Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
HarryFlatters said:
janesmith1950 said:
CraigyMc said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Or does the rules and regulations make it very difficult?
Yes, otherwise presumably they'd have done it already.Didn't stop a funny sounding engine from ending up in the back of an LaLa Mule a few years ago though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od3H6Jxisfk
jsf said:
There are no excuses for turning up at the first test with a dry sump oil tank that doesn't work, that's criminal.
Agreed. It appears they were pushing until the last minute, and have skipped some basics.(Edited to add: the new shape of oil tank is because of the new architecture - it has to curve around the compressor housing now, because both of these items are at the front of the 2017 engine). No excuse though, just an explanation of why something so basic is both new and problematic this year
Edited by CraigyMc on Thursday 16th March 11:05
CraigyMc said:
Rules and regs was the original quote, rather than development restrictions. It's the fuel rate limit and fuel mass limit.
To compete, you need these weird engine concepts like TJI/HCCI.
Since it's the TJI/HCCI concepts that are novel here these are problematic bits. The MGU-H integration adds complexity to things, but is understood.
The repackaging of the 2017 Honda PU (compressor now at the front instead of in the V) is another change, and consequently another thing to learn.
HCCI itself is fairly well understood (albeit very hard without recourse to materials banned in the regs by the modulus of elasticity rules) but to come from nothing and develop a new TJI system in one go is reaching for the moon. This involves moving the AFR in the engine up massively past the point of det in a spark engine.
Instead of exhaust lambda limit in the region of 1.3/1.4 for a spark engine, it's more like 2.2 for the TJI setup: a massive difference.
Practically everything on an engine you'd build for spark needs to be revised for TJI as a consequence.
Have a read of http://www.egr.msu.edu/zhug/Conference%20Articles/... for more.
Bear in mind that Merc have had this since their 2014 engine, so are on perhaps their 4th iteration of it.
Honda seem to be on some sort of beta version of their first go at it this year.
If they'd come to the end of the potential in the existing (classical/typical) spark combustion process, and needed to move to TJI just to get the engine running lean enough to compete at all, then they had to do this: they were forced to.
It's no real surprise that they will struggle for the first months really, it's just super annoying that they are having issues with dyno to car correlation on the engine reliability.
It's also no big surprise that the start of a new engine concept (combustion, layout) may underperform an older layout at introduction, since the new one doesn't have two years of optimisation in it yet. It'll have much more headroom for development though, and there's a fairly solid chance that Honda are running the thing "turned down" in terms of fuelling, timing and so on - to try to figure out where the problems are to get it to run reliably.
And this is the problem with F1. To compete, you need these weird engine concepts like TJI/HCCI.
Since it's the TJI/HCCI concepts that are novel here these are problematic bits. The MGU-H integration adds complexity to things, but is understood.
The repackaging of the 2017 Honda PU (compressor now at the front instead of in the V) is another change, and consequently another thing to learn.
HCCI itself is fairly well understood (albeit very hard without recourse to materials banned in the regs by the modulus of elasticity rules) but to come from nothing and develop a new TJI system in one go is reaching for the moon. This involves moving the AFR in the engine up massively past the point of det in a spark engine.
Instead of exhaust lambda limit in the region of 1.3/1.4 for a spark engine, it's more like 2.2 for the TJI setup: a massive difference.
Practically everything on an engine you'd build for spark needs to be revised for TJI as a consequence.
Have a read of http://www.egr.msu.edu/zhug/Conference%20Articles/... for more.
Bear in mind that Merc have had this since their 2014 engine, so are on perhaps their 4th iteration of it.
Honda seem to be on some sort of beta version of their first go at it this year.
If they'd come to the end of the potential in the existing (classical/typical) spark combustion process, and needed to move to TJI just to get the engine running lean enough to compete at all, then they had to do this: they were forced to.
It's no real surprise that they will struggle for the first months really, it's just super annoying that they are having issues with dyno to car correlation on the engine reliability.
It's also no big surprise that the start of a new engine concept (combustion, layout) may underperform an older layout at introduction, since the new one doesn't have two years of optimisation in it yet. It'll have much more headroom for development though, and there's a fairly solid chance that Honda are running the thing "turned down" in terms of fuelling, timing and so on - to try to figure out where the problems are to get it to run reliably.
Clearly it is a threat to Honda that they need to find something and very soon.
Honda as still well behind the rest of the field so you can only see McLaren trying their hardest to make sure the Mercedes engine is in the back of the McLaren before the end of 2017.
McLaren are set to lose a fortune if they part ways with Honda but unless they are near the front of the grid they will lose more including their driver and constructors points which as we know will lose valuable Millions.
Very sad situation for two big names in F1.
Honda must be wishing they had never returned which is a real shame
Honda as still well behind the rest of the field so you can only see McLaren trying their hardest to make sure the Mercedes engine is in the back of the McLaren before the end of 2017.
McLaren are set to lose a fortune if they part ways with Honda but unless they are near the front of the grid they will lose more including their driver and constructors points which as we know will lose valuable Millions.
Very sad situation for two big names in F1.
Honda must be wishing they had never returned which is a real shame
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Honda must be wishing they had never returned which is a real shame
Don't forget it was their decision to go for the engine configuration they chose in 2015. They discovered that that wasn't going to haul them up to Mercedes and reverted to the configuration that Mercedes have for 2017. I'm presuming that with McLaren's knowledge of the Mercedes hybrid they would have been aware of the basic architecture of the engine and thus could have chosen that design direction initially?rubystone said:
Don't forget it was their decision to go for the engine configuration they chose in 2015. They discovered that that wasn't going to haul them up to Mercedes and reverted to the configuration that Mercedes have for 2017. I'm presuming that with McLaren's knowledge of the Mercedes hybrid they would have been aware of the basic architecture of the engine and thus could have chosen that design direction initially?
They had the Mercedes engine for at least 12 months to study, you cant get better than having the thing installed in your car if you wish to steal information.This is bad for F1 - Honda, despite their (many) errors have spent a fortune on this programme - and for little benefit. What manufacturers are going to be looking at this and thinking F1 is a good opportunity?!
F1 needs Honda to succeed more than it needs McLaren to be winning if it is to attract and maintain the interest of the big manufacturers. If Mercedes decide to leave in 2020 with their heads high, then there are two viable engines and 0 opportunity for another company to turn up with credible technology to be competitive.
F1 needs Honda to succeed more than it needs McLaren to be winning if it is to attract and maintain the interest of the big manufacturers. If Mercedes decide to leave in 2020 with their heads high, then there are two viable engines and 0 opportunity for another company to turn up with credible technology to be competitive.
bigbarryfatbaps said:
What did it say? The post seems to have been deleted (link goes nowhere)[k]
It was linking to this: http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/inside-the-mtc/fou...
[k]arl said:
bigbarryfatbaps said:
What did it say? The post seems to have been deleted (link goes nowhere)[k]
http://tweeterino.com/ is very naughty.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff