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.
FW17 wrote:
They run higher rpm so that they can harvest more from the MGU H
If you read Wazari, there is a explanation to this
is that running high rpm and lower boost to maintain the (optimal) mixture as at 10500 ?
or running high rpm maintaining the boost and so leaning the mixture to sub-optimal ?
or increasing backpressure ? (raising recovery but reducing ICE power)
how would any of these or any blend of them work ?
Good question. I for one would like to know.
BTW Tommy, If you put full quotes either side of the username within the square brackets so that FW17 becomes "FW17", it should post correctly.
The use of mule cars, specially why they are not used, has been thoroughly discussed in this thread already.
I have haven't read the entire thread, but I generally have been of the mind that mule testing is probably more expensive to do than you think, may not really replicate everything anyhow and likely not required if your internal automated testing process is working correctly. But I wonder if in hindsight, given a lack of correlation between their testing protocol and actual on track experience (components failing earlier than expected or maybe in ways they didn't expect), that maybe a test mule program would have not been a bad thing? Then you have the question... If they still don't know where the correlation problems are, should they reconsider using a mule even at this late of a stage? Is now not the time to try parallel paths that previously were not thought to be worth doing? My simple understanding would be that if they are having correlation problems with respect to reliability and the ability to replicate the problems they are facing, then they are missing something in their virtual and/or physical testing suite.
Richard
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
The use of mule cars, specially why they are not used, has been thoroughly discussed in this thread already.
I have haven't read the entire thread, but I generally have been of the mind that mule testing is probably more expensive to do than you think, may not really replicate everything anyhow and likely not required if your internal automated testing process is working correctly. But I wonder if in hindsight, given a lack of correlation between their testing protocol and actual on track experience (components failing earlier than expected or maybe in ways they didn't expect), that maybe a test mule program would have not been a bad thing? Then you have the question... If they still don't know where the correlation problems are, should they reconsider using a mule even at this late of a stage? Is now not the time to try parallel paths that previously were not thought to be worth doing? My simple understanding would be that if they are having correlation problems with respect to reliability and the ability to replicate the problems they are facing, then they are missing something in their virtual and/or physical testing suite.
Richard
The reason why it is not done is that Honda is always been short of time. They choose to have the most development time but lesser dyno time.
If mule testing I to be done then it just cuts further into their development and dyno time.
This is reason why they moved straight from dyno to production to race team.
I think it is very wrong idea of not putting the first concept in a mule to have a solid base in reliability and performance.
Just read a translation from one of the japanese media publications.
Sunday's Alonso's failure was a broken crankshaft .
They also say he was instructed not to short shift but he kept short shifting in low revs in the safety car period but they can't say if that contributed to the end result.
Also says because Alonso will need a new ICE in Baku, it will be an updated one. Whether the update will be a big one or small , the quote is this
"Well, in that sense some sort of thing comes in. I still do not know if it can be called spec 3, but I will definitely put something in 2.5 or 2.1"
Just read a translation from one of the japanese media publications.
Sunday's Alonso's failure was a broken crankshaft.
Broken crankshaft is unusual. Perhaps the "vibration" is torsional crankshaft vibration with a resonance around 9,000 or 10,000. Would explain why they have to operate at higher revs than everyone else.
Just read a translation from one of the japanese media publications.
Sunday's Alonso's failure was a broken crankshaft.
Broken crankshaft is unusual. Perhaps the "vibration" is torsional crankshaft vibration with a resonance around 9,000 or 10,000. Would explain why they have to operate at higher revs than everyone else.
This is what the google translate says,
ICE's crankshaft broke through the floor without any signs
and
However, it seems that Hasegawa also can not hide the shock, due to the broken ICE, which has never been broken this season.
"It's been a long time since the engine itself was broken and it is my first time this year .... (It's not due to an oil tank like the Friday Spanish Grand Prix.) Purely somewhere in the ICE burned up, broken I think that it is something like broken, broken, etc.
I'm not that surprised, that correlation between engine dyno and vehicle are an issue.
That's pretty much the standard situation that you can assume to be the case at the start of such a project.
For any research or development engine that is later put into a vehicle, there is some sort of difference between the dyno calibration and the vehicle calibration. However, it is usually in areas that are expected in advance and aren't worthwhile to fully investigate or reproduce on the dyno. But that's for more or less normal engines in more or less normal vehicles. I for one haven't worked on an engine yet, that is a stressed member of the vehicle in the same way as in an F1 car. Motorcycle yes, but F1 is a different ballgame. I think many people don't realize how much more complicated everything gets with using the engine as part of the structure of the vehicle.
I would doubt, that the pure acceleration of the vehicle due to the high grip of current F1 cars is the main issue. Those are easily simulated and well understood (basically everything still has to work at 7g in longitudinal, 6g in transversal and probably 2g in vertical direction, just to be safe). The interesting part is the dynamic vibrations that are introduced through the mounts between monocoque and engine and engine and gearbox. Also the exhaust system. Intake and cooling should be isolated vibrations-wise, no problem at all.
Then again, it is not at all beyond the capabilities of an F1 team to provide figures of that. Simplified it's just putting strain gauges in/on the connections to the rest of the car and log the data while driving it. Not easy, but shouldn't be an issue for an F1 team in my opinion.
The next step, and I think that's probably the big one, is to replicate this on a dyno. You need actuators with significant adjustment speeds and at the same time huge loads and high accuracy. The expression "that's a bitch" comes to mind.
I would think, that, at least initially, most engineers would think, it is possible to simulate huge parts of that and spend the development time and effort for such a system elsewhere. Whether that's really the case or whether this is actually the problem - I don't know. It's certainly fun to speculate about.
(Thinking about it a bit more, I think one big problem might also be to get the vibrational behaviour of the crank train in combination with the auxiliary drive (camshafts, MGU-K, oil pumps, water pump etc) and the gearbox (incl. differential) just right. Even with one of these AVL test rigs, I doubt it is an easy task. And as we've seen with other manufacturers, it is reasonable to think, you don't necessarily need it (at first).
Last comment on how much of a problem Honda is in: Might actually be way less than many here think. If they are really having problems with correlation, they are probably working full time on resolving this, almost nothing else (because the results will be worthless). Once the have resolved this, and it is certainly possible, they can start testing again. It is not unreasonable to think, that they can then find the real source of the problems quickly and also test ideas that they might already have rather quickly and send them to the track. On the other hand, it could also be that they still have no clue whatsoever - we just don't know.
Just read a translation from one of the japanese media publications.
Sunday's Alonso's failure was a broken crankshaft.
Broken crankshaft is unusual. Perhaps the "vibration" is torsional crankshaft vibration with a resonance around 9,000 or 10,000. Would explain why they have to operate at higher revs than everyone else.
Engine failures, does that really matter to Alonso.
I like Alonso as a driver and I wonder currently what incentive does he have to actually get a Honda engine to the finish line in 12th or 13th place. Crank up the engine mode and put in a great show like Canada and he walks away at the end of the race with good publicity (tried hard, plus crowd relations) and sympathy from another failed engine.
It's sort of win or bust territory for him now and I can't see any reason why he would try and nurse an engine. Every failure to finish is not his fault and it gives him the necessary negotiation position to walk away.
Fair play to him, I am actually enjoying him thrashing the mclaren and leaving in a heap by the side of the track rather than limping home to the back of the grid.
Engine failures, does that really matter to Alonso.
I like Alonso as a driver and I wonder currently what incentive does he have to actually get a Honda engine to the finish line in 12th or 13th place. Crank up the engine mode and put in a great show like Canada and he walks away at the end of the race with good publicity (tried hard, plus crowd relations) and sympathy from another failed engine.
It's sort of win or bust territory for him now and I can't see any reason why he would try and nurse an engine. Every failure to finish is not his fault and it gives him the necessary negotiation position to walk away.
Fair play to him, I am actually enjoying him thrashing the mclaren and leaving in a heap by the side of the track rather than limping home to the back of the grid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He was already running in the points, the engine let go when he was cruising. I don't know why some people are in such denial over a sh!t engine. I guess in Russia he cranked it up on the formation lap too before it gave up before lights out right? Lol
Engine failures, does that really matter to Alonso.
I like Alonso as a driver and I wonder currently what incentive does he have to actually get a Honda engine to the finish line in 12th or 13th place. Crank up the engine mode and put in a great show like Canada and he walks away at the end of the race with good publicity (tried hard, plus crowd relations) and sympathy from another failed engine.
It's sort of win or bust territory for him now and I can't see any reason why he would try and nurse an engine. Every failure to finish is not his fault and it gives him the necessary negotiation position to walk away.
Fair play to him, I am actually enjoying him thrashing the mclaren and leaving in a heap by the side of the track rather than limping home to the back of the grid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He was already running in the points, the engine let go when he was cruising. I don't know why some people are in such denial over a sh!t engine. I guess in Russia he cranked it up on the formation lap too before it gave up before lights out right? Lol
Don't deny it's a terrible engine, that wasn't what I was saying.
I'm suggesting that there is no benefit to Alonso nursing an engine home for 1 point. Thrash it to within and inch of its life and leave it in a heap works better for him.
Yes, a bad engine will let go whenever, before the start, I didn't say he was deliberately killing engines, I'm suggesting it's not in his interest to preserve them.
Engine failures, does that really matter to Alonso.
I like Alonso as a driver and I wonder currently what incentive does he have to actually get a Honda engine to the finish line in 12th or 13th place. Crank up the engine mode and put in a great show like Canada and he walks away at the end of the race with good publicity (tried hard, plus crowd relations) and sympathy from another failed engine.
It's sort of win or bust territory for him now and I can't see any reason why he would try and nurse an engine. Every failure to finish is not his fault and it gives him the necessary negotiation position to walk away.
Fair play to him, I am actually enjoying him thrashing the mclaren and leaving in a heap by the side of the track rather than limping home to the back of the grid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He was already running in the points, the engine let go when he was cruising. I don't know why some people are in such denial over a sh!t engine. I guess in Russia he cranked it up on the formation lap too before it gave up before lights out right? Lol
Don't deny it's a terrible engine, that wasn't what I was saying.
I'm suggesting that there is no benefit to Alonso nursing an engine home for 1 point. Thrash it to within and inch of its life and leave it in a heap works better for him.
Yes, a bad engine will let go whenever, before the start, I didn't say he was deliberately killing engines, I'm suggesting it's not in his interest to preserve them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No but that's where I think you are wrong. Points do matter to him because he knows how much hard work goes into preparing every detail to get that perfect lap and get that perfect strategy. I know this because he has said this himself! Right after this latest blow so yes it does matter and it's very important to him and the whole team. I can't believe you think they would work that hard to throw it away like that. Unbelievable
Nobody wants to run an engine until it breaks. If it breaks like this then it's a new PU for next race which means penalties for Honda and Alonso starts at the back, you telling me he want's to start there?
If the sensors light up warnings then they will stop the car, not ignore them and blow the engine.
Of course, sometimes like Canada it can just blow without much warning.
I don't believe the dyno to track correlation issue is exactly accurate. More like there are variables on track they can't quite model, or not accounted for, which is causing deviation from their model, which correlates fine from dyno and SCP. It's a matter of software, but development software, it's not something on the car. Getting this issue sorted has basically made development more inefficient.
If they did get help, it was likely in this area. Except their engine is unique so there is still something missing in their model. Once the models get developed they will be able to develop the power unit more effectively.
I don't believe the dyno to track correlation issue is exactly accurate. More like there are variables on track they can't quite model, or not accounted for, which is causing deviation from their model, which correlates fine from dyno and SCP. It's a matter of software, but development software, it's not something on the car. Getting this issue sorted has basically made development more inefficient.
If they did get help, it was likely in this area. Except their engine is unique so there is still something missing in their model. Once the models get developed they will be able to develop the power unit more effectively.
There is two thing in my mind. Maybe both wrong I dont know.
One is maybe Honda PU doesn't like Mclaren chassis maybe a better or different installation will give different results. We don't know because there is no comperation point.
Other is about one to six migration problem. Maybe they must do more like merc. for example intake tube. You see above of merc engine
