago.

Right. Scarbs has been wrong before, as have others in his line of work. It doesn't mean we don't appreciate it. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. And he may correct here, too.

As for the dualboost, I am not sure how the rules would qualify it. Maybe as long as the one side of the wheel doesn't compress and feed into the second side, it could be considered one stage?

It looks like, after a bit of reading, you can achieve pressure ratios over 2 for a single stage in an axial compressor.

Mind sharing sources that show data to backup the claim of an axial compressor with such high pressure ratios?

Probably a 'poor' source, but I was reading the wiki page for individual stages for axial compressors. The 'over 2' is for research compressors, at supersonic speeds. Yes a stretch, but that's what it states. Ron Dennis went on and on about the tech never used before on this PU at the season start, so maybe there is some validity to this?

But I am a bit unsure as to the air speed, is it talking about how fast the vehicle is moving (incoming air speed) or about velocity through the compressor? I'm guessing the former. Which really puts us into the range of PR at 1.2 on the high end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_compressor

This comes from a chart on that page:

Industrial Subsonic 1.05–1.2 88%–92%
Aerospace Transonic 1.15–1.6 80%–85%
Research Supersonic 1.8–2.2 75%–85%

As a few others have stated, a mixed flow sounds possible.