Interesting, thanks.Mudflap wrote: ↑29 Oct 2017, 18:32https://integralp.com/integral-e-drive/
There are quite a few other examples, I though the IP products were a bit special as the company was founded by Keith Duckworth's son together with other ex Cosworth people. Unsurprisingly, a few of their engineers moved to Mercedes a long while ago.
Some thoughts:Mudflap wrote: ↑29 Oct 2017, 18:32The cam covers and blocks have big buff ribs to take whatever load goes through the mounting points. Similarly, I think that the chassis side mounting can be easily designed to accommodate the thermal loads.
The obvious problem with a very compliant turbo/MGUH mounting is low natural frequency (vibration) and turbo twist under boost. The reason I brought up mounting is because unlike Merc, where the turbo sits very low, the Honda turbo sits quite high up and would need big old girders to mount to the block (bottom of the vee). That's why I though it's possible they might have mounted it to the heads or somewhere up the banks where relative thermal deformation is high (the LH and RH banks tend to come apart at temperature).
Someone brought up the bumpy nature of the circuit - I don't think this was a factor.
The shocks produced by hitting kerbs are significantly higher than those produced by track protuberances. I don't know how harsh kerbs are on COTA, but I can't recall drivers complaining about them.
Rule 5.1.6 comes to mind for me.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑29 Oct 2017, 14:15Andy Cowell notably said that the distribution of stresses through the engine block is the biggest factor on designing the split turbine housing. Did he say it took Mercedes maybe two years to solve or something?
I doubt they rigorously enforce that "the compressor and the turbine always rotate ... at the same...The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft
assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same
angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU-H) may be directly coupled to it. The
shaft may not be mechanically linked to any other device.
At that speed any misalignment in the CV joint would create catastrophic vibrations. Same goes for any significant shaft bending.roon wrote: ↑30 Oct 2017, 00:03
Some thoughts:
-Are there CV joints or misalignment couplings which can operate at 100k RPM?
-If the shaft can slide axially as needed, and its bearings are encased within spherical carriers, this could accommodate some bending along the length of the shaft, or translation of the carriers.
-Perhaps Merc allow friction across the bearing surfaces during flex/distortion.
I doubt they rigorously enforce that "the compressor and the turbine always rotate ... at the same
angular velocity." (If so, how?) By the wording, devices could be linked hydraulically or electromagnetically to the shaft.
Hasegawa: "I thought that the engine output would drop considerably, but in fact it was feeling that I was rather not falling down. Apart from the Mercedes AMG, I think that the fighting power was high here compared to Renault."
https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=2017 ... ports-moto
Logicaly expensive is not the word belong thererestless wrote: ↑30 Oct 2017, 15:51Google translate gives different result:
"I thought that the engine output would drop considerably, but in fact it was rather a feeling that I was not falling down. Aside from the Mercedes AMG, the fighting power is here compared to Renault I think that it was expensive. "
Its obvious we can't understand from auto=translation what was really said, unless someone natively speaking Japanese helps
Bing translate's version of this:
That's not what he has said at all. They fine tuned the PU for this race better than Renault, so in this conditions every PU had lost some power.. but let's say that Honda had lost 10hp less than Renault. That value has no basis, just as an example.godlameroso wrote: ↑30 Oct 2017, 19:26So they think they've closed the gap to Renault, perhaps the gap to Renault is similar to Renault's gap to Ferrari now?
Yes, as well as the friend @DXF says.DFX wrote: ↑30 Oct 2017, 20:21That's not what he has said at all. They fine tuned the PU for this race better than Renault, so in this conditions every PU had lost some power.. but let's say that Honda had lost 10hp less than Renault. That value has no basis, just as an example.godlameroso wrote: ↑30 Oct 2017, 19:26So they think they've closed the gap to Renault, perhaps the gap to Renault is similar to Renault's gap to Ferrari now?
"The performance was much better than we thought," Hasegawa told Autosport.
"Before we came here, we thought our engine performance was worse than the other teams and the effect from the high altitude would be bad.
"But Sakura has worked hard to create a good set-up for this high altitude, which is why the engine power deficit was much smaller than we thought.
"This gap is smaller. The relative performance is still a bit behind, but we think we can catch up."
Hasegawa pointed to gains made on Honda's dynos at its Sakura base as a reason for its form in Mexico, where the high altitude puts a strain on the engines.
"Previously, we couldn't create a good dyno system to evaluate the high altitude situation," he said.
"But in the last week, we have made improvements in Sakura, regarding the operation of the engine. We made improvements here.
"[Correlation] is getting much better from the beginning of the season.
"It is not 100% copying the circuit situation, so still we need to work but we are almost satisfied with the situation.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13276 ... erformance