Will McLaren survive their Honda contract?
Discussion
CraigyMc said:
Because of this I'm not convinced any of the manufacturers have actaully ever done any cost-saving changes or reliability ones, outside of the token system.
Does anyone on here know for sure? (with citation, ideally)
I believe they were, as the FIA tighten the rules earlier in the year, on these changes to head off this avenue. In fact an interview with andy cowell earlier in the year he highlighted how with the tokens plus these changes you could quickly develop an engine in reference to honda.Does anyone on here know for sure? (with citation, ideally)
Honda problem is they may well find 80 bhp but merc and ferrari will almost certainly have found 50-60 bhp , leaving honda still well short.
carinaman said:
Did Eddie Jordan say Honda were basically funding McLaren on the BBC F1 Forum?
If Honda walkaway McLaren implode?
I did notice Eddie Jordan calling Suzi Perry 'he'.
That is typical Jordan, 1/2 the truth, but yeah i would say McLaren budget is in the most coming from HondaIf Honda walkaway McLaren implode?
I did notice Eddie Jordan calling Suzi Perry 'he'.
Yea most be more to the gap then just power unit with Ferrari, i cant remember Ferrari ever being cutting edge aero wise, alwas thought they seemed to copy others.
Honda just need to get the power sorted, get the power be able to run with other cars which will let McLaren be able to do the aero side properly. When the engine pops atleast they can see "Well we able to run midfield now"
Honda just need to get the power sorted, get the power be able to run with other cars which will let McLaren be able to do the aero side properly. When the engine pops atleast they can see "Well we able to run midfield now"
one point that needs to be covered better is this.
talking about being 80 or whatever HP down is misleading.
the problem is even if you have the best IC engine out there, if your ERS system is pants your stuffed in two ways:
1) you cannot utilise the MGU-K to drive the car as much (per lap) as the others - so in reality, you will be 120Kw (~160Hp) down on the others.
2) your fuel consumption will be worse to the point your having to drive economically to make the race distance.
The reason the Merc PU is ahead is more down to their ERS package than the IC engine (that's not to say their IC engine is not the best, just that it does not account for the bigger part of their advantage).
the regs state you can only recover 2Mj per lap from the MGU-K and only deploy 4Mj/lap from the ES, so, ignoring one lap qually runs, if you want more than 2Mj per lap, the only place to get it from is the MGU-H, as there is no limit to what can be harvested from this (the only limit is what can be stored in the ES), so if you have a very efficient turbo/MGU-H, then you can run the MGU-K for longer per lap.
ie, if your MGU-H can harvest 60Kw (at full throttle loads), then the ES only has to provide half the 120Kw to drive the MGU-K at full load, thus the 2Mj limit will now last twice as long (Rumour has it, Merc's MGU-H is capable of most than this.)
Last year, when Nico lost his ERS braking, so no MGU-K recovery, his pace was still good, showing just how much their MGU-H can produce.
talking about being 80 or whatever HP down is misleading.
the problem is even if you have the best IC engine out there, if your ERS system is pants your stuffed in two ways:
1) you cannot utilise the MGU-K to drive the car as much (per lap) as the others - so in reality, you will be 120Kw (~160Hp) down on the others.
2) your fuel consumption will be worse to the point your having to drive economically to make the race distance.
The reason the Merc PU is ahead is more down to their ERS package than the IC engine (that's not to say their IC engine is not the best, just that it does not account for the bigger part of their advantage).
the regs state you can only recover 2Mj per lap from the MGU-K and only deploy 4Mj/lap from the ES, so, ignoring one lap qually runs, if you want more than 2Mj per lap, the only place to get it from is the MGU-H, as there is no limit to what can be harvested from this (the only limit is what can be stored in the ES), so if you have a very efficient turbo/MGU-H, then you can run the MGU-K for longer per lap.
ie, if your MGU-H can harvest 60Kw (at full throttle loads), then the ES only has to provide half the 120Kw to drive the MGU-K at full load, thus the 2Mj limit will now last twice as long (Rumour has it, Merc's MGU-H is capable of most than this.)
Last year, when Nico lost his ERS braking, so no MGU-K recovery, his pace was still good, showing just how much their MGU-H can produce.
Logie said:
Honda just need to get the power sorted, get the power be able to run with other cars which will let McLaren be able to do the aero side properly. When the engine pops atleast they can see "Well we able to run midfield now"
I'm not sure Honda are lacking much compared to Renault or Ferrari in absolute peak power from the internal combusion engine. I guess Merc probably have a lead in this.I think they are lacking in duration of that peak power.
