Formula 1 bosses are doing 'everything they can' to keep Honda in the championship beyond the end of the 2017 season.
Why not allow them extra testing days at the end of this year and early in 2018.
Formula 1 bosses are doing 'everything they can' to keep Honda in the championship beyond the end of the 2017 season.
Maybe because the other teams wouldn't let them? I wonder what would have happened if FIA concluded that Honda was out of the 3% margin.mclaren111 wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 08:43Formula 1 bosses are doing 'everything they can' to keep Honda in the championship beyond the end of the 2017 season.
Why not allow them extra testing days at the end of this year and early in 2018.
You might want to read the entire post - the discussion is about vibration.Andres125sx wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 08:31Energy 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.
It could be something within the head and whatever combustion process they are currently utilizing requiring specific cams, valves, etc. This should be the area that's revised for spec 4.0.bill shoe wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 03:01This 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...........)
I think someone previously said the MGU-K had a ~3:1 ratio of rotational speed relative to the crank. So it's spinning all day long at 30,000 to 35,000 rpm. The gear-drive connection between MHU-K and crank puts plenty of side force on the MGU-K shaft, and if you look at the shaft force vs. time closely you will probably see some force variation due to the individual gear teeth going in and out of mesh. Meanwhile, the block and MGU-K itself are being loaded severely because they are structural members thru the middle of the car, so the dimensional stability is not what you want.
The engine will go thru abrupt and brutal step-changes in rotational speed during gearshifts (rpm step-up with downshift, rpm step-down with upshift). This leads to early season MGU-K failures? One of the plausible countermeasures is more/larger/stronger bearings on the MGU-K. Makes friction worse.
If the MGU-K is spinning at 3x engine speed, then its rotational inertia will effectively be 9x higher on a per unit basis. So that's a lot of inertia to handle, especially during the abrupt shifts.
OK, so easy to see lots of potential problems with the MGU-K friction, but why does the Honda seem to have the reliability and friction problems? Does Honda turn the MGU-K faster than other power unit manufacturers? Do they mount it or drive it differently?
I would assume it relates to how strong the return springs on the valves are.ArcticWolfie wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 21:28Can somebody explain why it is so difficult to solve the friction in the engine? I mean 11k~15k RPM engines isn't new science (the V10 ran over 18k RPM).
So what could be so difficult to solve/fix...
Makes sense.ArcticWolfie wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 21:28Can somebody explain why it is so difficult to solve the friction in the engine? I mean 11k~15k RPM engines isn't new science (the V10 ran over 18k RPM).
So what could be so difficult to solve/fix...
https://as.com/motor/2017/09/06/formula ... 69746.htmlHonda introduced the specification 3.7 of its power unit in the McL32 in Monza. An improvement that Hasegawa confirms has boosted the horsepower of the propeller and that is centered in the turbocharger: "The point of improvement of the engine 3.7 is the turbocharger. The internal combustion engine is the same as version 3.6, but the maximum power is increases slightly due to the effect of this improvement.In several places, the expectation value is as specification 4 ".
In addition to the development in the turbocharger and the torque of the engine at low speed, he responsible for Honda in Formula 1 ensures that at Spa Francorchamps premiered a motor map for the classification that allows them to match the power of Renault: "During the test post race in Hungary we collected data that allowed us to launch a classification engine map in Belgium . Like Mercedes, it can only be used temporarily due to the overload that is submitted to the combustion engine, but can reach a power of up to 20 kW (26 hp) that allows us to match the same level as Renault . In Sakura resistance tests have been performed and it is being understood how much time can be used in the race. "
F1 used to have 40-valve engines revving near 20,000 rpm. Now they have 24 valve engines revving to ~ 11,000 rpm. I'm just guessing like anyone else, but valvetrain seems unlikely to cause excessive friction.tok-tokkie wrote: ↑06 Sep 2017, 18:17I was very surprised, and unbelieving, about the claim that it is friction in the Honda engine that is the problem.
Do they have TJI or something similar? I thought that was the root of their problem.
But in the 2 stroke thread last year Manolis posted a calculation of the power absorbed by the valve gear of a Ducati 1300cc Panigale V-twin engine. It was 45kW. Link to thread viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10966&start=990 Post of 2016/07/28