Not necessarily, because that depends of the lubricant itself and internal design they are using, also not good because at more rpm the ICE works, more gases which help to move more rapidly the MGU-H which in consequence generates more electricity, more efficiency for the same amount of fuel.toraabe wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 16:04First of all they need to lower their shifting points so they will shift at 11500 as the others are doing. Increased RPM increases the inner friction of the ICE.harjan wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 08:13Is friction a design, material or manufacturing process issue?
As for people saying McLaren wouldn't be able to compete with RB- this is exactly what the last 3 yrs have done to the McLaren brand..
McLaren can beat any team on the grid, they're known for their ability to improve during the season more than any other team on the grid.
Pre-Honda McLaren wasn't at its strongest, but that still meant being on the podium/top six.
etusch wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 22:40With new rule manufacturers don't prefer higher revs. But I am sure if there wasn't fuel flow limit or fuel limit for a race they would use 15k rpm.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/08 ... od-ratios/
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/08 ... od-ratios/
dren wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 14:22So if friction is an issue,it really surprises me, especially if it is one of the main reasons for the gap in power.
As Wazari has stated, ERS control is an area for improvement. That makes more sense to me. It also correlates to Alonso being able to set fast laps in between slower ones.
There was talk during the preseason about a 'trick' crank design being used. I wonder if the main bearings are an area of higher friction by design. I would think if that's the case, the shorter block design would have to outweigh the higher losses.
It could be that all of the components need to be refined in their design and interaction to improve mechanical losses. Whatever BP is supplying as lube oil might need some improvements, too.
I definitely know the issue and all I can say is "I knew it"....I would be out of line to say at this time but here are some points to ponder. Piston rings are very low tension, so.........Extremely low viscosity oil is used, so............Bearing materials are state of the art and tolerances are very carefully measured so.............Plenty of experience building high revving engines (20K RPM +) and these engines rev at a relatively low RPM's so............. So where would there be possible friction issues outside the engine block components and NOT the MGU-H unit or parts associated with the MGU-H? (I am not saying the MGU-H unit doesn't have friction issues but...........)GhostF1 wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 09:34Wazari,
I don't mean to overstep a line and request information I am not entitled to, but is it within the realms of possibility you could shed some light on the friction claims by Zak Brown?
Is it in reference to the MGU-H or is friction an area within the ICE that is has ongoing development?
By the way, I haven't personally said this to you as others have, but thank you for sharing what you have done in the past. As a diehard fan, it's really appreciated!
This would seem to leave the MGU-K, or possibly accessories such as oil pump, water pump, etc.Wazari wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 02:33I definitely know the issue and all I can say is "I knew it"....I would be out of line to say at this time but here are some points to ponder. Piston rings are very low tension, so.........Extremely low viscosity oil is used, so............Bearing materials are state of the art and tolerances are very carefully measured so.............Plenty of experience building high revving engines (20K RPM +) and these engines rev at a relatively low RPM's so............. So where would there be possible friction issues outside the engine block components and NOT the MGU-H unit or parts associated with the MGU-H? (I am not saying the MGU-H unit doesn't have friction issues but...........)
May I dare to assume that Wasari-san might refer to gearbox?Wazari wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 02:33I definitely know the issue and all I can say is "I knew it"....I would be out of line to say at this time but here are some points to ponder. Piston rings are very low tension, so.........Extremely low viscosity oil is used, so............Bearing materials are state of the art and tolerances are very carefully measured so.............Plenty of experience building high revving engines (20K RPM +) and these engines rev at a relatively low RPM's so............. So where would there be possible friction issues outside the engine block components and NOT the MGU-H unit or parts associated with the MGU-H? (I am not saying the MGU-H unit doesn't have friction issues but...........)GhostF1 wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 09:34Wazari,
I don't mean to overstep a line and request information I am not entitled to, but is it within the realms of possibility you could shed some light on the friction claims by Zak Brown?
Is it in reference to the MGU-H or is friction an area within the ICE that is has ongoing development?
By the way, I haven't personally said this to you as others have, but thank you for sharing what you have done in the past. As a diehard fan, it's really appreciated!
Yeah, the writer of that linked article is poorly informed re: F1.. he appears unaware of the current F1- ICE situation..etusch wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 22:40With new rule manufacturers don't prefer higher revs. But I am sure if there wasn't fuel flow limit or fuel limit for a race they would use 15k rpm.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/08 ... od-ratios/
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/08 ... od-ratios/
I moved my post to the correct topic. Sorry bout that.Far wrote:McLaren-Honda should swap engine with Williams - Mercedes they have worked in the 80 and this deal will be better for both parties.
Energy disipation as heat = energy lost. That, on an efficient formula like this is a shoot in your own foot, apart from the increased temperature wich increase cooling requirements, wich also add drag to the carMudflap wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 11:37How is friction the root cause?GhostF1 wrote: ↑05 Sep 2017, 02:02
He also mentioned something I hadn't heard before... In response to the the question of what the main issue is with the PU:
"It's friction, there's a lot of friction in the engine and as we know, friction is not what you want, that's costing us power, but they are trying very hard to get that sorted and they have developments in the pipeline so we will have to see what they have come up with and take a decision from there".
Interesting point. That's likely the root cause of the vibration issues. If Spec 4 delivers new pistons, CC, heads whatever other internal changes are rumoured, that really could lift their game. Gut feeling here, but I think Spec 4 could rear it's head in Malaysia, ahead of a hopefully stronger showing in Japan (an important home race for Honda and their pride) than last year.
Friction leads to energy dissipation as heat - if anything it would help dampen vibration.