Mclaren MP4-29H

[techF1LES]

To clarify what was/is going on at the McLaren-Honda, remember these words of Honda's motorsport chief Yasuhisa Arai.

"Today's engines are of course not for the actual race. We are on schedule to develop that for the coming season and we expect two more steps. We want to qualify well on the grid in Australia."

- November 27th, 2014

It's important to note that Arai mentioned "two more steps" in the development plan.

If fact and contrary to popular belief, during the Silverstone shakedown and Abu Dhabi testing, McLaren MP4-29H was fitted with the power unit badged Honda 0X2. This was the second prototype - second milestone in the development plan. It's no secret that 0X2 falls short of the performance and reliability standards set by 2014 power units. From various sources I understand it was only capable of 800 km run on the dyno. On the other hand, this power unit was simply supposed to help to identify all the gremlins, problems and shortcomings you would stumble upon in the real world away from dynos and simulations... Issues with installation, systems integration, electronic systems and so on.

During the upcoming winter testing Honda will introduce its first 'full blown' race power unit marked Honda 1X1. Then we will have the real opportunity to compare Honda's progress with the progress of its counterparts tested one year ago.

Lastly, the second step mentioned by Arai will be known as Honda 1X2. This will be the last power unit specification developed and eventually submitted to FIA homologation before late February. By 2016 1X2 will be obviously the subject to the development freeze.

[Avocado]

Gilles Simon @ 1:13

[Edax]

people always blame harnesses when it comes to electrical faults.

That's precicely why they call it an electrical failure.

Hardware failure --> easy to find, difficult to fix
Electrical / hydraulic failure --> Easy to find, easy to fix.
Software error--> You may never find it.

That's not reality, but that is the perception of a non-technical audience, based on their experience with houshold items.

Remember these are statements made by engineers who are instructed by PR-people. PR people are always happy to tell it is an electric or a hydraulic problem regardless of the actual cause and effect. Because it makes it sound convincing, innocuous and solvable.

It may be a faulty harnass, it may also be something which remotely involves some rogue electrons.

[Chris@Woking]

It would be useful to know when this interview with Yasuhisa Arai has been recoded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auMPh18o8ag He talks about the key dates of the new engine project... (description says 6.2014 but it's not accurate IMO)

I think early 2014 (he mentions spring at 02:40)

He meant spring '15 I guess...

[turbof1]

Guys, I'm currently creating all the speculation topics. Do you want to keep this topic for the speculation of next year car?

[Thunder]

There is a MP4-30 Thread already.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 12&t=20303

I think a merge of 29H with the 30 Speculation Thread would be good.

[turbof1]

Forgot about that one! I think it's indeed best to merge those 2. I'll give everybody some time to read this before merging them tomorrow. So speculation/facts of both the interim 29H and the 30 are allowed in above mentioned thread.

[CjC]

Post removed

[dren]

Just an FYI, Scarbs posts here and probably gets paid to provide analysis to Autosport plus. Might be a good choice to remove that bit even though I enjoyed reading it. Scarbs does provide insight on occasion here already.

[Moose]

Just an FYI, Scarbs posts here and probably gets paid to provide analysis to Autosport plus. Might be a good choice to remove that bit even though I enjoyed reading it. Scarbs does provide insight on occasion here already.

Indeed, copying that material from behind the paywall is illegal (but more importantly hugely unethical).

[CjC]

Ok I see your point.
Consider it removed.
I paid for the privilege to read if off Autosport via my subscription and I'm sure Craig got paid for it himself before anyone got the chance to pay to read it, I'll say no more.
Sorry for any offence.

[Moose]

Ok I see your point.
Consider it removed.
I paid for the privilege to read if off Autosport via my subscription and I'm sure Craig got paid for it himself before anyone got the chance to pay to read it, I'll say no more.
Sorry for any offence.

While I'm sure you're right about Craig getting paid for it, the problem is that by copying it out of autosport's page, other people (like me) who do not have an Autosport subscription will potentially not pay Autosport for it. More so, we won't see the adverts that autosport carries. The result is that Autosport will lose money they should have earned for us reading it, and as a result, in the future may not be able to pay Craig for more articles.

[CjC]

Yeah, I didn't know it was illegal and I don't agree that it was unethical, I have a f*ck em attitude (towards the publisher not the writers), we get shafted for everything as it is.
Anyway, I've removed it and won't do it again.
It was a good article and just wanted to share, it's always a more worth while post when your opinion is backed up by the article.

Anyway forget discussing my Autosport subscription.

Craig said that the HONDA has a split turbo and air to air inter cooling for more powah, hopefully it'll be able to match or better the merc for performance.
He did say something for all the doom mungers, he said like I said, honda are ahead if their rivals compared to this time last season. Honda are doing fine.

[scarbs]

Thanks for the above, Here's the picture, not much to add in the article beyond whats already been written here. Contrary to my first thoughts, the Honda appears to have a split turbo. The cooling is air to air, the item low down beside the charge air cooler appears to be the exhausts, mounted low down, so I proposed McLaren might go for long coolers mounted over the exhausts ala RBR. Gearbox cooler remains over the gearbox and fed by a roll hoop duct (which I originally mistook for the airbox).

McLaren_MP4-29H-600 by scarbs, on Flickr

[Richard]

By the way, our policy supports the approach Scarbs has used above. "There's an article that says x, y, z,." and a link to the full article so others can read it if they want to. Also post images using the url of the original source so the originator retains control of the image.

Then the person who made the effort and spent money to gather that information will get recognition. It's the difference between "Heh xxx your article has a zillion hits from f1tech, here's a commission for next season. Also we must get in touch with Steven to find out why his site so great" versus "Heh xx no one is clicking to read your article, so we'll not need you next season. Oh and the members of f1tech say f*** *** to your starving kids."