Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
So all the people at McLaren have been signing from the same songsheet "honda not good enough" "we expect more" etc but have specifically not said anything about going to Merc or even confirming that they are to ditch Honda. Yet Boullier tells this one guy that he expects the deal to be completed soon ?
Don't buy it, why would he do that.
The split may well happen, but I don't believe whats written there with regard to sources.
Don't buy it, why would he do that.
The split may well happen, but I don't believe whats written there with regard to sources.
Dr Z said:
jsf said:
I don't see how you cant understand what I am telling you, its absolute basics in trimming out a car to maximise lap time. If you have more power available or if you have more powertrain efficiency (Honda is down on both fronts) you can run more down force whilst attaining the best trim for lap time than you could with less power/efficiency.
That's the point of contention really. You're assuming that the McLaren is trimmed out due to lack of power, I'm disputing that. It's hard to prove either way because we've only got one team running the Honda.jsf said:
It appears you don't understand the basic process of setting up a car for its fastest lap time. I cant help anymore.
If the car is down on power they're going to trim it out for speed. Simple as that. The fact that even with it being skinny on downforce it's still slow shows up the power-train deficiency even more. We don't need fancy traces to understand the basic principles do we? MissChief said:
hairyben said:
I guess if you repeat the good chassis thing for long enough people will agree to believe you out of sheer fatigue.
Anyone who's seen it and raced against it that's passed comment seems to agree that the McLaren chassis is pretty good. Brundle himself has said that in the slow corners and direction changes the McLaren is as good as any.I'll give this one more go and leave it there. I fully understand the need to balance the drag (and by extension the downforce and the reverse too) of the car with power available in order to not lose too much lap time down straights vis a vis the corners.
You guys make it sound like downforce grows on trees. So according to your logic, the works Merc and Williams et al should have the same cornering performance, because what do I know, they will be running similar downforce levels because they have the same power. The gap that exists between the works Merc and the customers is due to...?
You guys make it sound like downforce grows on trees. So according to your logic, the works Merc and Williams et al should have the same cornering performance, because what do I know, they will be running similar downforce levels because they have the same power. The gap that exists between the works Merc and the customers is due to...?
NRS said:
I don't really get why it wouldn't be - it is very clear the car struggles at higher speeds. If you have more power you can run the car at a similar speed but have more downforce and so be better in the corners. Unless you're saying McLaren are putting their effort into downforce in the corners at the expense of speed - which then means they have a very very poor chassis as they have no speed and are poor in the corners from your graphs.
All I'm saying is we don't know if another chassis could extract better cornering performance given the same power because we have one car running the damned power unit. At least at Barcelona.Whilst the McLaren is so down on power we can't see a true demonstration of its aerodynamic abilities, as there will be more compromise to take account of the power deficit.
What we do know is that McLaren claim the chassis is competitive and there are very few (if any) dissenting voices in the paddock.
All things being equal, you can have too much downforce, but never too much power.
What we do know is that McLaren claim the chassis is competitive and there are very few (if any) dissenting voices in the paddock.
All things being equal, you can have too much downforce, but never too much power.
So if mounting points and CoG are comparable, what would the design and engineering focus be for an engine switch?
Gearbox integration
Rear packaging (I assume the engine is a different shape with different points for cooling and ancillaries?
Temperature management and cooling
Wiring loom routing, etc
All of the above affecting aero decisions?
Gearbox integration
Rear packaging (I assume the engine is a different shape with different points for cooling and ancillaries?
Temperature management and cooling
Wiring loom routing, etc
All of the above affecting aero decisions?
Cooling system
Oil feed system
Fuel supply system
Battery pack and electronics integration. Yes they use a standard ecu but there are lots more electronics besides.
Bodywork redesign ? Maybe.
Also the induction side from airbox to engine would likely differ.
I still maintain there could be CoG, weight distribution issues too.
It isn't an afternoons work as some people here seem to think. McLaren need to know what they are doing for 2018 now so they can design and build the car over the coming months. Hence the threats they've made this week.
It's be quite funny if they strip off and then Honda's upgrade in Austria works....
Oil feed system
Fuel supply system
Battery pack and electronics integration. Yes they use a standard ecu but there are lots more electronics besides.
Bodywork redesign ? Maybe.
Also the induction side from airbox to engine would likely differ.
I still maintain there could be CoG, weight distribution issues too.
It isn't an afternoons work as some people here seem to think. McLaren need to know what they are doing for 2018 now so they can design and build the car over the coming months. Hence the threats they've made this week.
It's be quite funny if they strip off and then Honda's upgrade in Austria works....
Crafty_ said:
It isn't an afternoons work as some people here seem to think. McLaren need to know what they are doing for 2018 now so they can design and build the car over the coming months. Hence the threats they've made this week.
