4086 replies to this topic

[Timothy]

Alonso wouldn't be happy reading that... 

 

What would be so upsetting? Realistically speaking (non-emotion) he should know better the earliest they can fight for championships is 2019. That would obviously be on condition tangible improvements are made within the next two seasons.

 

For 2017 they should be ahead of that mid-field pack, out qualifying and out racing the like of Williams and Force India with relative ease with BOTH drivers. 2018 should be the year they genuinely fight for podiums. If progress is not remotely close to the above mentioned, then I'm afraid 2019-2020 is premature.

[shonguiz]

Aboslute Taste has been sold, soon the name Ron Dennis it self will be banned from the McLaren wikipedia page. Man Mansour Ojjeh must really have been pissed off.

Edited by shonguiz, 05 January 2017 - 17:13.

[Talisman]

Aboslute Taste has been sold, soon the name Ron Dennis it self will be banned from the McLaren wikipedia page. Man Mansour Ojjeh must really have been pissed off.

What? Ron getting under someone's skin? Who would have thought it

[jjcale]

 

New McLaren boss to rev up turnround of Formula One team

 

http://https://www.f...43-7e34c07b46ef

 

 

First time I opened the page I could read it, but now it appears that I have to subscribe to read it. Nothing new except this one:

 

 

 

 

This is a bit more realistic ... but I have doubts about Honda - the company (indeed the entire country of Japan) was more dynamic in the 80s than today.... I am not sure that they can do a repeat performance.  And Macca certainly is not what it was in the 80s ... Success in F1 is not just a matter or throwing money at it - even if that is an essential first step.  

[blacky]

This is a bit more realistic ... but I have doubts about Honda - the company (indeed the entire country of Japan) was more dynamic in the 80s than today.... I am not sure that they can do a repeat performance.  

 

I don't think so. Honda can definitely close the gap, not next year, but in 18 or 19 I see no reason why they can't build an engine which is pretty equal to Mercedes. They made good progress this year and one get the impression that they know now what they do and have to do to be successfull.

 

Furthermore I believe that in 18 or 19 all 4 engine builder will be pretty equal and that this is desired and aided by the FIA, Ecclestone and all people in the background.

 

But once again, I am not sure McLaren has enough and/or good enough engineers to beat RBR or Mercedes.

[Lotus53B]

Jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow, but never jam today...  The time to being competeitive keeps moving.

 

Alonso joined in 2015 looking to win his 3rd championship in the 3 years he contracted for.  Now McLaren are saying "by the end of the decade" - and I fully expect them in 2020 to pull the millenium switch and point out that there was no year zero.  Fernando doesn't have time on his side in this plan.

 

By then, 2020, there will be a revision of the engine formula, and maybe this time Honda will hit the ground running and be competitive, but I don't see them matching Merc  in this iteration, and maybe, probably, not Renault.

 

I've been a McLaren fan since the 70s, before Project4 joined in - I reserve the right to be realistic - and to have a memory.

[ERICTOPF1]

As expected, the Mobil and Esso logos are removed from the partners area at the McLaren site.

 

Has there been an official announcement about BP?

Edited by ERICTOPF1, 05 January 2017 - 19:13.

[Graveltrappen]

I think due to the dedennisation of McLaren, I wouldn't be surprised to see a livery change along with a new way of naming the cars away from the MP4 tradition. Another way to stamp out his legacy in the guise of 'moving it forward'

[CPR]

Nice article on McLaren's website about 2017 changes:
http://www.mclaren.c...owdown-1122565/
 
Most of it isn't exactly "new" (mostly comments on the tyre and aero changes) but there is this:
 

“The token system that was applied to engine development for the past few seasons has been discontinued. For 2017, the Honda engine architecture and layout have been altered to serve both for performance and packaging needs.

"The new power unit takes much of the learning from the past two seasons, but has been specifically redesigned for this season.”

Wonder how big those architecture and layout changes are. Most journalists seem to be expecting big changes but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[KnucklesAgain]

Nice article on McLaren's website about 2017 changes:
http://www.mclaren.c...owdown-1122565/
 
Most of it isn't exactly "new" (mostly comments on the tyre and aero changes) but there is this:
 

Wonder how big those architecture and layout changes are. Most journalists seem to be expecting big changes but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

It seems to me that this may qualify as an opening post for the McLaren 2017 car thread.