This is the "deployment" Button and Alonso complain about - depleted batteries, and the fact that the Honda ERS-H doesn't apparently generate much (if any) useful electricity to dump into the ERS-K to electrically drive the car forward.
It's why McLaren lose out so much on long straights, but hardly at all on the shorter ones - their initial acceleration is not awful. They lose when they run out of charge, when the other engines are (a) still developing power from the ES and (b) especially when everyone has run out of charge, and all teams are running PUs flat out with the internal combustion engine part running full throttle, and the ERS-H driving the ERS-K directly with no ES charging.
My thinking is this:
Honda might have 800hp compared to (for example, Renault) 800hp at absolute peak, from the internal combustion and electrical sides combined.
The biggest difference is that the Honda can only maintain that peak power for a smaller proportion of the lap compared with the others:
- I think they cannot deploy the full allowance of 4MJ per lap from the ES to the ERS-K, and
- I think their ERS-H doesn't generate as much (if any) useful electrical power to drive the car forwards during acceleration.
In race conditions, the teams are only permitted to recover 2MJ per lap from the MGU-K to charge up the ES (essentially the bit that used to be called KERS, that is the emergy recovery off the rear axle, mostly in braking zones).
They can recover as much as they like via the ERS-H (that's the motor which is driven by the turbine in the exhaust). There's literally no limit to that at all - if they wanted to, a team could have an engine whose sole purpose was to drive an electrical motor which in turn drove the car forward.
They are limited to dumping 2MJ into the ES (from any source - ERS H or K) on a given lap.
In Quali, the Merc and Ferrari both have engine modes where they pull 4MJ out of their energy store (battery) in a single lap.
The speculation is that they are running with the ES powering the compressor for the engine, but that they've got the wastegate on the ERS-H wide open for the whole time the engine is being required to produce torque. The only reason the compressor spins in this scenario is that the ERS-H is driving it - the turbo is not really behaving as a turbo at all - more like an electric supercharger.
This mode of operation reduces exhaust backpressure and causes no electrical energy to enter the energy store during the lap from the ERS-H. The reduction in backpressure enables the internal combustion engine to produce more power than normal, and certainly more than would have been generated had the wastegate been closed, driving the compressor.
Over a single lap it doesn't matter that you used fuel at the full 100kg/hour flow rate limit the whole time [in a race, you'd run out of petrol before the end of the race like that], or that you went from 4MJ available in the energy store to zero available, thus stopping you from doing a quick second lap - so this mode really only helps for one lap in quali.
I don't think Renault or Honda have this mode in 2015, but you can bet they will have it next year.
Edited by CraigyMc on Thursday 19th November 09:49
Scuffers said:
one point that needs to be covered better is this.
talking about being 80 or whatever HP down is misleading.
the problem is even if you have the best IC engine out there, if your ERS system is pants your stuffed in two ways:
1) you cannot utilise the MGU-K to drive the car as much (per lap) as the others - so in reality, you will be 120Kw (~160Hp) down on the others.
2) your fuel consumption will be worse to the point your having to drive economically to make the race distance.
The reason the Merc PU is ahead is more down to their ERS package than the IC engine (that's not to say their IC engine is not the best, just that it does not account for the bigger part of their advantage).
the regs state you can only recover 2Mj per lap from the MGU-K and only deploy 4Mj/lap from the ES, so, ignoring one lap qually runs, if you want more than 2Mj per lap, the only place to get it from is the MGU-H, as there is no limit to what can be harvested from this (the only limit is what can be stored in the ES), so if you have a very efficient turbo/MGU-H, then you can run the MGU-K for longer per lap.
ie, if your MGU-H can harvest 60Kw (at full throttle loads), then the ES only has to provide half the 120Kw to drive the MGU-K at full load, thus the 2Mj limit will now last twice as long (Rumour has it, Merc's MGU-H is capable of most than this.)
Last year, when Nico lost his ERS braking, so no MGU-K recovery, his pace was still good, showing just how much their MGU-H can produce.
This is much more succinct than what I wrote but essentially the same type of idea.talking about being 80 or whatever HP down is misleading.
the problem is even if you have the best IC engine out there, if your ERS system is pants your stuffed in two ways:
1) you cannot utilise the MGU-K to drive the car as much (per lap) as the others - so in reality, you will be 120Kw (~160Hp) down on the others.