Agreed, they are already late, but I'm guessing they have split the design team for both engines and already have some details from the plan B and plan C (Ferrari or Renault?).If they do go Mercedes then what will the brand be? Ilmor? Maybach? Freightliner?
I don't believe it would simply be an afternoons work as such, but I do believe physically fitting the engine with the bodywork off would be, aren't they all running a standardised engine mount system in their cars regardless of bodywork? Sure that rule was introduced that everyone had to run the same mounting points for the engine, after Brawn bought Honda and the only engine that would kinda fit was the Merc, the Ferrari and Renault used different mounts on the chassis.
The hardest part for McLaren wouldn't be fitting the engine in the chassis, it would be trying to fit everything else in their "size zero" rear end, you do have to wonder as well whether that is an issue for the Honda, the lack of space could be creating issues.
The hardest part for McLaren wouldn't be fitting the engine in the chassis, it would be trying to fit everything else in their "size zero" rear end, you do have to wonder as well whether that is an issue for the Honda, the lack of space could be creating issues.
On top of everything Crafty has mentioned, the gearbox casing carries all of the rear suspension pick up points and basically everything from the rear axle centreline back, so while the engine to gearbox and engine mount bolts are supposed to be standard, all of that may not be?
Hence depending on the size and position of the new engine even the wheelbase will probably end up changing. Also the fuel tank.
Hence depending on the size and position of the new engine even the wheelbase will probably end up changing. Also the fuel tank.
all I can suggest Dr Z is you read up on how you optimise a racecar for ultimate lap time, then you may understand what you are saying is nonsense, you don't need another car to use as reference to set your own up.
This is very basic stuff for a race engineer, where you are always trying to find the correct balance between drag and downforce against the available power, once you have that worked out then you work on chassis balance for the desired level of downforce you are going to run.
Going back to engine installs, changing engine supplier is not rocket science, especially in this current era where they all follow the same basic package design, it's relatively easy when you have the engineering staff and facilities modern F1 teams posses.
This is very basic stuff for a race engineer, where you are always trying to find the correct balance between drag and downforce against the available power, once you have that worked out then you work on chassis balance for the desired level of downforce you are going to run.
Going back to engine installs, changing engine supplier is not rocket science, especially in this current era where they all follow the same basic package design, it's relatively easy when you have the engineering staff and facilities modern F1 teams posses.
jsf said:
Going back to engine installs, changing engine supplier is not rocket science, especially in this current era where they all follow the same basic package design, it's relatively easy when you have the engineering staff and facilities modern F1 teams posses.
Is it? The physical engine dropping in might be, but it's way more complex than that as I understand it when you look at the total package and design decisions. Vaud said:
jsf said:
Going back to engine installs, changing engine supplier is not rocket science, especially in this current era where they all follow the same basic package design, it's relatively easy when you have the engineering staff and facilities modern F1 teams posses.
Is it? The physical engine dropping in might be, but it's way more complex than that as I understand it when you look at the total package and design decisions. jsf said:
yes it is. F1 teams are not cake shops, their whole purpose in life is to build F1 cars, packaging is what they do.
I know they aren't; my point is that it is not a quick process. 2018 car design started in Feb (?)... slotting in a new engine means reviewing a whole range of aero and systems design assumptions, layout and then fabrication. Plus the fuel relationship (and potential sponsorship clash). And then the simulator... etcI know they can do it, my point is that it is a non-trivial task, or else teams would chop and change more often based on who had the best engine performance.
Vaud said:
I know they aren't; my point is that it is not a quick process. 2018 car design started in Feb (?)... slotting in a new engine means reviewing a whole range of aero and systems design assumptions, layout and then fabrication. Plus the fuel relationship (and potential sponsorship clash). And then the simulator... etc
I know they can do it, my point is that it is a non-trivial task, or else teams would chop and change more often based on who had the best engine performance.
The lower teams chop and change virtually every season, for financial reasons.I know they can do it, my point is that it is a non-trivial task, or else teams would chop and change more often based on who had the best engine performance.
Its a piece of cake in the big scheme of things. There is always benefits from refining a proven installation, but its not the difficultly people are making out and the basic aero concept wont change because of it, not with this generation of powertrains.
DanielSan said:
Here's a thought to ponder, if Mclaren go to Mercedes power next year and are still way behind Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and even FI/Williams.
Whose to blame for the continuation of the s
t show then?
Well, in 2009-2013 they sort of blamed Whitmarsh and pullrod suspension, 2014 they blamed Mobil? Whose to blame for the continuation of the s
t show then?HustleRussell said:
DanielSan said:
Here's a thought to ponder, if Mclaren go to Mercedes power next year and are still way behind Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and even FI/Williams.
Whose to blame for the continuation of the st show then?
Well, in 2009-2013 they sort of blamed Whitmarsh and pullrod suspension, 2014 they blamed Mobil? Whose to blame for the continuation of the s
t show then?Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff