Honda - another disaster ?
Discussion
skwdenyer said:
Speed trap times suggest the same; pre-race, Alonso and Vandoorne were 19th and 20th respectively through the trap.
I'd suggest that's actually quite a chassis they've got there.
So... all of this is a roundabout way of saying that Honda only have to unleash a bit more power to start to tip the balance in favour of McLaren. How much power? Well, Alonso was able to stay with cars with (it is suggested) 80-120bhp or so more.
And how does that bode for Monaco? Well, a decent chassis and a decent driver are the perfect combination there. Here's hoping
I share a little bit of your optimism, however I'm still cautious in reading too much into the Barcelona performance. Alonso was in beast mode and kept finding a few tenths every time he went out for a run which is very unusual as normally you'd expect drivers fighting to get into last spots for Q3 to be on the limit for Q2 atleast, but there did appear to be an awful lot of evolution as the qualifying sessions went on in terms of track temp/wind direction etc even so, there was very little drama/mistakes in his laps. I'd suggest that's actually quite a chassis they've got there.
So... all of this is a roundabout way of saying that Honda only have to unleash a bit more power to start to tip the balance in favour of McLaren. How much power? Well, Alonso was able to stay with cars with (it is suggested) 80-120bhp or so more.
And how does that bode for Monaco? Well, a decent chassis and a decent driver are the perfect combination there. Here's hoping
From what I've seen of some of the cars this year, they seem to share a lot of the characteristics of last year's cars.
IMO, the McLaren chassis is not as good as the Red Bull/Merc in the low speed corners in all the races seen so far, similar to last year. Average traction too, but it could be due to the PU drivability issues (comes back to the weird rpm range they were running at). It didn't look too bad in Barcelona S3 so I'm assuming they've made progress on that. These two factors counts for a lot in Monaco when the teams will be piling on the downforce, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make Q3. If Button/Vandoorne could make Q3 in Monaco, that would be a very good sign indeed.
With regards to the PU this is my impression: the Honda has a weak ERS and seems to run out of deployment much quicker than others. This is a contrast to previous years when they had a weak and thirsty ICE but very good deployment. I'm thinking, thirsty engine=more heat rejected=more energy recovered via MGU-H.
I'm guessing the vibration issues are due in part to the new rumoured TJI-like combustion they'd tried to introduce for this year. Could tie in with the story about the issues relating to going from a 1 cylinder model to a V6, allied to a different firing order too? This could explain the weaker ERS, as more efficient/lean combustion=less heat to be recovered=less deployment. However, they were still doing some fuel saving in Barcelona, so clearly that gap is yet to be bridged.
I'm thinking the next scheduled ICE introduction should solve a lot of these problems, and if they do, they'd be up there with the Renault PU but I read that Hasegawa has thrown some doubts about introducing it in Canada. Hence, Force India quaking in their boots about Merc giving Honda a helping hand in the short term. I wouldn't want any help, to be honest. The struggle for the past two and a half years will be only worth it if Honda can do it without any help. And I think they're close to it.
Not too worried about Sauber for now. Who knows, McLaren could overtake them in the WCC at Monaco.
Dr Z said:
I share a little bit of your optimism, however I'm still cautious in reading too much into the Barcelona performance. Alonso was in beast mode and kept finding a few tenths every time he went out for a run which is very unusual as normally you'd expect drivers fighting to get into last spots for Q3 to be on the limit for Q2 atleast, but there did appear to be an awful lot of evolution as the qualifying sessions went on in terms of track temp/wind direction etc even so, there was very little drama/mistakes in his laps.
From what I've seen of some of the cars this year, they seem to share a lot of the characteristics of last year's cars.
IMO, the McLaren chassis is not as good as the Red Bull/Merc in the low speed corners in all the races seen so far, similar to last year. Average traction too, but it could be due to the PU drivability issues (comes back to the weird rpm range they were running at). It didn't look too bad in Barcelona S3 so I'm assuming they've made progress on that. These two factors counts for a lot in Monaco when the teams will be piling on the downforce, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make Q3. If Button/Vandoorne could make Q3 in Monaco, that would be a very good sign indeed.