2) your fuel consumption will be worse to the point your having to drive economically to make the race distance.
The reason the Merc PU is ahead is more down to their ERS package than the IC engine (that's not to say their IC engine is not the best, just that it does not account for the bigger part of their advantage).
the regs state you can only recover 2Mj per lap from the MGU-K and only deploy 4Mj/lap from the ES, so, ignoring one lap qually runs, if you want more than 2Mj per lap, the only place to get it from is the MGU-H, as there is no limit to what can be harvested from this (the only limit is what can be stored in the ES), so if you have a very efficient turbo/MGU-H, then you can run the MGU-K for longer per lap.
ie, if your MGU-H can harvest 60Kw (at full throttle loads), then the ES only has to provide half the 120Kw to drive the MGU-K at full load, thus the 2Mj limit will now last twice as long (Rumour has it, Merc's MGU-H is capable of most than this.)
Last year, when Nico lost his ERS braking, so no MGU-K recovery, his pace was still good, showing just how much their MGU-H can produce.
It just took me so long to write mine that it looks like I wrote mine after you..
If anyone is interested in the control side of the PUs then you may find this 30min lecture describing the control perameters interesting. Integration.
http://uk.mathworks.com/videos/optimal-control-of-...
It is given by a team from Oxford who were consultants for Ferrari, last year. My guess is that Mercedes had already built up an in-house team during the design cycle. I also think that Renault were well behind on this cycle as we kept hearing "respect the beeps" instruction whereas I suspect this was probably within the engine maps at each circuit for the other two. Where Honda are in this technology, one can only guess.
What I am curious to know is if anyone knows who prepares the maps for customer engines? A special map for a works team will inevitably be better. Perhaps this is why Ron was adamant that he needed to be in that position.
You can imagine how much their supercomputers are whirring away between FP1 and Qually as previous unknowns become known and their models refined - Tyre deg, track / air temperature, higher kerbs etc. etc.
http://uk.mathworks.com/videos/optimal-control-of-...
It is given by a team from Oxford who were consultants for Ferrari, last year. My guess is that Mercedes had already built up an in-house team during the design cycle. I also think that Renault were well behind on this cycle as we kept hearing "respect the beeps" instruction whereas I suspect this was probably within the engine maps at each circuit for the other two. Where Honda are in this technology, one can only guess.
What I am curious to know is if anyone knows who prepares the maps for customer engines? A special map for a works team will inevitably be better. Perhaps this is why Ron was adamant that he needed to be in that position.
You can imagine how much their supercomputers are whirring away between FP1 and Qually as previous unknowns become known and their models refined - Tyre deg, track / air temperature, higher kerbs etc. etc.
Scuffers said:
I believe the manufactures are responsible for *all* the engine maps including customer engines.
I also believe that the regs mean they have to be the same (as in not crippled in terms of different options etc)
From some of the conversations we've heard from interviews I think there is a 'special, super duper mode' that has a limited number of uses (at least with the Merc engines). The teams have the discretion on when they use this mode, but once they've used them, that's it. I also believe that the regs mean they have to be the same (as in not crippled in terms of different options etc)
London424 said:
From some of the conversations we've heard from interviews I think there is a 'special, super duper mode' that has a limited number of uses (at least with the Merc engines). The teams have the discretion on when they use this mode, but once they've used them, that's it.
this is correct..the engines have a life, and part of that is based on what modes they run for how long.
the most aggressive mode (for Merc) was very much limited to qualifying and occasional race use as the wear and damage caused by this mode would quickly reduce the engines life.
interestingly, Merc's update they introduced was based on being able to run more time on the existing aggressive mode as opposed to a power hike.
A potentially interesting development http://as.com/diarioas/2016/01/23/english/14535809...
Gareth1974 said:
A potentially interesting development http://as.com/diarioas/2016/01/23/english/14535809...
Honda called it speculation.http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/10143182/ho...
Not sure of the direction they are going down with these engines. Seems like this 'size zero' thing is really tying their hands.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/opinion/is-ho...
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/opinion/is-ho...
London424 said:
Not sure of the direction they are going down with these engines. Seems like this 'size zero' thing is really tying their hands.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/opinion/is-ho...
are they really that stupid?http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/opinion/is-ho...
honestly?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff