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.
Yes, confused kW with Hp.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 18:36wouldn't that be 120 kW ?godlameroso wrote:......the difference between the power units is and always has been how long they can deploy max power down the straight.......That extra 160kW for 33.3+ seconds per lap depends so much on the MGU-H and not being able to use it to it's full potential kills you.
(for whatever seconds per lap)
The ICE isn't the problem, they just change that because of all the penalties they have to take.Mudflap wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 22:50Question:
Earlier in the season Honda were claiming that the ICE was pretty much spot on and they only had TC/MGUH issues. Is it me or they are struggling with the ICE too based on the number of units they have used so far ?
Of course it is masked by the appalling TC/H reliability, but the 9/10 units per driver seem to indicate a pretty serious issue there too.
Does anyone recall any rumors on ICE failures ?
Honda according to Wazari san used the "short and thick" deployment strategy, use maximum assist where the car is slowest and use less where the car is fastest. The data kind of supports this, the McLaren is equal to the other 3 for the first 1/3rd of the straight, and where the Honda starts winding back MGU-K deployment, the other 3 are still going strong. So McLaren may have full power down the first 1/3rd, then by the end the MGU-K is only able to deploy 40kW while the Ferrari is deploying 110, and Mercedes can just go full 120kW deployment regardless of the length of straight. That deployment difference could be why the Honda looks so hopeless down the straights, and why the peak power difference isn't as big as we think it is.etusch wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 20:44There are many parts on electricity. They allowed to use 120 kw. I think ( correct me if I am wrong ) same electric motor can produce more power if battery is enough. This is conrolled by Control electronics. Mercedes is best in this area. İf merc can use Electric power (for example) for 30 sec per lap and with whole 120 kw because of good regenaration, Ferrari can use 29 sec with 120 kw (or maybe for 29 sec 115 kw - I think this cause more gap then current Ferrari and Merc difference), I think this can make enough for Ferrari and Mercedes performance difference.
Maybe honda is too behind in this area. Maybe when Honda spread its electric power to whole lap Honda can use only 110 kw ?
(All these are my assumption )
Cheers, it sounds plausible that some ICEs were just collateral damage, however the TC/H are definitely separate from the block judging by the latest engine pics. Had the ICE been any decent though they would have not had to introduce unplanned updates.bigblue wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 23:22From memory, I don't think there were many ICE failures. Lots of MGU-H (few MGU-K, turbo), quite often resulting in a new ICE (due to the integrated design ? hard to replace at the track given the time constraints). Whether this masks ICE reliability as they're swapping them around a fair bit anyway, or whether it's reliable, I don't know. There've also been a fair few spec updates, these probably required ICE changes ? I recall Hasegawa being shocked at an actual ICE failure earlier on in the season (was it the one with the oil pouring out of the car as it's winched away ?), but there haven't been (m)any more.
The fact it wasn't improved significantly during 2017 implies it's a) tough to engineer a solution and b) has complex design changes needed to implement it in the current setup.godlameroso wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 23:46Honda according to Wazari san used the "short and thick" deployment strategy, use maximum assist where the car is slowest and use less where the car is fastest. The data kind of supports this, the McLaren is equal to the other 3 for the first 1/3rd of the straight, and where the Honda starts winding back MGU-K deployment, the other 3 are still going strong. So McLaren may have full power down the first 1/3rd, then by the end the MGU-K is only able to deploy 40kW while the Ferrari is deploying 110, and Mercedes can just go full 120kW deployment regardless of the length of straight. That deployment difference could be why the Honda looks so hopeless down the straights, and why the peak power difference isn't as big as we think it is.etusch wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 20:44There are many parts on electricity. They allowed to use 120 kw. I think ( correct me if I am wrong ) same electric motor can produce more power if battery is enough. This is conrolled by Control electronics. Mercedes is best in this area. İf merc can use Electric power (for example) for 30 sec per lap and with whole 120 kw because of good regenaration, Ferrari can use 29 sec with 120 kw (or maybe for 29 sec 115 kw - I think this cause more gap then current Ferrari and Merc difference), I think this can make enough for Ferrari and Mercedes performance difference.
Maybe honda is too behind in this area. Maybe when Honda spread its electric power to whole lap Honda can use only 110 kw ?
(All these are my assumption )
A classic case of a very fast runner without a lot of stamina, he can be fast for 400m but can't sustain the pace for the full 1,600m, so you either pace yourself and go slower, or go as fast as you can for as long as you can but get winded and be really slow at the end.
I think this theory is against Honda's low speed torque set up for preventing position losts at starts. If it would be 120 kw or nothing it would not good such a big power and torque coming suddenly during acceleration, especially from zero.NL_Fer wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 00:32I don’t think MGU-K is throttled. It is either on 120kw or off. Otherwise there is no 120kw reduction in power and the flashing rear light would not be triggered. It is just 120kw assist when throttle is floored, until the Ecu shuts it down or ES is depleted.
About ICE power: It could be possible that crankshaft power is comparable and that Mercedes gain is made in the amount energy that is generated in the exhaust gasses and recovered by MGU-H. We already know the engines are running extremly lean and take much more air than needed. Maybe it is just to expand/heat the air during combustion and recover this with MGU-H and use it for more deployment.
I think I recall Hasegawa mentioning the ICE has been lost a few times as collateral from pretty violent MGU-H/Turbo failures, and considering its nestled right on top, I wouldn't be surprised. Ifthe MGU-H is lost, it nukes the Turbo as well, so it was assumed these things are basically one unit or at least majority of it is integrated in a housing. As for actual ICE failures.. I believe there has been one occasion (Canada) where that itself failed without any signs and as mentioned above, Hasegawa was very surprised, but he said its reliability so far has (and I quote) "proved the ICE's concept is sound in regards to reliability and performance" (I believe we speared off on theories of concepts or tricks they are using after this quote, fork conrods etc). The episode in Barcelona with the oil pouring out, hasegawa said they noticed zero oil pressure from a feed issue but couldn't stop Alonso in time, so it just went pop.MrPotatoHead wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 01:22Honda stated on many occasions that even though it was an MGU-H or K that failed, rather than attempt to change those parts it's a lot more efficient timewise to just change the entire package ICE included.
Having said that, why not use the same ICE units over again in the pool unless they had hardware issues with the ICE?