With regards to the PU this is my impression: the Honda has a weak ERS and seems to run out of deployment much quicker than others. This is a contrast to previous years when they had a weak and thirsty ICE but very good deployment. I'm thinking, thirsty engine=more heat rejected=more energy recovered via MGU-H.
I'm guessing the vibration issues are due in part to the new rumoured TJI-like combustion they'd tried to introduce for this year. Could tie in with the story about the issues relating to going from a 1 cylinder model to a V6, allied to a different firing order too? This could explain the weaker ERS, as more efficient/lean combustion=less heat to be recovered=less deployment. However, they were still doing some fuel saving in Barcelona, so clearly that gap is yet to be bridged.
I'm thinking the next scheduled ICE introduction should solve a lot of these problems, and if they do, they'd be up there with the Renault PU but I read that Hasegawa has thrown some doubts about introducing it in Canada. Hence, Force India quaking in their boots about Merc giving Honda a helping hand in the short term. I wouldn't want any help, to be honest. The struggle for the past two and a half years will be only worth it if Honda can do it without any help. And I think they're close to it.
Not too worried about Sauber for now. Who knows, McLaren could overtake them in the WCC at Monaco.
Its well known that last season and the season before that the McLarens couldn't deploy ERS for the full straight at Barcelona etc I am sure I remember reading that this years ERS is actually better but still not as good as it should be and that follows back to the sFrom what I've seen of some of the cars this year, they seem to share a lot of the characteristics of last year's cars.
IMO, the McLaren chassis is not as good as the Red Bull/Merc in the low speed corners in all the races seen so far, similar to last year. Average traction too, but it could be due to the PU drivability issues (comes back to the weird rpm range they were running at). It didn't look too bad in Barcelona S3 so I'm assuming they've made progress on that. These two factors counts for a lot in Monaco when the teams will be piling on the downforce, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make Q3. If Button/Vandoorne could make Q3 in Monaco, that would be a very good sign indeed.
With regards to the PU this is my impression: the Honda has a weak ERS and seems to run out of deployment much quicker than others. This is a contrast to previous years when they had a weak and thirsty ICE but very good deployment. I'm thinking, thirsty engine=more heat rejected=more energy recovered via MGU-H.
I'm guessing the vibration issues are due in part to the new rumoured TJI-like combustion they'd tried to introduce for this year. Could tie in with the story about the issues relating to going from a 1 cylinder model to a V6, allied to a different firing order too? This could explain the weaker ERS, as more efficient/lean combustion=less heat to be recovered=less deployment. However, they were still doing some fuel saving in Barcelona, so clearly that gap is yet to be bridged.
I'm thinking the next scheduled ICE introduction should solve a lot of these problems, and if they do, they'd be up there with the Renault PU but I read that Hasegawa has thrown some doubts about introducing it in Canada. Hence, Force India quaking in their boots about Merc giving Honda a helping hand in the short term. I wouldn't want any help, to be honest. The struggle for the past two and a half years will be only worth it if Honda can do it without any help. And I think they're close to it.
Not too worried about Sauber for now. Who knows, McLaren could overtake them in the WCC at Monaco.
t ICE that they are "running"geeks said:
Its well known that last season and the season before that the McLarens couldn't deploy ERS for the full straight at Barcelona etc I am sure I remember reading that this years ERS is actually better but still not as good as it should be and that follows back to the st ICE that they are "running"
Right, I guess I was referring to the 2016 PU re: deployment and I'm sure I've read that it was one of the bigger improvements of the 2016 PU, and they were no longer getting mugged on the straights. 2015 was an embarrassment, agreed. This year's ERS may be as good as the Renault but still, not deploying/harvesting to the full capacity and show it a long straight (i.e. China) and it gives up. Everything is hanging on getting that ICE sorted.t ICE that they are "running"rubystone said:
spunkytherabbit said:
I don't think it's that simplistic.
