Mclaren MP4-30 Honda

[FW17]

The rules do not allow a complete overhaul. First of all, quite a few things of the PU is froozen now, and next year that list will increase by a good chunk. I get that the issue with Honda is not just the compressor, but the whole PU including it's size and shape. For instance the way the compressor is integrated into the ICE will force changes on the ICE as well. It's definitely not something you can cover with a few tokens.

Likewise, a complete overhaul of the PU based on reliability, which does not require tokens, will most likely not be accepted by the FIA or the other manufacturers, all of who can veto such a change. They usually refrain from using that veto right, but going from the current PU design to a bigger one? I think that'll be a step too far for the competition.

The block is fixed and there is no reason to change the block. Honda changed entire head for the last race along with the gear train to reduce friction. What is going to change the shape and size of the engine?

[j.yank]

If they had undersized compressor Arai cannot claim that their engine is near to Ferrari's and better than RedBul, and we speak about this year engine powers that are significantly better than last year. No one knows what exactly they have did there but the Honda problems are not with ICE.

[Thunder]

why McLaren Honda does not change the concept of zero size and honda installing large PU design back ? This makes it at least a little damage to the McLaren brand

Even if it would be possible, who says the Engine gets magically much better just by making it bigger? I think everyone agrees that Honda started development of the PU way later than the other Engine Makers. I don't know if the Merc Engine would have been any better if they would have introduced it in 2013. They have big big teething Problems and they will sort it out. Changing the whole PU possibly would lead to Problems reaccuring they have already sorted out with the current Spec.

[turbof1]

The rules do not allow a complete overhaul. First of all, quite a few things of the PU is froozen now, and next year that list will increase by a good chunk. I get that the issue with Honda is not just the compressor, but the whole PU including it's size and shape. For instance the way the compressor is integrated into the ICE will force changes on the ICE as well. It's definitely not something you can cover with a few tokens.

Likewise, a complete overhaul of the PU based on reliability, which does not require tokens, will most likely not be accepted by the FIA or the other manufacturers, all of who can veto such a change. They usually refrain from using that veto right, but going from the current PU design to a bigger one? I think that'll be a step too far for the competition.

The block is fixed and there is no reason to change the block. Honda changed entire head for the last race along with the gear train to reduce friction. What is going to change the shape and size of the engine?

The block has a specific shape to accomodate for instance the turbo, but also the mgu-k and mgu-h. Moving a part means you NEED to change the shape of the engine, both to fill the void on one side and to make room on the other side.

This is not nonsense I'm telling you. Ferrari had to do this to accomodate their new TC for this year. I don't think Honda's issues end with a change of TC. The picture I get from all of it is that needs a completely new PU architecture. That's very, very difficult once you are subject to the current rule set.

[FW17]

I don't want to like I am running you down

but a genuine question

what do you mean by Architecture? the V angle is fixed, bore spacing is fixed, bore offset is fixed so what is left? They obviously cannot change the bore and stroke (at least I think that is locked)


Ferrari is planning a major change for next year so why shouldn't the same be possible for Honda

[i70q7m7ghw]

The rules do not allow a complete overhaul. First of all, quite a few things of the PU is froozen now, and next year that list will increase by a good chunk. I get that the issue with Honda is not just the compressor, but the whole PU including it's size and shape. For instance the way the compressor is integrated into the ICE will force changes on the ICE as well. It's definitely not something you can cover with a few tokens.

Likewise, a complete overhaul of the PU based on reliability, which does not require tokens, will most likely not be accepted by the FIA or the other manufacturers, all of who can veto such a change. They usually refrain from using that veto right, but going from the current PU design to a bigger one? I think that'll be a step too far for the competition.

The block is fixed and there is no reason to change the block. Honda changed entire head for the last race along with the gear train to reduce friction. What is going to change the shape and size of the engine?

The block has a specific shape to accomodate for instance the turbo, but also the mgu-k and mgu-h. Moving a part means you NEED to change the shape of the engine, both to fill the void on one side and to make room on the other side.

This is not nonsense I'm telling you. Ferrari had to do this to accomodate their new TC for this year. I don't think Honda's issues end with a change of TC. The picture I get from all of it is that needs a completely new PU architecture. That's very, very difficult once you are subject to the current rule set.

Theoretically, what's to stop them quitting the sport for a season, and then coming back in 2017 with a new engine?

[turbof1]

I don't want to like I am running you down

but a genuine question

what do you mean by Architecture? the V angle is fixed, bore spacing is fixed, bore offset is fixed so what is left? They obviously cannot change the bore and stroke (at least I think that is locked)


Ferrari is planning a major change for next year so why shouldn't the same be possible for Honda

We are talking about attachment points and very small dips in the V section to accomodate parts, as well as the sides of the block. As you know, the cylinders always has some of encasement around. This is considered part of the block, also in the regulations, and that's where you have the "contact patch" between the engine block and the other parts.

