F1technical.net

kasio wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 22:50

wuzak wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 14:09

kasio wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 12:05

well i guess we dont want to be on par with renault reliability wise. we are allready better we should get on par with Merc imho on that matter.

How do you figure that?

Renault have had 6 cars in 2 GPs.
All 6 Renault powered cars finished in China.
4 finished in Melbourne, but one that did not finish was due to a brake issue.

Ricciardo did not finish in Melbourne. The reason for his retirement was given as Power Unit, but he only replaced the Control Electronics for China. SO his power unit is quite OK.

Meanwhile Vandoorne replaced his turbocharger and MGUH for Melbourne.

Hardly seems like Honda are superior to Renault on reliability.

how are you counting? if you count like that then: 2017 CHINESE GRAND PRIX:
Red Bull Racing TAG Heuer:
Car 03:         Water pump
                    Water pipe
                    Gearbox layshaft sensor
Car 33:         Ignition coils
                    Injection rails
                    Spark plugs
                    PSUF1 (new)
                    K-shaft
                    Parameters associated with replacement of injection and ignition components

Renault:
Car 27:         Driver’s drink pump
                    Turbine pressure sensor
                    Parameters associated with turbine pressure sensor replacement
Car 30:         RHS front brake blanking panel
                    RHS front brake blanking ring
                    Front brake friction material (used)
                    MGU-K shaft
                    RHS front blanking disc
                    RHS front drum anchornut
                    LHS front brake caliper carbon cover
                    Zeroing of brake wear LVDTs

Toro Rosso :
Car 26:         RHS floor tyre curl
Car 55:         BBW unit
                    Parameters associated with BBW unit replacement

and mclaren:
McLaren Honda:
Car 14:         LHS drive shaft / upright assembly
                    Waste gate manifold

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 16:18

maximum permitted fuel rate is reached at 10500 rpm but they don't necessarily take the full rate there, maybe it's only used at somewhat higher rpm ?

mwillems wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 22:13

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 21:49

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 21:25

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

Even so, does this mean they could run less fuel? They are so far from being fuel efficient or powerful that I just can't see them getting to that level for a while.

Allied to that, we don't even know if the engine or chassis are even strong enough to handle a substantial increase in power yet. If they do get that power, will the fundamental issues with the engine and the drivetrain return? I just feel that anything that suggests that one or two changes will make the whole package work, is a little premature. But maybe I'm way off base.

The fuel flow does make sense though, thanks for explaining. It's 105kg per hour not 100, but that's splitting hairs.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 22:07

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 21:49

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 21:25

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

Ever tuned a piggy back computer? If we talk about these f1 engines they won't be pouring fuel at part throttle.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 20:31

They fuel save because they have to run rich in order to stave off detonation. If they don't have to stave off detonation they can run a bit leaner, and reduce their fuel saving.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 00:19

if drivers held a gear from eg 9500 to 11100 rpm they could reasonably use all the fuel rate allowed throughout that range but they don't seem to use that range
as I asked 4 years ago - using (as they do) the range 10500 - 12200 ..... what is the engine doing at 12200 with only the same fuel rate as it uses at 10500 ? ie for reasons I have put forward, it can't be brilliantly efficient at both these rpms

gruntguru wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 00:48

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 20:31

They fuel save because they have to run rich in order to stave off detonation. If they don't have to stave off detonation they can run a bit leaner, and reduce their fuel saving.

Definitely not. I don't think detonation is an issue in this operating regime. Even if it is, running richer will increase the tendency to detonate.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 01:41

gruntguru wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 00:48

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 20:31

They fuel save because they have to run rich in order to stave off detonation. If they don't have to stave off detonation they can run a bit leaner, and reduce their fuel saving.

Definitely not. I don't think detonation is an issue in this operating regime. Even if it is, running richer will increase the tendency to detonate.

I suppose, however this comes from the horses mouth so to speak.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 05:43

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 01:41

gruntguru wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 00:48

Definitely not. I don't think detonation is an issue in this operating regime. Even if it is, running richer will increase the tendency to detonate.

I suppose, however this comes from the horses mouth so to speak.

I hadn't heard that before. Where did it come from?

hurril wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 22:56

Where can I see this sort of information?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 06:14

gruntguru wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 05:43

godlameroso wrote: ↑

11 Apr 2017, 01:41

I suppose, however this comes from the horses mouth so to speak.

I hadn't heard that before. Where did it come from?

An email from someone.

"We are running the power unit so rich right now in order to keep things together, it's at least de-tuned by 80hp. Again so frustrating"

McLaren Honda has serious shortcomings in a new engine completely remodeled after the failure of the engines of 2015 and 2016. At Honda are working piecewise to get the key and provide powerful and reliable engines thus achieving an immediate increase in performance in The MCL32.

We have discovered through the Japanese motorsport portal that Honda will carry a large engine update for the Bahrain test in just one week.

The news reported Yusuke Hasegawa, indicating the level of improvement of the engine compared to the previous specification where they expect to take a giant step with respect to performance and reliability.

"We are scheduled to take the test after the Bahrain GP an improved engine with more power and reliability, however we will be cautious about its final implementation in the car," says the Japanese.

Yusuke Hasegawa knows that the car made by McLaren is good, and a good car needs an engine up to the level as everyone knows, but it will not win.

"McLaren has done a great job with the car, now we just need to finish qualifying certain problems with the engine and we will win," he says.

After the Chinese Grand Prix, Hasegawa listened to his drivers and they showed signs of hope for reliability, although one of the headaches is the ease with which the Honda engine loses energy and later, it costs him to recover.

"Our top speeds show that we are not competitive," the drivers told us. We need more power to get ahead but it also influences lap time, "explains Hasegawa.

The Japanese announce that they want to win and they need it . With each future update is expected to get ahead and fight for important things now that the tokens are not in Formula 1.

"We want to win now, we are tired of not being able to celebrate victories. In future updates we plan to take steps forward as the new concept of engine allows us a large improvement mattress, "ends the chief engineer.

It seems that Yusuke Hasegawa brings new and important news and has to do with the engines. Honda will take to the test of Bahrain a new concept of engine that will be a step ahead in performance thanks to the possibility of using more power.

ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 21:14

godlameroso wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2017, 20:31

They fuel save because they have to run rich in order to stave off detonation. If they don't have to stave off detonation they can run a bit leaner, and reduce their fuel saving. However with the current engine it's not possible, among other things that's what Honda is trying to fix with their planned upgrade, although they don't know if they'll be able to have it ready for Barcelona.

They are not really "running rich", they are running the same amount of fuel but with less boost and thus "richer" than their competition(while still pretty lean compared to stoich). When they can get better combustion control they will still dump the same amount of fuel into the engine, just adding more air into the engine by increasing boost making the mixture leaner.

Fuel rate remains the same, it is the amount of air that changes. As they increase in rpm they decrease the boost to maintain the optimal fuel mixture. As they are able to better control combustion they will maintain the same fuel rate while making the turbo force more air into ICE.

The best way to understand these engines to to always remember that fuel remains constant, it is the other aspects that are variable.