Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 6 votes

McLaren-Honda MP4-30 VI


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3989 replies to this topic

#1 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 31,165 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 13:52

Parts I, II, III, IV and V for your viewing pleasure.



Advertisement

#2 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 25 August 2015 - 13:54

New thread, new luck?

#3 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 13:56

Thanks for creating the new topic. "McLaren-Honda MP4-30 V" had it ups and downs. We'll probably get to VII before the end of the season. Hopefully reliability will continue on it's current trend. Hopefully we can see some tangible development progress.

#4 jules153

jules153
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 25 August 2015 - 13:57

"If you've read and believed what he said, he doesn't believe being a customer of any manufacturer will win the team the championship.

 

Only a full works effort, a tailor made engine for their chassis will give them that

 

So no."

 

 

Yes, but there is only so much humiliation a man (Ron) can take. Honda's unwillingness to poach technical know-how from other manufacturers and therefore seeing them 're-invent the wheel' with a most complex engine formula will have set alarm bells ringing months ago. I can't believe Ron isn't at least considering other options.


Edited by jules153, 25 August 2015 - 13:57.


#5 Sonic2k

Sonic2k
  • Member

  • 261 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 August 2015 - 14:01

So we have part 6 now... Is that the biggest car thread on autosport so far?

#6 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 13,177 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 14:01

So we have part 6 now... Is that the biggest car thread on autosport so far?

it's worth it.  :up:



#7 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,479 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 25 August 2015 - 14:02


 

Again, I think this is a bluff - they've had good coloration all year with the factory, and McLaren and its staff know how to make fast racing cars. The comments earlier in the year about running was for testing parts - not developing them, and this is where the good coloration with the wind-tunnel etc. have paid off. They initially suffered in the area of set-up due to lack of running, but this has since passed as they've gotten a lot of track time since - but this theory of the car being slow due to lack of development/time is a bluff, just as the comments about traction etc. are a bluff.

 

The same is could likely be said of this 'size zero' - in looking at the car, its not that much different in terms of packaging to the Red Bull and the Honda engine in terms of width looks similar to the Mercedes they ran last year. The major packaging difference seems to be in terms of height as the compressor/Turbo sit lower. The 'size zero' would still be possible if this weren't the case as the airbox on the McLaren is quite large, bigger than the FI, TR and Ferrari for sure. I've said before that if these heat issues were a result of the car packaging, then they would have been solved before the start of the year as PP was around at Red Bull when they did just that the year before. Honda's heat issues is a design issue with the block, not the chassis, and like the MGU-H problem is a factor of their lack of development time, its not that they never hired in, or that they don't know what they are doing, or that McLaren did this that or the other - its just a lack of time. With that in mind, we should be impressed with what they have managed to achieve given that the engine isn't that far off what Renault and Ferrari had last year with far more time in R&D - the same with McLaren who have managed to turn around a slow decline in car design in under a year to produce something as good as they have. 

 

I think you overrate McLaren and underrate engineering/technology quite a bit. Things are not that easy. Or conversely you underrate McLaren's ability to think they reached plateau already. Lotus/RBR/STR clawed up as much as they did only with more and better quality track time. Even merc improved a lot and they run like crazy in testing, and with amazing reliability they at GP can do according to what they planned beforehand and go bang on instantly as well as further accumulate data and develop/finetune chassis even further. Meanwhile McLaren had such limited, intermittent and interrupted running at almost all GPs. With such little and poor quality running it's simply and physically impossible to progress and know/extract full potential and have car that can go instantly to its max given perfect PU. Plus it's fact that they are developing. They have been running a lot of aero evaluation and flow vis which is necessary for development not just for this years car but for next years. Even at Spa they were doing flow-vis testing. Also their new aero package was delayed significantly by months, the reason for which is obvious.

Arai is not bluffing, he may be clumsy in English but in Japanese he talks about comprehensive thing, that reliability is important for PU development as well (mapping and setting and all that), matching between the chassis, "listening to" chassis as well as demand to chassis, work hand in hand with chassis/Mclaren (that's what he said in GBGP, and incidentally in Belgian GP official release EB wrote "shoulder to shoulder").  Remarks such as "traction" "aero" etc can just be interpreted as car overall still at primitive/basic stage and everything fits together. i dont think it's productive to be too strict and stuck with few words. If you apply that same policy to EB you can do just the same as well, which is not productive.

Again, there's big difference between "car is slow" and "still at early stage = more to come". The latter is what they said, that unreliable PU hampered everything about chassis so badly. He implied providing reliable PU is their basic duty which they failed massively to fulfill and sorry for that, and expressed determination that now put an end to reliability woe and move forward to contribute to and working with Mclaren to accelerate and get back lost time. Calling it bluff is just, sad. 

Honda's heat issues are somewhere between partly and largely due to small packaging which is due to overall car concept of size zero which is mutual thing. If they adopted bigger solution they would have solved hot-spot heat issue easier, which is the nature of thing. But, importantly, it's not about blaming one or the other, it's just design path they have chosen together. They have chosen ambitious path having difficulty which is on Honda's part, and going to tackle and solve together. Arai of course talk about chassis, he's been talking about chassis as well since 2013, and he has to have this notion as it's about packaging and building it together, sometimes saying no to what's impossible, sometimes explain the expected tasks in front, etc etc. I'd be worried if he doesnt talk about chassis at all. Now solve reliability and go for performance, for which collaboration b/w PU and chassis is essential, for which PU side's effort of integrating into chassis is essential (ie if Honda just decide mapping for a circuit by their own, maybe it wont match mclaren's estimated setting direction. It's about working together), which is what Arai is talking about.



#8 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 1,638 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 25 August 2015 - 14:52

If McLaren were 1.6 seconds quicker I am absolutely sure it would motivate the team to develop quicker than ever.  Its human nature that when the chips are down negativity and blame culture prevails and it takes a special bit of inspiration to get past this.

 

Monza could be very cruel as the straights will show the difference 100 hp or more makes captured in full HD quality for TV sets throughout the world - including Japan.  With a bit of luck the next updates will be more fruitful than Spa's.



#9 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 11,867 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:17

Alonso:

 

“There are two ways you can approach this – be optimistic and try to work with the team for a better situation, or be pessimistic and think it is not worth doing anything. I don't think that will be exit from this tunnel, so we will try to work. I think things are going better and better - we finished the race with both cars and, hopefully, we learned some stuff for the next round.”

 

http://www.crash.net...-of-tunnel.html

 



#10 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 1,313 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:17

After Hungary I said the chassis/aero was only the 4th best and got a lot of **** because of it and heard I was choosing to not believe Mark Hughes. Now Mark Hughes says chassis/aero was 0.8s slower in Spa which very likely put it behind Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari and Toro Rosso and he is talking bullshit. Ohh boy! :rotfl:



#11 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 2,605 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:19

 

 

Eric Boullier commented on the MP4-30 being too draggy at the moment, hence the remarks from posters. 

The point is that you can't put a number on it.  1%?  40%?  If you see a number, it's BS.  



#12 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:33

McLaren said In the launch of MP4-30 that it is the evolution of MP4-29. MP4-29 was draggy because of it's butterfly suspension and McLaren had to remove upper part of that suspension in middle of the season. I don't get it when we say Draggy to be honest. Body work is as smooth as fish. The only think that I suspect is front and rear suspensions that maybe interfere airflow but I doubt very much. Maybe there is something with floor.


Edited by RYARLE, 25 August 2015 - 15:34.


#13 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:36

Did pick up a tiny hint that Honda may have relented their stance slightly and just may take help from McLaren on (presumably) the ERS. Might be my wishful thinking though, just got a sense about it. I know the words straws and clutching spring to mind hehe.


Hmm. Not sure what gave you that sense but I did get the following idea of what they could do...

McLaren have a roadcar division and they're using hybrid technology as part of that and expect to do more of that in the future. It would be quite normal for them to test out various concepts. One thing they could do is take a "spare" McLaren P1 (which is a hybrid and actually has more peak power than any of the current F1 cars) and try replacing the current TCs with the TC and MGU-H from the Honda PU for some testing. All in the name of being road relevant of course! If the project worked well I'm sure the McLaren car guys would happy to actually use it in future products. Everyone wins!  :up:  :up:  :up:



#14 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 2,605 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:37


McLaren said In the launch of MP4-30 that it is the evolution of MP4-29. MP4-29 was draggy because of it's butterfly suspension and McLaren had to remove upper part of that suspension in middle of the season. I don't get it when we say Draggy to be honest. Body work is as smooth as fish. The only think that I suspect is front and rear suspensions that maybe interfere airflow but I doubt very much. Maybe there is something with floor.

 

lol, the 30 is an evolution of the RB10, and I think it's charitable to separate it's design even that much from the RB11.


Edited by pup, 25 August 2015 - 15:37.


#15 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:39

I think you overrate McLaren and underrate engineering/technology quite a bit. Things are not that easy. Or conversely you underrate McLaren's ability to think they reached plateau already. Lotus/RBR/STR clawed up as much as they did only with more and better quality track time. Even merc improved a lot and they run like crazy in testing, and with amazing reliability they at GP can do according to what they planned beforehand and go bang on instantly as well as further accumulate data and develop/finetune chassis even further. Meanwhile McLaren had such limited, intermittent and interrupted running at almost all GPs. With such little and poor quality running it's simply and physically impossible to progress and know/extract full potential and have car that can go instantly to its max given perfect PU. Plus it's fact that they are developing. They have been running a lot of aero evaluation and flow vis which is necessary for development not just for this years car but for next years. Even at Spa they were doing flow-vis testing. Also their new aero package was delayed significantly by months, the reason for which is obvious.