Ron drove onto the rocks every professional relationship he had whilst at Mclaren and there are plenty of good quality sources have publicly said as much. All in the pursuit of a way of working that has put the team into decline since 2001 with only one WDC since and a downward trajectory of race wins each season. Whilst he maintained a view of the value of the team that led to the loss of all their main sponsors. Which he couldn't replace either as a result.
You also need to remember that he instigated his own removal by mounting a hostile takeover. All through ego. An ego that was on very public view when even after he failed in his takeover, rather than go quietly, he took Mclaren to court to try and stay in post. I mean who does that?!
As a Mclaren fan since the age of four it's pained me to watch this happen and whilst his divorce was a factor, it's naive to say it was the only cause. Ron got kicked out because of Ron and Mclaren are in this state, with no cash to even have a plan B, because of Ron.
For every source that states that fact, there's another that'll tell you how loyal he has been to his staff. I've spoken to several who would confirm that fact. Ron drove onto the rocks every professional relationship he had whilst at Mclaren and there are plenty of good quality sources have publicly said as much. All in the pursuit of a way of working that has put the team into decline since 2001 with only one WDC since and a downward trajectory of race wins each season. Whilst he maintained a view of the value of the team that led to the loss of all their main sponsors. Which he couldn't replace either as a result.
You also need to remember that he instigated his own removal by mounting a hostile takeover. All through ego. An ego that was on very public view when even after he failed in his takeover, rather than go quietly, he took Mclaren to court to try and stay in post. I mean who does that?!
As a Mclaren fan since the age of four it's pained me to watch this happen and whilst his divorce was a factor, it's naive to say it was the only cause. Ron got kicked out because of Ron and Mclaren are in this state, with no cash to even have a plan B, because of Ron.
Edited by spunkytherabbit on Tuesday 16th May 11:59
As regards a 'hostile' takeover; from what's been reported in the media, it appears that RD found investors interested not only in investing in the team but also in acquiring the whole group. That wasn't what Ojjeh and the Bahrains expected or wanted and thus they rejected the bid. Yes, RD failed several times to find investors and yes the agreed period had expired by the time he found these new investors. It seems that the rejection of that offer is what was behind his court action. There's been no mention of the personal issues between Ojjeh and RD as being the primary motivator for the action.
Dakkon said:
This is what I have read as well, Ron found over three times the current value of the business in Chinese and other investments and it was turned down.
How are you defining 'current value'? McLaren is not a publicly traded company.Newspapers reported that an offer of £1.65bn was made for McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Automotive by a consortium of Chinese investors. We don't know how much the Bahrainis paid for their share in McLaren Technology Group but we do know that they have plowed hundred of millions into keeping McLaren Automotive afloat. That £1.65bn offer may have valued the Bahrainis share of the 2 companies at less than they had invested, hence, they rejected it.
ralphrj said:
Dakkon said:
This is what I have read as well, Ron found over three times the current value of the business in Chinese and other investments and it was turned down.
How are you defining 'current value'? McLaren is not a publicly traded company.Newspapers reported that an offer of £1.65bn was made for McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Automotive by a consortium of Chinese investors. We don't know how much the Bahrainis paid for their share in McLaren Technology Group but we do know that they have plowed hundred of millions into keeping McLaren Automotive afloat. That £1.65bn offer may have valued the Bahrainis share of the 2 companies at less than they had invested, hence, they rejected it.
I've also heard from other drivers that in slow corners the McLaren is actually pretty good and certainly seems on par with the Red Bull and others. Mind you I also heard that the current engine is actually DOWN on power compared to the very first engine. it also blows my mind that a company the size of Honda conducts single cylinder testing, then builds the V6 and puts it into the back of the car at a test for the first time. The suggestion is that it didn't even run on a bench in V6 form with all the gubbins attached until the first test.
MissChief said:
it also blows my mind that a company the size of Honda conducts single cylinder testing, then builds the V6 and puts it into the back of the car at a test for the first time. The suggestion is that it didn't even run on a bench in V6 form with all the gubbins attached until the first test.
They didn't. The V6 ran as a complete PU on the dyno before testing, but a dyno, even with a gearbox and loaded suspension (if they did that) is only a simulation of track time. ralphrj said:
How are you defining 'current value'? McLaren is not a publicly traded company.
Newspapers reported that an offer of £1.65bn was made for McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Automotive by a consortium of Chinese investors. We don't know how much the Bahrainis paid for their share in McLaren Technology Group but we do know that they have plowed hundred of millions into keeping McLaren Automotive afloat. That £1.65bn offer may have valued the Bahrainis share of the 2 companies at less than they had invested, hence, they rejected it.
There's nothing in the public forum about why they rejected it. Pure conjecture as to why they did. Could've been value, could've been personal sleight, could've been Ron's choice of Boss suits. Fact is it was rejected without any obvious option of re-address.Newspapers reported that an offer of £1.65bn was made for McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Automotive by a consortium of Chinese investors. We don't know how much the Bahrainis paid for their share in McLaren Technology Group but we do know that they have plowed hundred of millions into keeping McLaren Automotive afloat. That £1.65bn offer may have valued the Bahrainis share of the 2 companies at less than they had invested, hence, they rejected it.
AW111 said:
Thundersports said:
Ferrari next year. Vettel is moving on. The main question is who will be the other Ferrari driver.
It won't happen, but I'd love it to be Ricciardo.The Australian Italian community (and it's huge) would go nuts.
I'm fairly sure now that the shift points have changed for Honda at the Spanish GP. Had the telemetry from the Chinese GP and thankfully FOM uploaded Alonso's Q3 lap in Barcelona. I don't know if the teams request it or not, FOM did not display the telemetry for the video they put up in youtube. No matter, some audio spectrum analysis to the rescue.
Looking into the audio of the laps, I found two pretty strong harmonics in the 250 - 400 Hz range that allowed me to track the revs and match it up with the telemetry from China. They match up well for the different engines. Pretty picture of the spectrum from China (gear/turns indicated):
Spain:
Looking through the lap and measuring the frequency of those harmonics, I'm pretty sure now that the shift points have dropped fairly significantly to within the range other manufacturers are operating their engines at (almost like the Ferrari engine now).
One thing I noticed which intrigues me. The Merc/Ferrari engine's turbo whistle kind of follows the revs and show an increase in frequency/intensity under full throttle acceleration going up the gears from 6th-8th on the straights, whereas the Honda turbo whistle remains constant, almost like an antilag system. Could someone shed light on what's happening here?
The turbo whistle hasn't changed from China to Spain for Honda, the freq is around 9 kHz. The Merc climbs from 10 - 11.5 kHz under accleration. I'm assuming that's the turbo whistle as the spooling down trace looks familiar.
ETA: Renault's turbo whistle is very faint and can only detect it when spooling down.
Looking into the audio of the laps, I found two pretty strong harmonics in the 250 - 400 Hz range that allowed me to track the revs and match it up with the telemetry from China. They match up well for the different engines. Pretty picture of the spectrum from China (gear/turns indicated):
Spain:
Looking through the lap and measuring the frequency of those harmonics, I'm pretty sure now that the shift points have dropped fairly significantly to within the range other manufacturers are operating their engines at (almost like the Ferrari engine now).
One thing I noticed which intrigues me. The Merc/Ferrari engine's turbo whistle kind of follows the revs and show an increase in frequency/intensity under full throttle acceleration going up the gears from 6th-8th on the straights, whereas the Honda turbo whistle remains constant, almost like an antilag system. Could someone shed light on what's happening here?
The turbo whistle hasn't changed from China to Spain for Honda, the freq is around 9 kHz. The Merc climbs from 10 - 11.5 kHz under accleration. I'm assuming that's the turbo whistle as the spooling down trace looks familiar.
ETA: Renault's turbo whistle is very faint and can only detect it when spooling down.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 18th May 19:34
Dr Z said:
the Honda turbo whistle remains constant, almost like an antilag system. Could someone shed light on what's happening here?
My understanding is the battery is be used to spool the turbo to remove lag when it is off boost, but it also works in reverse and charges the battery. The turbo revs can be fixed by drawing more / less power out of it and into the batteries.If the exhaust gas flow rate rise as the revs do, the turbo would usually speed up relative to that. If you are harvesting you will reduce the turbo speed by drawing off more energy.
Not sure if I`ve managed to explain that clearly enough
Wh00sher said:
My understanding is the battery is be used to spool the turbo to remove lag when it is off boost, but it also works in reverse and charges the battery. The turbo revs can be fixed by drawing more / less power out of it and into the batteries.
If the exhaust gas flow rate rise as the revs do, the turbo would usually speed up relative to that. If you are harvesting you will reduce the turbo speed by drawing off more energy.
Not sure if I`ve managed to explain that clearly enough
Makes sense. You're saying the turbo has a lower limit because at high revs it's being slowed by power generation more than in other engines.If the exhaust gas flow rate rise as the revs do, the turbo would usually speed up relative to that. If you are harvesting you will reduce the turbo speed by drawing off more energy.
Not sure if I`ve managed to explain that clearly enough
Wh00sher said:
Dr Z said:
the Honda turbo whistle remains constant, almost like an antilag system. Could someone shed light on what's happening here?
My understanding is the battery is be used to spool the turbo to remove lag when it is off boost, but it also works in reverse and charges the battery. The turbo revs can be fixed by drawing more / less power out of it and into the batteries.If the exhaust gas flow rate rise as the revs do, the turbo would usually speed up relative to that. If you are harvesting you will reduce the turbo speed by drawing off more energy.
Not sure if I`ve managed to explain that clearly enough
The energy recovered/deployed using the MGU-K is fixed, but exhaust energy recovery can be used to charge the battery or power the MGU-K directly to assist in acceleration and this is unlimited. Usually, they have a charge lap too as the batteries are not allowed to be charged while in the pits, IIRC.
So, does this suggest that they are not able to charge batteries fully enough in the charge lap to have enough energy to deploy for a full lap? Forcing them to work the MGU-H hard to recover some exhaust heat? They certainly had several MGU-H failures.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 18th May 21:32
Dr Z said:
I think you're right. My term 'antilag' is probably wrong, but it surprises me that whilst the top engine's turbochargers are working presumably to a higher boost in a qualifying lap, the Honda's turbo is still limited to a fixed speed and the excess gas is being used to harvest energy via the MGU-H. I'd imagine this type of regime would be the engine's self-sustaining race mode!
The energy recovered/deployed using the MGU-K is fixed, but exhaust energy recovery can be used to charge the battery or power the MGU-K directly to assist in acceleration and this is unlimited. Usually, they have a charge lap too as the batteries are not allowed to be charged while in the pits, IIRC.
So, does this suggest that they are not able to charge batteries fully enough in the charge lap to have enough energy to deploy for a full lap? Forcing them to work the MGU-H hard to recover some exhaust heat? They certainly had several MGU-H failures.
Making a turbocharged engine work efficiently and produce high power is far more complicated than using boost as a reference, a low boost setup with high airflow may produce more power than a high boost setup with low airflow. Each of these engines with have different turbine designs that will give different characteristics. The required turbine speed will also be different between different designs.The energy recovered/deployed using the MGU-K is fixed, but exhaust energy recovery can be used to charge the battery or power the MGU-K directly to assist in acceleration and this is unlimited. Usually, they have a charge lap too as the batteries are not allowed to be charged while in the pits, IIRC.
