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.
I was being conservative in assumptions. Although my background is in science it's not in engineering. I therefore bow to your superior knowledge.henry wrote:I think your 45-60bhp from the energy store is low. It suggests that the split of ICE to MGU-H shares of the 50% overall efficiency is 43.5 - 6.5. Or 540kw-80kw. Figures from magnetti marelli suggest that the Ferrari MGU-H delivers about 50kw in sustain mode. So if the Mercedes is a little better, say 60kw that still allows 60kw(80 bhp) from the ES for a peak sustain power of 910. If in qualification they sometimes open the wastegate and drive the compressor from the ES absolute Peak burst power will be higher than that with higher ICE output from reduced back pressure . How much higher is up for debate but it will edge the figures towards the 930-950 being touted.Petroltorque wrote:The problem with journalistic opinion is that unless the have a background in engineering they won't understand the science of the technology. In short they rely on what they are told and won't challenge it. As you may know in peer reviewed scientific papers even Expert opinion has the lowest level of evidence.
A case in point is the figure given for the various PU outputs. No one has questioned whether that is peak output or sustained output. Extrapolating outputs from speed traps is just prone to too much extrapolation to make it accurate.
Andy Cowell has gone on record as stating their target thermal efficiency for this year was 50%. So for 100kg of F1 fuel that is an output of 830bhp. That's an output with pre combustion technology plus compounding via the MGU-Heat and delivered to the crank by the MGU-Kinetic. Even if you accept that the battery store can deliver 45-60bhp that's still far off those quoted output figures.
The assertion that he was informed that Renault are at the Ferrari level just doesn't make sense either since at Montreal Ferrari managed to out qualify Red Bull even though Red Bull have a much better chassis.
I can believe that Honda may be giving away much more in quali though. Some clever poster here had posted a snapshot of the dyno figures of the Honda unit was 720cv, so even with battery assist they will be well down on the leading Merc unit.
This is simply not true. Mercedes engine is much better than Renault or Honda. Renault confessed this themselves (being half a second behind). Honda is even more behind.techman wrote:According the paddy, all the engines are not far off each other, most advantage is made through efficient aero/chassis, just compare redbull with works renaults. big difference all in chassis.
Next year with engine equalisation in spain , we will find out where all these engine rank and how far each other is. The debate will be over, and teams will then need to get the time through aero chassis efficiency, no point of blaming engines , and team that are slow will have to improve their chassis to compete at the top.
mclaren ran heavy downforce wing in canada, just compare the rear wing size an and the new front wing wit a steep wing angle on the sides and also only a few team along with merceds that ran monkey wings , redbull and torro rosso did not run monkey wings. mclaren i think lack good aero efficiency, it pretty evident in monaco, the pace was horible, mclaren would not qualify in top 10 if not for max crash, and in the race, rain help and fatastice pitstops gave a good result for them, let see if they can do good in hungary, without rains help. i doubt they will do well, hopefully mclaren bring improvement to their inefficient chaassis.mclaren runs with low downforce to hide the real deficit, so the car seems worst than it is. But mclaren can not do anything else
nothing to do until next year without tokens
Engine equalisation will not be in Spain. It will be on a hypothetical track.techman wrote:Next year with engine equalisation in spain , we will find out where all these engine rank and how far each other is.
Sure explains why he said it was still running and had to turn it off.427cubes wrote:It was gearbox failure that ended the Button's Canada race. Moves to fourth engine for European GP. Honda is still testing the one that smoked in Canada with oil spill.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124802
It's total power out of 100kg of fuel over a race distance, right. But it's also max power for one lap during qualifying. Mercedes seems to have both.NL_Fer wrote:Yes peak power doesn't say anything about th total efficiency of the ICE and MGU-H recovery. Maybe Honda can already reach Mercedes in peak output. Maybe Renault kan deliver the same as Ferrari during a single lap.
But what if Mercedes MGU-H recovery so efficient, they can open wastegate for a few seconds each lap during the whole race.
Peak power is just a number. How much power for how long can be delivered and total fuel efficiency is much more important.
Could u explain how late ignition leads to better harvest of energy?NL_Fer wrote:I suspect Honda is using some late ignition on partial throttle tricks to increase the exhaust gasses and recover more energy on the slow parts.