Arai is not bluffing, he may be clumsy in English but in Japanese he talks about comprehensive thing, that reliability is important for PU development as well (mapping and setting and all that), matching between the chassis, "listening to" chassis as well as demand to chassis, work hand in hand with chassis/Mclaren (that's what he said in GBGP, and incidentally in Belgian GP official release EB wrote "shoulder to shoulder").  Remarks such as "traction" "aero" etc can just be interpreted as car overall still at primitive/basic stage and everything fits together. i dont think it's productive to be too strict and stuck with few words. If you apply that same policy to EB you can do just the same as well, which is not productive.

Again, there's big difference between "car is slow" and "still at early stage = more to come". The latter is what they said, that unreliable PU hampered everything about chassis so badly. He implied providing reliable PU is their basic duty which they failed massively to fulfill and sorry for that, and expressed determination that now put an end to reliability woe and move forward to contribute to and working with Mclaren to accelerate and get back lost time. Calling it bluff is just, sad. 

Honda's heat issues are somewhere between partly and largely due to small packaging which is due to overall car concept of size zero which is mutual thing. If they adopted bigger solution they would have solved hot-spot heat issue easier, which is the nature of thing. But, importantly, it's not about blaming one or the other, it's just design path they have chosen together. They have chosen ambitious path having difficulty which is on Honda's part, and going to tackle and solve together. Arai of course talk about chassis, he's been talking about chassis as well since 2013, and he has to have this notion as it's about packaging and building it together, sometimes saying no to what's impossible, sometimes explain the expected tasks in front, etc etc. I'd be worried if he doesnt talk about chassis at all. Now solve reliability and go for performance, for which collaboration b/w PU and chassis is essential, for which PU side's effort of integrating into chassis is essential (ie if Honda just decide mapping for a circuit by their own, maybe it wont match mclaren's estimated setting direction. It's about working together), which is what Arai is talking about.

 

When testing was banned all of the teams invested heavily in virtual testing tools, as a result of this, most of the testing (if that is even the correct word anymore) is done away from the track. Track time tends to be spend running correlation tests to verify/tune their virtual tools. Flo-vis is ran and photo's of the flow patterns sent back to the factory to compare of their CFD results. The same is true of the large sensor arrays fitted to the cars - this is once more to verify their CFD models as they no longer have the luxury of being able to pound the cars around a test track month in month out.

 

During the winter tests, while McLaren did have piss poor running due to the Honda PU, they did do some running and said that they managed to get most of their planned aero running done. So, with this in mind, please explain why delivery of aero components was 'delayed significantly by months' ? McLaren have brought pieces to every race this year, there has been constant chassis development - the days of the large update are long gone (please see Pat Symonds views on this) - so again, I think that talk of delayed development is a bluff just like statements regarding problems with traction.


Edited by MirNyet, 25 August 2015 - 19:30.


#16 zeph

zeph
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:44

After Hungary I said the chassis/aero was only the 4th best and got a lot of **** because of it and heard I was choosing to not believe Mark Hughes. Now Mark Hughes says chassis/aero was 0.8s slower in Spa which very likely put it behind Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari and Toro Rosso and he is talking bullshit. Ohh boy! :rotfl:

 

 

That seems not far off the mark, but like others (including senior staff at McHonda) have explained, you won't know what the chassis is capable off until it runs at the speeds it was designed for.

 

Ron Dennis explained this in a TV interview earlier this season, because they were down on power, the aero does not work as intended, the tires do not reach their desired temperature, etc. etc. This results is a car that is a handful to drive and may well look like it has shite handling.

 

I'm not saying the car is great (I have no way of knowing), but his explanation made a lot of sense to me. It is prolly different now, though.



#17 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:45

The point is that you can't put a number on it.  1%?  40%?  If you see a number, it's BS.  

 

Well, I would imagine Eric has access to the numbers - and can state if the concept at this point in time is a bit too draggy or not. As you point out, he never qualified the statement with a percentage, he just said 'a bit too'.

 

With respect to the numbers floating around, these I think are coming from the press who in turn are speaking to the teams engineers who appear to be looking at GPS traces of the cars. While its interesting, the McLaren is so off the pace right now that I think its all purely academic as many here have rightly said. A few members of the press do seem very interested in the comments being made by both McLaren and Honda and are trying to put meat on either bone to see what's what hence the digging and throwing around of numbers. 



#18 Ikebana

Ikebana
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:54

"Thing are getting better and better" Alonso says up there. Vale...

#19 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 4,684 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:55

 

 

 

lol, the 30 is an evolution of the RB10, and I think it's charitable to separate it's design even that much from the RB11.

 

It is mixed imo. Even the remaining part of the rear butterfly suspension was on the MP4-30 too.



Advertisement

#20 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 1,313 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:55

 

 

 

lol, the 30 is an evolution of the RB10, and I think it's charitable to separate it's design even that much from the RB11.

 

I agree. The thing is that the MP4-30 is as average as the RB11 was in the beginning of the season. Red Bull identified their problems and made a huge leap after the Austrian tests, McLaren didn't.



#21 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:57

"If you've read and believed what he said, he doesn't believe being a customer of any manufacturer will win the team the championship.

 

Only a full works effort, a tailor made engine for their chassis will give them that

 

So no."

 

 

Yes, but there is only so much humiliation a man (Ron) can take. Honda's unwillingness to poach technical know-how from other manufacturers and therefore seeing them 're-invent the wheel' with a most complex engine formula will have set alarm bells ringing months ago. I can't believe Ron isn't at least considering other options.

 

Again, this not hiring in isn't as big a deal as many are making it. Honda has huge depth as a company and many avenues of engineering not present in companies such as Renault or Ferrari (they even make jet engines :) ). Keep in mind however that Honda have taken outside help in that the original engine software was co-developed with McLaren themselves who continue (as far as I am aware) to assist in this area. 



#22 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 15:59

I agree. The thing is that the MP4-30 is as average as the RB11 was in the beginning of the season. Red Bull identified their problems and made a huge leap after the Austrian tests, McLaren didn't.

 

The RB11 was sitting on an RB10 and an RB09. The MP4-30 isn't :) It's still a hybrid of the design direction of the MP4/27 - 28 - 29 and the design direction that McLarens new staff hired last year have brought to the table. It's not going to be until the MP4-31 that this purity of concept is present. 



#23 darenp

darenp
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 25 August 2015 - 16:41

 Track time tends to be spend running coloration tests to verify/tune their virtual tools. 

 

Coloration tests, as in how the new graphite-grey is much quicker vs the old chrome?  :lol:

 

I believe you may mean correlation   ;)



#24 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 18:33

Coloration tests, as in how the new graphite-grey is much quicker vs the old chrome?  :lol:

 

I believe you may mean correlation   ;)

 

:) Bitten by spellcheck there I think..



#25 McLobby

McLobby
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 25 August 2015 - 19:13

Cloxxki said   ''Are McLaren not putting tooooo much emphasis on Honda's deficit? Perhaps their aero is by far the most draggy on the grid. Not what you want with an underperforming engine. And it was not fair to expect a top performing one, either. ''
 

 

We have unveiled the conspiracy,

McLaren use Honda as the scapegoat to blame, covering their incredibly draggy aero, and the worst chassis they've ever build in their 50 year f1 history!

Arai's targets would be spot on, if it wasn't for this awful chassis holding them back, or the size zero, or Ron's arrogance forcing Honda come in early, Eric's loud mouth, or Peter's incapability to make the car more ''slippery'' and less draggy

 

 

 

Get that car to be more slippery at the cost of minimum downforce loss. There is 10-15kph difference between a draggy and a slippery car. Especially with a weak engine. Explore that area.

 

You should share that with Mr.Prodromou... 

Obviously he has not idea about aerodynamics efficiency,  or how to setup the car for the weak PU.

 

 

-Irony off

Honda did a great Job trying to catch up and made huge steps in their first year. Apart all the PR talk, it was mission impossible coming in so late, being so far behind others and running only one team. PU is still green and tokens aren't enough. But still quite good for a ''test'' season.

We should be looking forward for good progress and a competitive 2016,

Blaming the chassis for poor results at power demanding tracks  in this ''PU development season'' is beyond ridiculous.


Edited by McLobby, 25 August 2015 - 19:17.


#26 JimmyTheFox

JimmyTheFox
  • Member

  • 715 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 19:17

Honda going on a hiring spree?

Vacancies posted on 19th Aughttp://www.gerrellan...cy.aspx?id=2267

ERS Engineer


MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:

* Energy Recovery System Engineer at F1 Trackside, Factory and partner site.

* Project Technical Lead for the ERS partnership

* Analyse the battery with company and partner

* Monitor battery data

* Battery development with Honda staff and partner

* Oversee Dyno testing activities in development and validation of ERS System

ERS Technician x 2

ROLE:

We are seeking 2 x ERS Technicians to join the business on a permanent basis based in Milton Keynes. The purpose of this role is Race operation as Energy Recovery System technician at Track side and also factory & to support power unit development on F1 Engines



MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:

* Energy Recovery System technician at F1 trackside & Factory.

* ERS unit and Peripheral parts installation and removal, maintenance, storage, management.

* High-voltage safety monitoring : actual units validation, data monitoring, status report

* Dyno test preparation and test

* ERS unit install and removal and system check for Dyno test

* Support for engines preparation checks and final fitting of new or used parts, component sub-assembly or final assembly, as well as teardown, inspection and measuring components of used engines at factory

* Assist to maintain Race and track engines at track side

* Shipping & Receiving engine and components


Power-Unit Mechanic/Technicians


ROLE:

The purpose of this role is Factory and Race operation as Mechanic at Factory and F1 Track side to support power unit development on F1 Engines.



MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:

* Power Unit maintenance at Factory and F1 Trackside.

* Power Unit and peripheral parts installation and removal support for Dyno test

* Any preparation for Race operation


Edited by JimmyTheFox, 25 August 2015 - 19:21.


#27 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 19:37

Hmm... 2nd Honda powered team coming next year?



#28 chhatra

chhatra
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 25 August 2015 - 19:51

Honda going on a hiring spree?

Vacancies posted on 19th Aughttp://www.gerrellan...cy.aspx?id=2267



Bout time.

#29 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 20:16

Hmm... 2nd Honda powered team coming next year?

 

All seems to be trackside people.



#30 Christophe77

Christophe77
  • Member

  • 995 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 25 August 2015 - 20:16

It's all a load of Boulshit... Got it? Boullshit... 😅 Boy I hope that catches on...

#31 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 20:18

Honda going on a hiring spree?

Vacancies posted on 19th Aughttp://www.gerrellan...cy.aspx?id=2267

 

 

There are a several good posts by muramasa about the new MK facility in part V of the thread (mostly in the context of the dubious claim that they refuse to hire non-Japanese, which must be why they are building a facility in MK ;) )

 


Bout time.

 

Given the lead times for building a facility and staffing it I doubt they were waiting for this thread's opinions ;)


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 25 August 2015 - 20:25.


#32 amardeep

amardeep
  • Member

  • 586 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 25 August 2015 - 20:33

Fixed MGU-H next year according to Boullier (grandprix.com) Maybe less restricted development than originally thought next year.


Edited by amardeep, 25 August 2015 - 20:35.


#33 bogi

bogi
  • Member

  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 August 2015 - 20:50

There is now way any western engineer will work in the middle of Japan, language barrier is too big for that challenge. Thats why they have outpost at MK.

 

Italians couldnt lure Newey to Italy with all money in the world.



#34 Lemans

Lemans
  • Member

  • 2,739 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 25 August 2015 - 20:54

Honda going on a hiring spree?

Vacancies posted on 19th Aughttp://www.gerrellan...cy.aspx?id=2267

 

 

It's about time. Rob and Patrick can't do everything themselves.



#35 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 13,177 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 21:11

@SkySportsF1: McLaren are still happy with Honda says Eric Boullier http://t.co/idcwbRjdFB #SkyF1 http://t.co/zN5qzC5VVx

#36 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 21:45

Since we have a shiny new thread and all here's some thoughts on where I think we are.

 

Aero/chassis: definitely feels like we've made a lot of progress. Is there any part of the visible car that hasn't changed? I don't think so. Lack of track time has hurt the rate of development a lot but generally the updates seem to be doing the job. The car seems quite driver friendly and so long as they get enough track time getting a decent setup doesn't appear to be too difficult. We're doing great at slow speed corners, good at a medium - most to do on high speed corners. There's supposedly a Red Bull style FW coming at Singapore, which I hope is a significant redesign to maximise the airflow around the new nose. I'm not expecting miracles from that FW but it seems a reasonable hope that much of the car's potential will be unlocked by the end of the year (about as much as could reasonably be expected). Tires are still not optimal - hard to say how much aero/chassis improvements could help there but if the DF or DF efficiency can be improved that normally helps the tires. On the aero/chassis side hopefully we can end the year in a good place and transition smoothly into next year - the better sorted the car becomes this year the less there is that has to be done early next year and the more that can be devoted to testing/developing the engine during the two winter tests. For example, it could make it more practical to do things like only bring the full MP4-31 to the second test and devote the first test more to the engine and internal changes associated with the new engine (eg new internal layouts, suspension changes etc).

 

Engine: Hmm, well. It has improved in power and reliability and also our understanding of its remaining deficiencies has improved. I really hope I'm right that the MGU-K is probably operating at closer to 50% power because it's a lot easier (and cheaper in terms of tokens) to improve that than to improve the entire ICE. It should be at least. It sounds strange but I'd actually be depressed if you could convince me that the MGU-K can already operate at full power (160 hp) and for any duration so long as it can be fed with energy. I've generally been saying "about" 50% but I suspect it's actually a bit higher, just really hard to be sure. Maybe with various small tweaks and testing that percentage can be incrementally improved in the next few races or by the end of the year. If it could run at 100% power for any duration at Singapore I think we'd qualify inside the top 10 easily but right now I'm not expecting that to be possible. There seems to be more of a consensus that the MGU-H is the weakest link but no real consensus on just how weak though personally I think it's barely harvesting anything at all which is why we're suffering so much on tracks with lots of full throttle time and on higher fuel consumption tracks or where the MGU-K can't harvest much.

 

Tactics/operations: not quite smooth sailing but okay - some errors here and there and some missed opportunities. Main concern is how often we seem to have "small" issues with things like connectors and sensors and then have limited running or missed opportunities because of them. Feels more like a design problem to me though.

 

Drivers: just about perfect. More please.



#37 Laura23

Laura23
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 21:48

@SkySportsF1: McLaren are still happy with Honda says Eric Boullier http://t.co/idcwbRjdFB #SkyF1 http://t.co/zN5qzC5VVx

For now. If this kind of form continues into 2016 the that will change far more rapidly than the engines have gone down the straights this year. Honda have made promise after promise and appear to have broken every single one so far, there's nothing to me that suggests that will change in a few months. Honda have some big fundamental flaws both with the design and the personnel team here.



#38 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 21:52

All seems to be trackside people.

 

Yup. Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not but I read the roles as the sort you'd need to support the engine side of a team, both back at base and at the track. Since there are team size limits at the track this would either imply a second team or some existing Honda staff are being replaced.



#39 BJHF1

BJHF1
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 25 August 2015 - 22:33

Since we have a shiny new thread and all here's some thoughts on where I think we are.

Aero/chassis: definitely feels like we've made a lot of progress. Is there any part of the visible car that hasn't changed? I don't think so. Lack of track time has hurt the rate of development a lot but generally the updates seem to be doing the job. The car seems quite driver friendly and so long as they get enough track time getting a decent setup doesn't appear to be too difficult. We're doing great at slow speed corners, good at a medium - most to do on high speed corners. There's supposedly a Red Bull style FW coming at Singapore, which I hope is a significant redesign to maximise the airflow around the new nose. I'm not expecting miracles from that FW but it seems a reasonable hope that much of the car's potential will be unlocked by the end of the year (about as much as could reasonably be expected). Tires are still not optimal - hard to say how much aero/chassis improvements could help there but if the DF or DF efficiency can be improved that normally helps the tires. On the aero/chassis side hopefully we can end the year in a good place and transition smoothly into next year - the better sorted the car becomes this year the less there is that has to be done early next year and the more that can be devoted to testing/developing the engine during the two winter tests. For example, it could make it more practical to do things like only bring the full MP4-31 to the second test and devote the first test more to the engine and internal changes associated with the new engine (eg new internal layouts, suspension changes etc).

Engine: Hmm, well. It has improved in power and reliability and also our understanding of its remaining deficiencies has improved. I really hope I'm right that the MGU-K is probably operating at closer to 50% power because it's a lot easier (and cheaper in terms of tokens) to improve that than to improve the entire ICE. It should be at least. It sounds strange but I'd actually be depressed if you could convince me that the MGU-K can already operate at full power (160 hp) and for any duration so long as it can be fed with energy. I've generally been saying "about" 50% but I suspect it's actually a bit higher, just really hard to be sure. Maybe with various small tweaks and testing that percentage can be incrementally improved in the next few races or by the end of the year. If it could run at 100% power for any duration at Singapore I think we'd qualify inside the top 10 easily but right now I'm not expecting that to be possible. There seems to be more of a consensus that the MGU-H is the weakest link but no real consensus on just how weak though personally I think it's barely harvesting anything at all which is why we're suffering so much on tracks with lots of full throttle time and on higher fuel consumption tracks or where the MGU-K can't harvest much.

Tactics/operations: not quite smooth sailing but okay - some errors here and there and some missed opportunities. Main concern is how often we seem to have "small" issues with things like connectors and sensors and then have limited running or missed opportunities because of them. Feels more like a design problem to me though.

Drivers: just about perfect. More please.

Just out of curiousity - at what level do you believe ERS and specifically the MGU-K deployment were functioning at Hungary? Obviously Spa exposed this weakness to a high level, but we heard rumblings that the ERS was functioning at 100% (whatever that means) at Hungary.

At Hungary the drivers are at full throttle for only ~55% of the lap (roughly 45 seconds in qualifying), while the lap is very short particularly in qualifying (1:20-1:25 per lap). With that said, unlimited harvesting from the MGU-H shouldn't have hampered them too much, as the majority of the 33 second allotment @ 160hp/4MJ from battery storage and MGU-K harvesting could have been relied on to power the MGU-K for a good portion of the lap. I don't believe MGU-H requires much energy to keep the turbine spooled when off throttle.

Anyway, what do you think?

Edited by BJHF1, 25 August 2015 - 22:39.


Advertisement

#40 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,479 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 25 August 2015 - 22:56

There are a several good posts by muramasa about the new MK facility in part V of the thread (mostly in the context of the dubious claim that they refuse to hire non-Japanese, which must be why they are building a facility in MK ;) )

 

 

Given the lead times for building a facility and staffing it I doubt they were waiting for this thread's opinions ;)

 

Exactly.

Looking at the application contents, it's quite wide range, plus permanent status, so this, if true, is part of the plan that's long been in the making, not "knee-jerk".

 

The said articles from April 2015 (why I found this back then is simply because I sometimes monitor google by "honda f1");

- Their intention is to develop a facility at Winterhill adjacent to their existing Mugen Honda unit that will house the main R&D function for their push into F1 engine technology advancement.

- The new facility will create approximately 35 full-time jobs, which will be a mixture of high-skilled engineering positions and support staff and by 2018 it is expected to house 65 full time staff.

- NL Property were placed under a very tight timescale to deliver the project as their approvals from Honda in Japan were based on having the scheme built out by the end of 2015.

http://www.miltonkey...plans-1-6714723

http://www.onemk.co....s-26401111.html

http://publicaccess2...l=NNAVISKWB5000 (this thanks to the other poster who introduced them to me)

 

Been disclosed in April means this had been in the pipeline for at least half year or a full year as there's assessment and the whole planning and designing to work on. BTW this "MK Citizen" claims that they had revealed this very thing exclusively 2 years ago (presumably late 2013 as Honda announced F1 comeback as well as new and new MK mugen facility, which is already in operation, in May 2013), and they could well be true about it. The whole process, "basic planning/consulting - detailed planning - final budget approval - construction, staff qualification then start operation" can take full 2 years.

Arai was specifically asked by Japanese media about this in June or so and he admitted it but didnt want to talk about it much which is highly understandable. For something like this, ideally they'd want to keep it secret as much as possible, but it involves municipal approval and cooperation in advance so disclosure was inevitable.

Around now is natural timing to start the staff recruitment.



#41 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2015 - 23:17

Just out of curiousity - at what level do you believe ERS and specifically the MGU-K deployment were functioning at Hungary? Obviously Spa exposed this weakness to a high level, but we heard rumblings that the ERS was functioning at 100% (whatever that means) at Hungary.

At Hungary the drivers are at full throttle for only ~55% of the lap (roughly 45 seconds in qualifying), while the lap is very short particularly in qualifying (1:20-1:25 per lap). With that said, unlimited harvesting from the MGU-H shouldn't have hampered them too much, as the majority of the 33 second allotment @ 160hp/4MJ from battery storage and MGU-K harvesting could have been relied on to power the MGU-K for a good portion of the lap. I don't believe MGU-H requires much energy to keep the turbine spooled when off throttle.

Anyway, what do you think?

 

Hungary is more like 35s full throttle based on the pole lap onboard (I timed it). I'll point you to my big ERS post here:

http://forums.autosp...30-v/?p=7281431

 

To answer your questions sort-of briefly: I don't think the MGU-H limited the car at all during qualifying at Hungary - because a full battery would have lasted a full lap of deployment. In practice, deployment was limited by some kind of glitch that affected both drivers on their second run - they couldn't deploy during the start/finish straight but apparently the rest of the lap was fine. I think on the first run they had full deployment. There's a lot of unknowns and lack of public data but putting together a few official comments and data suggested the MGU-K could be running at only half power. It's not clear how readily they could deploy during the race but comments from McLaren suggested that they couldn't use it as much as they wanted/hoped though the details of why are not clear. Overheating? Lack of energy? I don't think the MGU-H harvested much energy during the race.

 

I agree that the MGU-H shouldn't require much energy. It should only be actively powering the turbo for a few seconds a lap, I'd reckon.

 

From Spa we got another possible hint that the MGU-K was possibly running closer to half power than full power because of two hints that the MGU-H wasn't harvesting much and that the MGU-K might run out of energy on a lap of Spa (65s full throttle). Put the two together and Fernando's quali onboard when deployment runs out suggests the MGU-K could only be run at about half power at Spa. There have also been comments from the drivers that the ERS part of the PU is weak.

 

There's plenty of ways this analysis could all be wrong but everything I've seen lately points to the ERS part of the PU being weak... which conversely means that the ICE/turbo side is actually quite competitive. It would be nice to know for sure, even if I'm wrong.



#42 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 23:55

The reliability of McLaren Honda was excellent in Spa.  :up:  :up:  :up:  :up:



#43 Ikebana

Ikebana
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 26 August 2015 - 01:13

The reliability of McLaren Honda was excellent in Spa.  :up:  :up:  :up:  :up:

 

Yes. At least they didn't allow the problem to get dragged on right to the end of the season, which could have very well happened. Many top and quick teams suffered them right to the end. It would have been very hard for us to develop with them... At least we can move on from that.


Edited by Ikebana, 26 August 2015 - 01:17.


#44 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 August 2015 - 01:32

The reliability of McLaren Honda was excellent in Spa.  :up:  :up:  :up:  :up:

 

Well, Jenson might disagree very slightly.

 

But I think I read somewhere that, to speed up development, McLaren were using different software on the 2 cars, so maybe Jenson was running some kind of experimental program.

 

Did anyone else see that report? I saw nothing about it on the McLaren website, but I don't think I dreamed it.



#45 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 3,391 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 26 August 2015 - 01:50

Well, Jenson might disagree very slightly.

 

But I think I read somewhere that, to speed up development, McLaren were using different software on the 2 cars, so maybe Jenson was running some kind of experimental program.

 

Did anyone else see that report? I saw nothing about it on the McLaren website, but I don't think I dreamed it.

 

They were certainly running different parts - the rear wing was highlighted as being different on the two cars for instance, while very visible, I would imagine that if they have gone down that road, then the wing probably wasn't the only thing different between the two.



#46 Equinox1

Equinox1
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: June 15

Posted 26 August 2015 - 02:10

The reliability of McLaren Honda was excellent in Spa.  :up:  :up:  :up:  :up:

 

Apart from 1 driver missing Fp3..



#47 Force Ten

Force Ten
  • Member

  • 4,100 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 26 August 2015 - 07:13

'kay. This one got unnoticed in the Thread Mark V, so I'll just copy it here, does anybody have any thoughts or is that scenario so painful that we have collectively agreed to ignore it? :)

What I often wonder is simply why almost no-one has not once here considered a possibility that the solution to some of Honda's problems requires a new invention that they simply have not yet been able to invent?

 

So it's not like "if they had 198 tokens they would use 28 of them to put a newly designed MGU-H in that would instantly fix all of their problems" but more like "even if they had 429 tokens to use on the MGU-H it still wouldn't made an iota of difference because they have no idea how to make an MGU-H design that works substantially better with the configuration it has to play with"?

 

It's not like Honda created a truly shitty MGU-H so that they could upgrade it as soon as possible, they created the absolute best in their ability at the time so there are reasons to believe that the heureka moment that should come for the new invention simply hasn't arrived yet.



#48 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 26 August 2015 - 07:44

Hmm... 2nd Honda powered team coming next year?

 

surely Manor... wait a sec. or  Toro Rosso O.o  then RB Merc O.o it's real.....



#49 CPR

CPR
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 August 2015 - 07:55

'kay. This one got unnoticed in the Thread Mark V, so I'll just copy it here, does anybody have any thoughts or is that scenario so painful that we have collectively agreed to ignore it? :)

What I often wonder is simply why almost no-one has not once here considered a possibility that the solution to some of Honda's problems requires a new invention that they simply have not yet been able to invent?

 

So it's not like "if they had 198 tokens they would use 28 of them to put a newly designed MGU-H in that would instantly fix all of their problems" but more like "even if they had 429 tokens to use on the MGU-H it still wouldn't made an iota of difference because they have no idea how to make an MGU-H design that works substantially better with the configuration it has to play with"?

 

It's not like Honda created a truly shitty MGU-H so that they could upgrade it as soon as possible, they created the absolute best in their ability at the time so there are reasons to believe that the heureka moment that should come for the new invention simply hasn't arrived yet.

 

I'm not entirely sure what your question is... but here's some general thoughts on development around the MGU-K and MGU-H.

 

It's possible to completely re-design both of them for 5 tokens each (if you don't need to reposition them it'd be just 3 tokens). I'm pretty sure they were made intentionally cheap to redesign but they're also quite small parts. The problem with the MGU-K seems to be localised heat only, though there were some direct reliability issues earlier in the year (with the seals). Maybe it could be re-designed to be more efficient (generate less heat itself), to improve it's internal cooling or to better shield it from the local heat. Or maybe simply moving it would work best, though if you do that you might need to change other parts on the engine to accommodate it.

 

I think the MGU-H situation is much more complicated since it's not so much about the unit itself that's the problem (though apparently it has heat issues too) but the detrimental effects it has on the turbo. The MGU-H itself might not need to change much but maybe lots of the stuff it is connected to (TC turbine, TC compressor, exhaust system) needs to be re-designed.



#50 Cozzie

Cozzie
  • Member

  • 171 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 26 August 2015 - 08:02

Arai's comedy value is fantastic...this is from today.

 

http://www.motorspor...g-15082601.html

 

'actually we're only 40-50hp behind mercedes, 30 hp behind Ferarri and 20hp IN FRONT OF Renault

 

Apparenly its the aerodynamic resistance of the Mclaren which disguises the real power output of the Hona :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Edited by Cozzie, 26 August 2015 - 08:02.