Honda engine

[Scuffers]

DHB07 said:

Scuffers said:

Sky's bit on it was mostly bullst.

Care to elaborate at all Scuffers?


^ I don't think there is huge hype about Honda transforming McLaren to a winning team, or certainly not from myself. But I think it will be cool to see that partnership again. Not that I remember it - before my time

Matt Somerfield pretty much covered it:

Matt Somerfield said:

Don't get me wrong, the advantages gleaned by Mercedes (works team) are reliant on the split turbo configuration but it's how it's been used to package other items that stands them apart from McLaren, Force India and Williams. I won't go on to tear down the rest of the Sky package but suffice to say there are other technical elements that are incorrectly displayed during the presentation.

entropy said:

Agreed. The hype over Mark Hughe's info its as if its the silver bullet for this year. It clearly isn't. It's way more complex than that, you can't expect customer teams to make cars similar to Merc eg. Williams and McLaren make their own gearboxes which affects packaging and weight distribution, then there's rear suspension and rear aero so different teams will have different ideas.

exactly, the way SKY went on like this is some secret magic silver bullet was just laughable.

I do wish they would get some reality into their show, I like their commentary team, but stick to commentary and get somebody in that understands this stuff (NOT TED!!!!!)

[Derek Smith]

I don't think Honda will want to copy the design of other engines.

Honda and McL will work out a package deal and this is where the strength lies. The Merc car is built around the engine and the engine is designed around the car. McL/Honda will have all those benefits.

[Vocal Minority]

Scuffers said:

exactly, the way SKY went on like this is some secret magic silver bullet was just laughable.

I do wish they would get some reality into their show, I like their commentary team, but stick to commentary and get somebody in that understands this stuff (NOT TED!!!!!)

For some reason this is what modern society seems hell bent on.

No one likes the expalnation 'its the cumulative result of one hundred slight improvements' - there has to be one thing. I think it helps some fans believe that if they can make that one change, then everything that is wrong will be better. So changing managers in football, making that one world class signing etc.

Its a total delusion, but one that people seem to enjoy believing

[IainT]

Scuffers said:

exactly, the way SKY went on like this is some secret magic silver bullet was just laughable.

IIRC Sky emphasises that it was packaging and development time along with the heat-management benefits that come together. It was not as simplified as is being made out.

For example

• their intake would run slightly lower temps as the compressor isn't physically close to the very hot turbine - heat soak.
• they can therefore run smaller intercoolers making packaging tighter and reducing drag.
• the route through the intercooler to the engine is more direct reducing lag.
• Mercedes had a lead-time advantage over the other teams to develop the whole package better.

[Scuffers]

IainT said:

Scuffers said:

exactly, the way SKY went on like this is some secret magic silver bullet was just laughable.

IIRC Sky emphasises that it was packaging and development time along with the heat-management benefits that come together. It was not as simplified as is being made out.

For example

• their intake would run slightly lower temps as the compressor isn't physically close to the very hot turbine - heat soak.
• they can therefore run smaller intercoolers making packaging tighter and reducing drag.
• the route through the intercooler to the engine is more direct reducing lag.
• Mercedes had a lead-time advantage over the other teams to develop the whole package better.

in order:

• bugger all, the compressor will be hot enough from compressing air, even close-coupled turbo's do not get any real heat transfer from the turbine (at full airflows), and they will already have insulated the turbine to death so as not to waste any energy.

• see above - Merc do run water based charge coolers though, that's a bigger advantage.

• once again, yes packaging it wins, but they are using water based charge cooler

• not true, customer teams were given layouts/drawings/etc at least 12 months before testing this year

[IainT]

Scuffers said:

• bugger all, the compressor will be hot enough from compressing air, even close-coupled turbo's do not get any real heat transfer from the turbine (at full airflows), and they will already have insulated the turbine to death so as not to waste any energy.

• see above - Merc do run water based charge coolers though, that's a bigger advantage.

What do all the bugger-alls add up to? F1 is about small percentage advantages.

Scuffers said:

* once again, yes packaging it wins, but they are using water based charge cooler

Wasn't aware of that - so their 'intercoolers' are actually radiators for the charge-cooler fluid? I assume the greater heat density of liquid means more thermal efficiency for cooling? I'd have thought charge-coolers would have a packaging downside - greater weight, complexity, space for the CC and radiator vs just intercooler!

Scuffers said:

* not true, customer teams were given layouts/drawings/etc at least 12 months before testing this year

So just a case of Merc engineers doing a significantly better job than all the other Merc-powered teams? Biggest budget of them I suppose possibly barring McLaren?

[Scuffers]

Matt Somers has gone though all this:

http://somersf1.blogspot.nl/2014/04/comparing-powe...

the info is out there if you look...

[Exige77]

Scuffers said:

Matt Somers has gone though all this:

http://somersf1.blogspot.nl/2014/04/comparing-powe...

the info is out there if you look...

Very good read

[Scuffers]

Exige77 said:

Scuffers said:

Matt Somers has gone though all this:

http://somersf1.blogspot.nl/2014/04/comparing-powe...

the info is out there if you look...

Very good read

Yes, can be quite hard to follow at times, but he does know what he's on about.

Sky really need somebody like this to either present the tech stuff or at least write the notes out for the muppet on camera...

it's embarrassing watching at times when they make such authoritative statements that are clearly tosh

[Matt_N]

Scuffers said:

no, it's been done before pre-war!

Have you got any specifics? I'd like to have a read up.

[Sexual Chocolate]

Scuffers said:

Exige77 said:

Scuffers said:

Matt Somers has gone though all this:

http://somersf1.blogspot.nl/2014/04/comparing-powe...

the info is out there if you look...

Very good read

Yes, can be quite hard to follow at times, but he does know what he's on about.

Sky really need somebody like this to either present the tech stuff or at least write the notes out for the muppet on camera...

it's embarrassing watching at times when they make such authoritative statements that are clearly tosh

Your average Sky viewer doesn't want to be bamboozled by technical jargon. They just want the headline facts.

[Scuffers]

Sexual Chocolate said:

Your average Sky viewer doesn't want to be bamboozled by technical jargon. They just want the headline facts.

problem is currently they get bamboozled by technical bks....

it does not have to be hard work, just presented in a format people can understand, it's not that difficult.

[entropy]

Sexual Chocolate said:

Your average Sky viewer doesn't want to be bamboozled by technical jargon. They just want the headline facts.

But they do. Have a look on the F1technical forums.

[DHB07]

entropy said:

But they do. Have a look on the F1technical forums.

The people psoting in said forums certainly do not make up the "vast majority".

[Scuffers]

DHB07 said:

entropy said:

But they do. Have a look on the F1technical forums.

The people psoting in said forums certainly do not make up the "vast majority".

Do you have anything to back that up with?

[Scuffers]

PW said:

Scuffers said:

Do you have anything to back that up with?

Global F1 audience - 450 million

Total members of F1Technical.net forum - 14405

that's not what was being asked/asserted....

are you suggesting that you cannot be interested in the techie stuff unless you are a member of the F1Technical.net forum?

[Sexual Chocolate]

entropy said:

But they do. Have a look on the F1technical forums.

But they don't. Few of my mates watch F1 and for them the little bit Sky did on the Merc engine was interesting but if it went into in-depth design details and techinical specification then they would lose interest after 20 seconds and maybe even change channel. Not something sky wants you to do. They just want to watch the race, thats it. Its only us die hard fans that watch practice, qauly, race build up and the race itself, most just tune in for the race.

Scuffers said:

that's not what was being asked/asserted....

are you suggesting that you cannot be interested in the techie stuff unless you are a member of the F1Technical.net forum?

He was just saying the out of the 450 million viewers that F1 gets only 14450 of them are a memeber of F1technical. Its a small minority that likes the techie stuff, people like you and me. However the bulk just want to watch cars go round a track and don't care how they do this.

Edited by Sexual Chocolate on Wednesday 16th April 16:13

[AlexS]

Scuffers said:

in order:

• bugger all, the compressor will be hot enough from compressing air, even close-coupled turbo's do not get any real heat transfer from the turbine (at full airflows), and they will already have insulated the turbine to death so as not to waste any energy.

• see above - Merc do run water based charge coolers though, that's a bigger advantage.

• once again, yes packaging it wins, but they are using water based charge cooler

• not true, customer teams were given layouts/drawings/etc at least 12 months before testing this year

Interesting that the other Merc teams appear to run air/air intercoolers and it is only the factory team that run with a chargecooler. The initial pictures of the engine was the McLaren installation so may be that is where some of the intake charge cooling confusion comes from.

Packaging details aren't quite correct though. McLaren designed sidepods for traditional headers and were presented with an engine with a log manifold leading to far less than optimal packaging.

[entropy]

Sexual Chocolate said:

But they don't. Few of my mates watch F1 and
for them the little bit Sky did on the Merc
engine was interesting but if it went into in-
depth design details and techinical specification
then they would lose interest after 20 seconds
and maybe even change channel. Not something
sky wants you to do. They just want to watch
the race, thats it. Its only us die hard fans that
watch practice, qauly, race build up and the
race itself, most just tune in for the race.

Ted Kravitz generally (attempts to) deals with the technical stuff so SKY knows that their is an audience for it.

[S0 What]

entropy said:

Sexual Chocolate said:

But they don't. Few of my mates watch F1 and
for them the little bit Sky did on the Merc
engine was interesting but if it went into in-
depth design details and techinical specification
then they would lose interest after 20 seconds
and maybe even change channel. Not something
sky wants you to do. They just want to watch
the race, thats it. Its only us die hard fans that
watch practice, qauly, race build up and the
race itself, most just tune in for the race.

Ted Kravitz generally (attempts to) deals with the technical stuff so SKY knows that their is an audience for it.

I think Ted is more for the masses than those who really get into the tec details though which is why there is allways so much dissapointment on here at his shows, i enjoy them but only as a hint of what to look deeper into, i've never assumed they were aimed at me, all my mates who watch them then ask me to go into detail if something catches their interest.