Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
what do you mean "detuned of course" ? nowhere in the article does it say its detuned?tom101 wrote:Spanish press published
2017 Honda engine was running with 50hp less than 2016 spec.
(Detuned of course)
Also vibrations causes electrical problems.
http://soymotor.com/noticias/lobato-mcl ... 016-931184
there are at least a couple reasons for hollowing the crank - lowering the inertia being the most obvious one.Tommy Cookers wrote:
as others have said .....
crank stiffness is fixed at a conservative level by rules on minimum pin and main journal diameters ? (hollowing could evade this, but why do it ?)
block and head/cambox stiffness is vital (as Honda and Cosworth have found earlier)
It's easy to say now which option is better. I don't think it's bad to have Honda PU,no doubt thay can develop good engine it's just they should have given them more time, at least 5 years for development before they were introduced. Now we see it's not just engine it's mindset integration, and better understanding between partners.fiohaa wrote:do you have a source for that claim?alexa wrote:
They where down on power even then because they where using Mobile fuel ,and not petronas , so they had around 30HP less then Mercedes had.
EDIT: Found this from a sky f1 article, mark huges:
The necessity for the engine and fuel to be developed together in this formula was underlined last year when McLaren ran Mercedes engines as customers but was contracted to run Mobil fuel. Despite identical engines to the works cars, the McLarens were often as much as 40 horsepower down.
doesnt matter. but still - do you honestly think if they knew in 2014 that this is how bad things would be in 2015/2016/2017, do you really think they'd have still switched? I doubt they had a 5 year plan, more like 3 years, and they are well off target even with that.
They are trying to build a competitive power unit, but they do not have a Formula One culture.
‘They are a big, successful company and they have their own ways of doing things. To devise a power unit in Japan is a challenge. That is why Mercedes decided to make theirs in England.
‘We need a greater transfer of knowledge. They need to take on board the Formula One culture and to integrate that at all levels. You need to be fast in developing, as fast as F1 moves. Process, procurement, both need to be looked at.’
Though - has it really been confirmed that the failures are electrical (and if so, which type exactly?) and that vibrations are the cause? There have been so many reports based on rumour or speculation.Dimi wrote:I cant understand how vibrations affect electronic systems and why is so difficult for an automotive manufacturer to solve this.
- vibrations affect connectors?
- cause cold joints to cirquits?
- affect rotating parts of other electrical devices like altenators -mguh?
finally how is possible not to have discovered vibration problems on test beds?
Alonso said it was detuned during last week test.GoranF1 wrote:what do you mean "detuned of course" ? nowhere in the article does it say its detuned?tom101 wrote:Spanish press published
2017 Honda engine was running with 50hp less than 2016 spec.
(Detuned of course)
Also vibrations causes electrical problems.
http://soymotor.com/noticias/lobato-mcl ... 016-931184
During 2015 and 2016 tests and first races they said the same....radosav wrote:Alonso said it was detuned during last week test.GoranF1 wrote:what do you mean "detuned of course" ? nowhere in the article does it say its detuned?tom101 wrote:Spanish press published
2017 Honda engine was running with 50hp less than 2016 spec.
(Detuned of course)
Also vibrations causes electrical problems.
http://soymotor.com/noticias/lobato-mcl ... 016-931184
Quite easy to see the vibrations being missed on a test bed. Although it has the same mounting points those mounting points are attached to very solid framework which is then probably secured into a concrete slab. All this would act to dampen the overall level of the vibrations. You then turn around and bolt the engine into a very light although stiff structure, this has a very poor ability to assist in dampening the vibrations. The result is the overall level of the vibrations are higher then what they probably saw on the dyno rig.Dimi wrote:I cant understand how vibrations affect electronic systems and why is so difficult for an automotive manufacturer to solve this.
- vibrations affect connectors?
- cause cold joints to cirquits?
- affect rotating parts of other electrical devices like altenators -mguh?
finally how is possible not to have discovered vibration problems on test beds?
The vibration breaks that which needs strengthening. By strengthening "it", hopefully vibrations no longer damage it, and hopefully can be done without increasing weight, and if possible reducing it.fellowhoodlums wrote:Regarding the vibration issue, Hasegawa said regarding week 1 test that they needed to look at strengthening "that" area of the PU.
Didn't say what "that" was, but is it a structural weakness of "that" area reason for the vibration? Perhaps the Japanese use of the word strengthen means that it's the area to improve generally.
ok, so vibration isn't an issue?godlameroso wrote:The vibration breaks that which needs strengthening. By strengthening "it", hopefully vibrations no longer damage it, and hopefully can be done without increasing weight, and if possible reducing it.fellowhoodlums wrote:Regarding the vibration issue, Hasegawa said regarding week 1 test that they needed to look at strengthening "that" area of the PU.
Didn't say what "that" was, but is it a structural weakness of "that" area reason for the vibration? Perhaps the Japanese use of the word strengthen means that it's the area to improve generally.