[Lotus53B]

I believe that tptb frown on new car threads until the first sighting of the cars.

[KnucklesAgain]

I believe that tptb frown on new car threads until the first sighting of the cars.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a time when "substantial news about the car from a legit source" was the criterion. Maybe it has changed

[Lotus53B]

 

Let's wait till there's a McLaren MP4-32 to discuss before we have this thread.

Risil, in the rather too early, and rapidly locked thread on the MP4-32...

[KnucklesAgain]

Risil, in the rather too early, and rapidly locked thread on the MP4-32...

 

OK. Edit: Though it's quite close to something we can discuss about the car

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 05 January 2017 - 21:24.

[Marklar]

I asked Risil a few days back when Gazetta was running an similar story about Ferrari's 2017 car: They would stil discuss it, but his feeling is that we should wait a bit for the 2017 car threads 

 

We also had Renault commenting on the engine like McLaren above, this went into the general engine thread

Edited by Marklar, 05 January 2017 - 21:28.

[KnucklesAgain]

I asked Risil a few days back when Gazetta was running an similar story about Ferrari's 2017 car: They would stil discuss it, but his feeling is that we should wait a bit for the 2017 car threads 

 

We also had Renault commenting on the engine like McLaren above, this went into the general engine thread

 

I can see it, I'm just itchy

[muramasa]

　

 

excerpts of relevant, new and interesting quotes from series of Honda season review articles

dotted parts are Hasegawa quotes

 

 

========================================

on PU evolution from 2015 to 16
http://f1sokuho.mopi...9&tt=1170&at=15
2016年12月11日


- In 2015, when trouble occurred to MGU-H and turbo, it took like 10 hours to just remove them from the engine, but in 2016 it takes only 1/3 of that to exchange the components. 2016 PU has been finished in sleek/neat style to that extent. (Nakamura)
 
- The main reason why deployment has improved alot for 2016 is that, 2015 unit's turbo was weak, so we modified there significantly. Regarding MGU-H, we modified reliability related parts, but motor itself has already reached the target at the stage of 2015, so we have not changed for 2016. (Nakamura)
 

[those Nakamura quotes are from around May 2016, coz i remember reading them on paper magazine as well as website in the past, but some quotes are previously unreleased]

 

 

 

===========================

on structural changes for 2016
http://www.as-web.jp/f1/73881?all
2016.12.18

 

 

 

===========================

on 2017 PU development overall
https://www.as-web.jp/f1/76425?all
2016.12.25

 

• I think 2017 will be good opportunity for us, but regarding the abolition of token system, I'm not too conscious of that.

• After using tokens in pre-season, there are only 3 chances during the season to use tokens, which is at the timing of introducing the remaining 3 units. Therefore, asked if the degree of freedom in development has widened by the removal of token system, it's not necessarily so. I recognize that resource limitation in time and technology is bigger.

 

• From 2015 to 2016, there are some components that got larger, like turbo for example, but in terms of volume of the whole package, 2016's unit has got more compact than 2015 unit. Furthermore, 2017 unit will be even more compact than the 2016 unit by quite a margin.

• To begin with, the idea of making the power unit compact is not what's been told by mclaren, but what was conceived in Honda side as well. To make it as compact an engine as possible while maximizing the performance of the engine is our stance.

 

(on TJI subject)

• We are trialing every single possibilities.
• (meanwhile) If you follow/do the same thing as rivals, you may be able to catch up but unable to surpass.

 

• the 2017 engines have been running heavily on dyno already, but encountering problems quite a bit too.
• It would be great if we can get victory in 2017, but first of all we want to get involved with fight for podium. This is the position we must aim at rather than a realistic objective. But, we haven't yet reached that level yet.

 

 

[judging by some quotes (appeared and posted here already), those Hasegawa quotes are from Abu Dhabi GP weekend]

Edited by muramasa, 08 January 2017 - 18:29.

[Rinehart]

..."the idea of making the power unit compact is not what's been told by mclaren, but what was conceived in Honda side as well. To make it as compact an engine as possible while maximizing the performance of the engine is our stance"...

 

Quelle surprise. 

[CPR]

Just a couple of thoughts on engine development over winter...

 

For 2016 winter testing, the PU was substantially revised since 2015 and Honda also brought along some significant developments during the 8 days of testing. I would not be at all surprised to see something similar again, despite the removal of the token system.

 

The reason being is that you have to balance having a minimum amount of reliability (to complete testing) and pushing performance development as much as possible to be competitive. Because of the big changes to the tyres, chassis, aero etc, from McLaren's point of view they will be very keen to be able to do as much testing as possible. On the other hand, once the actual races start you want as much performance as possible (so long as you have a realistic chance to get to the end of the race).

 

So how do you maximise these two competing demands? If you have the budget, I'd think the best way is to bring multiple engine specifications to winter testing (at least two, but possibly more, depending on what kinds of internal developments you have). There's lots of ways this can be organised but the way I would imagine it happening is you start with a "baseline" engine where high level things like the basic architecture, size etc has been signed off and validated with a minimum level of reliability and performance. You then split that into two branches - a "version 1" branch (where you test and incrementally improve the baseline with a focus on reliability) and a "version 2" branch (where the aim is to add new developments with a focus on performance). These two branches would not be isolated - on the "version 1" branch, once you have validated a reliability fix you would then copy that over to the "version 2" branch.

 

The "version 1" branch would be the main engine for winter testing. The "version 2" branch would be targeted to be the engine for the first race. Maybe a month (maybe more?) before winter testing starts, Honda would start to freeze developments on the "version 2" branch and introduce a "version 3" branch which is where new performance developments would go to. The focus for the "version 2" branch would then be reliability.

 

So hopefully, when you get to day 1 of winter testing, you have 3 engine versions. "Version 1" which ideally is "ready to race" according to internal testing, "version 2" which is hopefully "usable for testing on track" and "version 3" which is for future developments (internal testing only). So you'd start winter testing with "version 1" and switch over to "version 2" at some point, assuming that everything goes to plan. "Version 2" would be continuously tested and improved for reliability such that it's "ready to race" by the first race of the year. If "version 2" turns out to have substantial issues the fall-back plan would be to use "version 1".

 

I hope that makes some kind of sense. There's nothing particularly original here - it's basically how development works in my day job, except that's software development. I dunno how different hardware development would be but I think it would be conceptually similar.

[TIFOlonSO]

Scrapping F1 hybrid engines only way to stop Mercedes - Ecclestone

http://www.motorspor...lestone-863209/

[Timstr11]

• After using tokens in pre-season, there are only 3 chances during the season to use tokens, which is at the timing of introducing the remaining 3 units. Therefore, asked if the degree of freedom in development has widened by the removal of token system, it's not necessarily so. I recognize that resource limitation in time and technology is bigger.

 

 

@muramasa: Do you remember the debate we had about the extent to which the token system hampered development so far? Hasegawa is confirming exactly what I said at the time. So far it is technology and time that were the most limiting factors. Not the token system (although I do realize it would become really limiting in the the coming years as several areas would be closed off for development).  

Edited by Timstr11, 06 January 2017 - 12:36.

[Owen]

Scrapping F1 hybrid engines only way to stop Mercedes - Ecclestone

http://www.motorspor...lestone-863209/

 

[shonguiz]

The latest translation confirms that the "Honda now has 50 tokens worth of updates and is now going faster than the token system." spit by their current boss was as predicted BS.

[muramasa]

@muramasa: Do you remember the debate we had about the extent to which the token system hampered development so far? Hasegawa is confirming exactly what I said at the time. So far it is technology and time that were the most limiting factors. Not the token system (although I do realize it would become really limiting in the the coming years as several areas would be closed off for development).  

 

no, time and resource is one thing and token constraints is totally another. Time and resource is significant doesnt make token system less obstacle at all. If you have worked on whatever trivial engineering things it's so easy to understand this, even uni or high school students or even kids playing with lego know this empirically. Again think of rearranging your room for easy reference, if you can do completely freely with all the furnitures it's so easy to do the way you want but in reality you do with what you have (desk, chair, shelf etc), like, you want to put desk and shelf this way but omg if only either desk or shelf was just 1cm smaller. Now you can either shave either of them or buy new one freely instead of seek other possibilities, that's huge difference. Engine design or whatever is the same and think of the case where token system is applied for aero for another easy reference.

time constraint in this case is PU life, now 1 PU has to last 4 or 5 races and it takes massive amount of time just to confirm 5 race distance worth reliability on dyno. From there in order to push development further, you have to run that mileage again on dyno, it takes massive, or more and more amount of time for this whole cycle. So you cannot afford to trial this and that randomly, but instead you have to set direction specifically and focus on it. In that development work itself token has nothing to do with it, but when applying it the token system is huge nuisance which is too obvious.

technology constraint is about learning/researching, understanding and mastering certain technology, besides, number of dyno, scale of facility, number of staff and budget is not infinite. Again nothing to do with tokens there.

Those constraints are not limiting factors but more how R&D is like. Token system meanwhile is annoyance and severe limiting factor at the stage of application that forces you to make unnecessary/meaningless/strange detour, postponement and adaptation. Now you are not bound and restricted by existing framework, dont need to care about it, that's huge difference.

[MastaKink]

The latest translation confirms that the "Honda now has 50 tokens worth of updates and is now going faster than the token system." spit by their current boss was as predicted BS.

 

It's the same boss talking now, maybe now he's BS'ing to dampen expectation now the token systems been removed.

 

Or both times talking BS of course, you can see what you want to I guess.

[David1976]

Being that the Mercedes power plant is a moving target I do not see it as conceivable that Honda could possibly be competitive this year given their recent form.

 

Next year seems a bit more realistic.  After recent years a podium in 2017 would be ecstatic for McLaren Honda.  When reading Alonso interviews I get the impression he's already resigned to that.

[Rinehart]

The way I see it, with the token system, Honda could only improve to the level the tokens allowed. It was well known last year that Honda had improvements that they could not implement because they didn't have the tokens available. But, the same could also be said for other teams. However, now without the token system, they have to improve at a faster rate than all the other manufacturers to catch up. And those manufacturers are now derestricted also. 

 

So, there are upsides and downsides to both of those scenarios. The biggest question to me is, where does optimisation and performance convergence happen? If Mercedes are close already, this derestriction should expedite Honda catching up. However, I'm not so sure. F1 never ceases to amaze me how many avenues of and how much performance there is to pursue. There will be areas of engine development that nobody has even thought of yet. I think its perfectly possible that Mercedes could increase their advantage in the short term. 

[CPR]

I think it's safe to say that in the short term (ie between the last race last year and the first race this year) that all the teams will have made a bigger step without the token limits than they would have otherwise. Possibly by quite a large margin.

 

Hasegawa was quoted saying somewhere around May/June last year I think that they (Honda) had about 45-50 tokens worth of developments - enough to put them on the same level Ferrari were at the time. I think most people (me included) took that to mean that the developments were "ready" when in fact most of them were targeting 2017. In his interviews, Hasegawa very much comes across as someone who is an engineer first, so I doubt he was being disingenuous.

 

In his more recent comments, he's clearly (in my mind at least) talking about the medium to long term trend - ie that the long term rate of performance improvement is more a matter of raw R&D, whether or not you have the extra hassle, hurdles and distortions caused by the tokens. He's not saying that getting rid of the tokens won't make much of a difference. The overall tone I get from him is that he's saying that getting rid of the token system will increase the responsibility on Honda to deliver the necessary R&D.

[Alonsofan007]

Token system removed is advantage this time coz last time they could not bring all their winter developments to australia as hasagawa said they  have spec running to match ferrari (after few upgrades)  but could not bring all developments due to token restrictions, what hasagawa is alluding to here is amount of development over season and number of times upgrades can be brought, but again advantage of no token system is that  if they feel parts have enuf  performance they can use more than 4 updates.

 

 

I have a good feeling honda is going to take good leap this year, esp now that fernando has expressed confidence about their progress. He said there are 2 question marks next season, honda's progress and aero changes, first one is no longer question mark, but aero development still is coz we never know where we are relative to others until in australia.

[Timstr11]

no, time and resource is one thing and token constraints is totally another. Time and resource is significant doesnt make token system less obstacle at all. If you have worked on whatever trivial engineering things it's so easy to understand this, even uni or high school students or even kids playing with lego know this empirically. Again think of rearranging your room for easy reference, if you can do completely freely with all the furnitures it's so easy to do the way you want but in reality you do with what you have (desk, chair, shelf etc), like, you want to put desk and shelf this way but omg if only either desk or shelf was just 1cm smaller. Now you can either shave either of them or buy new one freely instead of seek other possibilities, that's huge difference. Engine design or whatever is the same and think of the case where token system is applied for aero for another easy reference.

time constraint in this case is PU life, now 1 PU has to last 4 or 5 races and it takes massive amount of time just to confirm 5 race distance worth reliability on dyno. From there in order to push development further, you have to run that mileage again on dyno, it takes massive, or more and more amount of time for this whole cycle. So you cannot afford to trial this and that randomly, but instead you have to set direction specifically and focus on it. In that development work itself token has nothing to do with it, but when applying it the token system is huge nuisance which is too obvious.

technology constraint is about learning/researching, understanding and mastering certain technology, besides, number of dyno, scale of facility, number of staff and budget is not infinite. Again nothing to do with tokens there.

Those constraints are not limiting factors but more how R&D is like. Token system meanwhile is annoyance and severe limiting factor at the stage of application that forces you to make unnecessary/meaningless/strange detour, postponement and adaptation. Now you are not bound and restricted by existing framework, dont need to care about it, that's huge difference.

 

I think the biggest advantage/innovations other teams have are in very specific areas of the PU, e.g. around combustion, which were not restricted.

Therefore I see what Hasegawa is saying that on the whole, the token system was not the great inhibitor, but rather time and engineering ingenuity.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Lotus53B]

I thought that the HCCI/MAHLE ignition systems were impeded as they required a modification to the cylinder profile (and fuel injectors) that did require tokens to implement.

These are advances that I'm /really/ looking forward to next year.

[F1Champion]

I'm not entirely sure that Honda have fully implemented the HCCI/TJI, the comments when asked by journalists aren't 100% conclusive. He mentions that they are working on solutions and many iterations and running into issues, that's hardly a slam dunk to say that they have fully mastered and implemented the technology. They aren't even working with Mahle/MM or any other 3rd party organisation to implement, so I'm not convinced that their solution is there.

[Timstr11]

@F1Champion
According to Andy Cowell (Mercedes), Honda have not: https://www.reddit.c...ndy_cowell_the/

[Marklar]

I'm not entirely sure that Honda have fully implemented the HCCI/TJI, the comments when asked by journalists aren't 100% conclusive. He mentions that they are working on solutions and many iterations and running into issues, that's hardly a slam dunk to say that they have fully mastered and implemented the technology. They aren't even working with Mahle/MM or any other 3rd party organisation to implement, so I'm not convinced that their solution is there.

It was reported last year that Honda didnt had it yet and that the tokens they had for the in-season development could perhaps not be enough to fully implement it.

Token system removed is advantage this time coz last time they could not bring all their winter developments to australia as hasagawa said they have spec running to match ferrari (after few upgrades) but could not bring all developments due to token restrictions,

While the reasoning regarding the token system might be understandable I'm not believing for a second this part of the statement.

The issue with the token system is that you are stucked with the design because you need too many tokens to change it. Also it causes a bit the time limitation factor because you cant afford to fail with an upgrade because otherwise the tokens are lost, so development takes longer (partially also down to the engines quota per season though)

Edited by Marklar, 06 January 2017 - 20:18.

[Lotus53B]

The thing with tokens was that it didn't save anyone any money - all the teams did 99 grillion* iterations of engine upgrades, but only used tokens for the ones that worked**

 

*A figure I got from a man down the pub, which makes it at least as accurate as wikipedia***

 

**i.e. the ones that they told the FIA about.

 

***which is, according to a Prof I know, a lot less inaccurate than the people who think it is inaccurate are.

[Alonsofan007]

i am pretty sure hasegawa said combustion update is running on dynos in one of the interviews posted by muramusa, he said they could not make it ready in time for last PU update in malaysia (?) but now all changes are done and running on dynos.

[Alonsofan007]

The issue with the token system is that you are stucked with the design because you need too many tokens to change it. Also it causes a bit the time limitation factor because you cant afford to fail with an upgrade because otherwise the tokens are lost, so development takes longer (partially also down to the engines quota per season though)

well both can be true, unless they build the spec they wont know how many tokens it is going to cost and how much performance they can bring with tokens left etc .... so if tokens are not enuf to change design and improve over year, pick what ever you can fit to maximize current design.

 

thats exactly what he said in may '16 here in this interview - espn

 

"It is difficult to say but technically speaking our designs are -- I can't say the number -- but almost based on the same as the Ferrari level of engine," Hasegawa told F1i. "Although we are not achieving that at the moment.

"So if we didn't have the tokens and we were just adding more parts we could achieve that level I think. But currently to achieve this level we need more than 40 or 50 tokens. So that's why we have to wait and have to choose which upgrade will be very effective to close the gap."

Unlike Honda, Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault have all spent at least one token since the beginning of the season, with the latter set to introduce another upgrade in Monaco or Canada after successful tests in Barcelona this week.

Explaining his point further, Hasegawa said: "As a variation point of view I have a lot of [upgrade] options, but it isn't very big so I don't want to choose that kind of option. At the moment I am hesitating from introducing that kind of option by using tokens. That's the reason."

Asked if the upgrades which are ready would already have been introduced if there was no token system in place, Hasegawa replied: "Definitely, yes."

[shonguiz]

@F1Champion
According to Andy Cowell (Mercedes), Honda have not: https://www.reddit.c...ndy_cowell_the/

40 trillion operations for an entire race is not impressive. Testla's new hardware for auto pilot includes an Nvidia PX2 that can go up to a 24 TFlops.

[mclarensmps]

The issue with tokens is also that you have to plan your upgrades based on allocated spend per component AND engine limit per season. Therefore, you handicap yourself with what you're able to upgrade, and the path you've chosen. 

On the other hand, without tokens, if an idea comes up through development in any area, you would only be confined by engine limits per season. 

[TakataDomeNSX]

Scrapping F1 hybrid engines only way to stop Mercedes - Ecclestone

http://www.motorspor...lestone-863209/

 

 

To be honest I dont think I appreciate electric cars at all nor do I want an all electric future for road cars. Hybrid I like, but I want the ICE factor remains. I really hope F1 can work on Hydrogen ICE and that it makes its way to road cars.

 

Electric is just baloney as far as im concerned. No sound, no range, super polluting batteries during production and disposal. BS on the electric cars making less pollution, the pollution is made at the power plant instead of at the car.

 

I understand that hydrogen requires energy to make though, and is stored under pressure so isn't perfect yet. But with renewable energy getting big, I hope it's the way for the future.

Edited by TakataDomeNSX, 07 January 2017 - 02:29.

[aray]

What would be so upsetting? Realistically speaking (non-emotion) he should know better the earliest they can fight for championships is 2019. That would obviously be on condition tangible improvements are made within the next two seasons.

 

For 2017 they should be ahead of that mid-field pack, out qualifying and out racing the like of Williams and Force India with relative ease with BOTH drivers. 2018 should be the year they genuinely fight for podiums. If progress is not remotely close to the above mentioned, then I'm afraid 2019-2020 is premature.

or they could be outright fast right from the onset of 2017(making podium regularly and few wins) and winning it in 2018...

Realistically F1 is really unpredictable business,the kind of rational progresses you are imagining are hard to come by.

[muramasa]

I'm not entirely sure that Honda have fully implemented the HCCI/TJI, the comments when asked by journalists aren't 100% conclusive. He mentions that they are working on solutions and many iterations and running into issues, that's hardly a slam dunk to say that they have fully mastered and implemented the technology. They aren't even working with Mahle/MM or any other 3rd party organisation to implement, so I'm not convinced that their solution is there.

Regarding the subject dont even need to infer (or refer to Cowell etc), none other than Hasegawa himself specifically and clearly said they dont have it number of times across media (both japanese and those english/european media) and time, for example at Spa 2016

http://forums.autosp...rt-v/?p=7702952

 

Also at Malaysia he openly explained that they planned to make bigger upgrade in combustion for the final update but failed to deliver on dyno so gave up. Not sure if it was TJI/HCCI tho.

 

We'll see what they will be doing for 2017 but again I dont understand this overrating of "having issues" comment, test many iterations and encounter issues is what R&D is about, without which nothing would happen. It's neither negative nor positive info, just generic, or if anything it's more exciting/encouraging rather than the opposite, I would be really worried or just give up if they werent trying and working hard like that, but basically nothing to read much at all.

Edited by muramasa, 07 January 2017 - 08:46.

[DrFurby]

BS on the electric cars making less pollution, the pollution is made at the power plant instead of at the car.

Which a much better scenario in many ways. For example, it's much better for health to pollute in an isolated place than in the middle of a dense city, inhabited by elder people, kindergartens and so on. Also, on a poweplant you can apply scale economy benefits for pollution recover that's not feasible on your average car. And more things I'm lazy to write about lol

Edited by DrFurby, 07 January 2017 - 09:58.

[Tardis40]

An entire new power unit.  Complete redesign.  Yeah, that worked really well two years ago.  Poor Fernando.

[Owen]

An entire new power unit. Complete redesign. Yeah, that worked really well two years ago. Poor Fernando.

I'd suggest much has been learned in 2 years of competition.

[Lotus53B]

Aye, patience.

[Owen]

Aye, patience.

True.

[damager21]

I think the engine and aero rule change this season will also be a big  opportunity for McLaren early on. Same obviously holds true for other teams too but if McLaren can come up with some innovation (Double diffuser in 2009)  early ON which gives them an advantage on the chassis side, we can still see some surprises in performance.

 

Time and again we have seen how aero changes can shake up things quite a bit. So while Honda may continue to play catch up to Mercedes in 2017, McLaren may still see opportunities to beat other top teams and be on the podium early on. While its highly unlikely that Red Bull will botch up on chassis front, Ferrari could be a bit vulnerable in this department and this is exactly what McLaren must try and exploit.

[pizzalover]

To be honest I dont think I appreciate electric cars at all nor do I want an all electric future for road cars. Hybrid I like, but I want the ICE factor remains. I really hope F1 can work on Hydrogen ICE and that it makes its way to road cars.

 

Electric is just baloney as far as im concerned. No sound, no range, super polluting batteries during production and disposal. BS on the electric cars making less pollution, the pollution is made at the power plant instead of at the car.

 

I understand that hydrogen requires energy to make though, and is stored under pressure so isn't perfect yet. But with renewable energy getting big, I hope it's the way for the future.

 

Or they could use CO2 neutral synfuels made from seawater.

 

http://skirsch.com/p...ng/tarsands.htm

[Alonsofan007]

well motorsport italia is reporting honda's going with merc pu architecture as it was predicted before to close gap to Merc.

 

translated by g

 

Hasegawa, head of Honda F1, has imposed a drastic change in engine design in 2017 adopting similar solutions to those who made the winning Marcedes. Just to McLaren to bring the Silver Arrows?

The power unit in 2017 Honda will feature an architecture magazine and a new layout: the Japanese manufacturer, in fact, intends to make a major leap in engine performance in the third year of cooperation with McLaren.

Yusuke Hasegawa, head of the F1 project, aimed at a drastic change of direction after the FIA ​​has decided to abolish the chips in the power unit development. The Regulation 2017, in fact, allows the adoption of four different motors for pilot during the season.

Because of these greater freedoms Honda has repudiated the philosophy of "size zero" that had characterized the return to Formula 1 in 2015, preferring to take the one that turned out to be a winning way to the Mercedes Since the start of ' it was hybrid in 2014.

The Japanese brand, in fact, in Sakura Research Centre is turning to dynamic bench a power unit with the compressor mounted to the end of the 6-cylinder on the side frame, while the turbine is located on the side of the transmission.

And, just like the units of the Mercedes which is produced in Brixworth, the two elements of the supercharging system, which are mounted inside the V of 90 degrees, are joined by a connecting shaft. Thanks to this architecture, McLaren will enter the water cooler in the niche between the chassis and the engine, significantly lowering the center of gravity of the engine accessories.

I will, therefore, exaggerate the packaging of the power unit, drawing a very tight in the rear of the MP4-32 at Coca Cola zone, leaving the Ferrari-style solution that saw turbo and compressor mounted near the exhaust bike maker to Tim Goss direct Woking central and in the middle of the MGU-H.

The Japanese are sure to significantly reduce the power gap by Mercedes engine: Japanese engineers are working hard on the combustion chamber and will adopt, it seems like the Ferrari, the multi-jet injector will spray the fuel inside the spark plug cap TJI system, further developing the issue of pre-ignition, as the Honda had opened a consultation with AVL, Graz of the Austrian company that is working also to the engines of Formula 1 Ferrari.

McLaren hopes to get back on top in the Constructors' that saw the Woking team classified in sixth place in the ranking in 2016: the aim would bring Fernando Alonso and the young Stoffel Vandoorne in the podium area is obliterated by the management of Zak Brown last two years very difficult for a team that boasts the titles to return to be a top team.

 

 

this is great news, i expect them to get occasional podiums, i have great confidence in pete prod's aero developments, they can be 3rd fastest package at the start and from there its all about how they develop over year.

Edited by Alonsofan007, 08 January 2017 - 02:52.