Also note I did NOT use the word engine, but PU. A PU archtecture encompasses the position and mounting of MGU-H, MGU-K, TC and possibly intercoolers. That's not the same as just the cylinders or their angle.

A "major change" is not the same as a complete overhaul. A major change could already be seen as moving a hole a centimeter down. Again, Honda is not going to cut it in my opinion with reallocating the TC or part of the TC.

Theoretically, what's to stop them quitting the sport for a season, and then coming back in 2017 with a new engine?

Theoritically, nothing. Although I think the FIA will not allow them back for atleast several years, and it would also be considered breach of contracts with mclaren.
If they go down that path, and that's of course a big, then I figure they'll be atleast out for several seasons anyway to develop the PU in all freedom.

[diffuser]

He's not making any assumptions (despite clearly better informed then any of us around here). He only gave us more information on the matter. He's only voicing his doubts, which is not the same.

The guy publicly explained a few times already he worked for both Honda and Toyota in the past. I don't mind criticism, but stay respective for these boons we get. They are very rare in the seclusive world of F1. A message to everyone btw.

My opinion on the matter is that there are several factors all playing their own role:
-Honda started too late with the project, or alternatively jumped too quick back into F1. Like Facts Only said, they are now locked into a very, very difficult situation where they can't overhaul the complete PU design, in which they kind of rushed into. Honda lacks 3 out of 4 years the other manufacturers had to develop the car. You can't compensate that with innovation or diminishing returns.

-Honda was basically given some chassis dimensions by Mclaren to stuff a PU into. This is quite counter productive because a constructor will always want to built a chassis with the lowest obstruction to airflow and lowest drag footprint, while a manufacturer will to an extent want the opposite to have enough space for cooling and reliable packaging. This is a big issue for seperate companies who aren't working on direct workfloor and R&D levels. Sometimes this is even an issue in companies which does not have its departments work together well enough. Mercedes and Ferrari however have the PU/chassis integration worked out very fine.

-Issues of different company cultures: mclaren is pushy, short term minded. Honda is more tending towards long term. This results in Honda getting rushed by mclaren (maybe this even explains why Honda opted for such a short development period) and Honda not having enough space to develop in the long term (except if the PU rules do change). It'll result in a reinforcement of my second point: the companies will work less in synergy, while more was needed in the first place.

I by no means meant to be disrespectful. If I came off that way, I apologize. This size 0 reference just gets me going.

I agree there are several causes to their present woes. Whatever the reason, looking back to the first test, we can see they were not ready.

I disagree that McLaren Gave Honda dimensions and Honda had to take it or leave it. I'm sure there were negotiations around what could and what couldn't be done.

I think that Honda is understanding to McLaren's income being dependent on how well they do. Which is why they are short term minded.

Being locked into the current designs isn't a certainty.
At SPA they and Renault were given options to do as much development they wanted next year. There will be future discussions about how to give those teams a chance to catchup by loosening the rules. Honda refused the initial option, stating they didn't want preferential treatment. This sounds to me like a group of people confident in their abilities to over come their issues.

[FW17]

We are talking about attachment points and very small dips in the V section to accomodate parts, as well as the sides of the block. As you know, the cylinders always has some of encasement around. This is considered part of the block, also in the regulations, and that's where you have the "contact patch" between the engine block and the other parts.

Also note I did NOT use the word engine, but PU. A PU archtecture encompasses the position and mounting of MGU-H, MGU-K, TC and possibly intercoolers. That's not the same as just the cylinders or their angle.

A "major change" is not the same as a complete overhaul. A major change could already be seen as moving a hole a centimeter down. Again, Honda is not going to cut it in my opinion with reallocating the TC or part of the TC.

Again I apologize for sounding argumentative as that is not the intention

I am not familiar with the regulations neither do I have any expertise in interpreting them

As you said there are mounting points for various components and indents for various components I agree but

If I change a component and it requires a different mounting why shouldn't I be entitled to create a new mounting point or the required indent? This should rightly be free of tokens.

Secondly I feel a major change to the turbo charger can still be done by taking the TC completely out of the engine as in the case of Merc PR images



Of course McLaren rear is gone for a toss up but at least it would be known what the engine potential is

MGU K is completely independent too, they can take it and mount on the side of the fuel tank and not be penalized

[Wazari]

I by no means meant to be disrespectful. If I came off that way, I apologize. This size 0 reference just gets me going.

I agree there are several causes to their present woes. Whatever the reason, looking back to the first test, we can see they were not ready.

I disagree that McLaren Gave Honda dimensions and Honda had to take it or leave it. I'm sure there were negotiations around what could and what couldn't be done.

I think that Honda is understanding to McLaren's income being dependent on how well they do. Which is why they are short term minded.

Being locked into the current designs isn't a certainty.
At SPA they and Renault were given options to do as much development they wanted next year. There will be future discussions about how to give those teams a chance to catchup by loosening the rules. Honda refused the initial option, stating they didn't want preferential treatment. This sounds to me like a group of people confident in their abilities to over come their issues.

From my understanding and how the talks went down, it was basically "Here is the new chassis, we need the engine footprint to be this, please make it work..." This is where I think McLaren went wrong.

To make major changes to a PU is not a simple one to three month process. There are so many moving parts tied into each other that deciding to move the MGU-H or change the location of the turbo just doesn't happen midstream. As far as not wanting preferential treatment, usually there are so many underlying strings attached that it may not have been worth it. The FIA is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

[turbof1]

If I change a component and it requires a different mounting why shouldn't I be entitled to create a new mounting point or the required indent? This should rightly be free of tokens.

Well, it's not. Any change you make on any component has to be justified, either through reliability or through tokens. There's very small list which is excempt from homologation, I believe some very minor hydraulic stuff as well as things like screws and mounts (but not the mounting points themselves!), but that's all. Everything else is strictly regulated. Sounds stupid? Why yes, I agree, but that's simply the case.

You could always try to remove the TC and put it completely outside the ICE. Know that while this cost less tokens, it's far from any optimal solution. You took a mercedes promotion picture which shows the PU being quite modular. This is the real thing (of 2014):


If you tried to put the TC completely outside that engine, the footprint it'll have on chassis and bodywork will be massive. And if you later try to integrate the TC back into the ICE's V, or any other component, you'll be wasting tokens. Infact the only thing I believe that is more or less fully modular on your PU is the battery pack (ES), and only because the rules forces it to be under the fuel tank.

[FW17]

McLaren will either have to modify the front of the chassis (between engine and fuel tank or the back of it

Honda for starters have the TC quite high up in comparison to Merc

There may be an indent in the block for compressor but not for MGU H

Honda can still put a large compress in front of engine and keep the positioning of the MGU H as it is.

But as you said it is quiet late now for the same to be changed, performance checked in coordination with chassis team before end of the year

But with McLaren MP4-29 H which was made for 2 test days anything is possible if Ron and Takahiro bang heads

[PlatinumZealot]

Honda can easily change the ancillaries on the block.

They can argue that they won't change the inner block workings so no performance will be had.
They can show that the water jackets and other reliefs and features will only be changed for reliability.
Then with that out the way they can modify the inner V of the engine, then treat the new Turbo-mguh assembly as a separate part to modify all-together.

They can do it.

[DiogoBrand]

Two things I think you guys aren't considering.
First: as mentioned above, making the engine cover larger and allowing for a bigger volume for the PU doesn't necessarily means they'll be able to sort all of their problems and make a competitive PU. Everything we're discussing is based on assumptions, we never knew for sure if they use an Axial compressor, if the problem is with the MGU-H, if it's a fundamental flaw with the ICE block. So no one can say "oh, if they change the block they'll have the best PU in history", so let's not talk like this.
Second and most important: Let's say they take the safe way around, make a larger engine cover, place the TC out of the vee and all that stuff to improve on reliability and hopefully solve the problems they have now. That probably means they would never catch Mercedes which was their goal in the first place.
In my opinion it's a lot better to take a risky path, face some problems at the start but create a package with a lot more potential in the long run, than to take it safe, make everything as reliable as possible, but then in the future they'll probably reach a point where they can't make any big improvements on performance. For instance: somebody mentioned placing the TC at the back of the block. That would probably be better for reliability, but don't forget that having the TC inside the vee is one of the things that gave Merc one of the biggest advantages last year. You'll never catch Mercedes making everything as safe and reliable as possible, even though reliability is very important.


I think we'll have to be really patient. It was already stated that they're gonna fix their biggest problems and have the biggest performance improvements only for next season, so I think the rest of this year is gonna keep really painful for me and all McLaren fans. The only thing I hope is for Honda to be close to Mercedes for next season and for McLaren to hopefully have a competitive chassis, for this year I don't even expect them to finish higher than 9th on constructors'.

[turbof1]

Honda can easily change the ancillaries on the block.

They can argue that they won't change the inner block workings so no performance will be had.
They can show that the water jackets and other reliefs and features will only be changed for reliability.
Then with that out the way they can modify the inner V of the engine, then treat the new Turbo-mguh assembly as a separate part to modify all-together.

They can do it.

They can argue it to an extent. It depends how far Honda wants to redesign the PU, but I think that if they really want to tackle all the problems in one go, the other manufacturers can veto it due being too extensive. It's not a cut-troat business with those vetoes, and manufacturers do allow eachother quite some room to update reliability, but then again they are not stupid: anything that opens doors for extra performance that is not there in the first place, is going to be blocked off.