So, does this suggest that they are not able to charge batteries fully enough in the charge lap to have enough energy to deploy for a full lap? Forcing them to work the MGU-H hard to recover some exhaust heat? They certainly had several MGU-H failures.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 18th May 21:32
As an example, this is a screen shot of my engine data log showing turbo speed, boost and engine rpm. the best performance is produced on this engine by maintaining a set turbo speed that is efficient, this means as the engine rpm rises, the boost lowers but the turbo speed is constant. If you tried to maintain the boost level, the turbo speed would have to increase, which takes it out of its efficiency range, what that does is heats the air up more, losing power even though you are stuffing more air into the engine. If i wanted to i could let the turbo run harder and run more boost, but it would produce less power and would stress the engine more.
The log shows the car going through 2 gear shifts then backing off, the turbo is spinning at 125K rpm on load, the boost drops 0.1BAR over 1800rpm when on throttle. Off throttle the turbo speed drops and then has to increase again in this log.
I've now implemented flat throttle shifting, so on upshifts the throttle stays planted, the engine torque is cut as soon as the clutch pedal is touched via fuel and ignition retards and cuts, but because the throttle is open the turbo keeps spinning above 110krpm, this is on a syncro box, on an F1 box it would be instant with no drop in turbo speed.
on my engine i control the turbo speed via the wastegate, on the current F1 engines they have a wastegate but also vary the generator load to keep the turbo in its sweet spot without wasting energy. In case you don't know, a wastegate is just a bypass valve that opens up to allow some of the exhaust gasses powering the turbine to be directed away from the turbine and out the exhaust pipe, without that the turbo can overspeed.
Vaud said:
Dr Z... thanks for sharing as ever, and I'm convinced that you are secretly a witch... great analysis.
Ha! No probs. jsf said:
Making a turbocharged engine work efficiently and produce high power is far more complicated than using boost as a reference, a low boost setup with high airflow may produce more power than a high boost setup with low airflow. Each of these engines with have different turbine designs that will give different characteristics. The required turbine speed will also be different between different designs.
As an example, this is a screen shot of my engine data log showing turbo speed, boost and engine rpm. the best performance is produced on this engine by maintaining a set turbo speed that is efficient, this means as the engine rpm rises, the boost lowers but the turbo speed is constant. If you tried to maintain the boost level, the turbo speed would have to increase, which takes it out of its efficiency range, what that does is heats the air up more, losing power even though you are stuffing more air into the engine. If i wanted to i could let the turbo run harder and run more boost, but it would produce less power and would stress the engine more.
<snip>
Thank you. I suspected it wasn't as simple as I thought, given my rudimentary understanding of turbocharging, but what you said does jog the memory re: efficiency of the turbo. Also, lots of things could have an effect on the frequency of the sound emitted by the turbo, including microphone placement, no. of blades and indeed the turbine size. For clarity, I'm including screenshots of what I saw with the Honda and Mercedes turbo noises in the sound spectra.As an example, this is a screen shot of my engine data log showing turbo speed, boost and engine rpm. the best performance is produced on this engine by maintaining a set turbo speed that is efficient, this means as the engine rpm rises, the boost lowers but the turbo speed is constant. If you tried to maintain the boost level, the turbo speed would have to increase, which takes it out of its efficiency range, what that does is heats the air up more, losing power even though you are stuffing more air into the engine. If i wanted to i could let the turbo run harder and run more boost, but it would produce less power and would stress the engine more.
<snip>
Honda in China (turns indicated):
Honda in Spain:
Mercedes in China:
Mercedes in Spain:
It was pretty cool to see the differences. The Mercedes turbo has a lot of overtones, and almost two distinct harmonics...possibly due to the split design, seems to be working over a wide range. The Honda varies over a much shorter harmonic range as Alonso went through the gears but the sound is not as complex as the Mercedes turbo, but a pretty distinct noise nonetheless.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff