Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
ncassi22 wrote:Mahle's MJI patent with some interesting graphs. I'm actually amazed at the amount of pre-chamber design out there. Most though utilise compression to force the air/fuel mixture into the pre-chamber.
I recognise some of those graphs, and the diagram of the injector assembly from
here http://www.egr.msu.edu/zhug/Conference% ... zation.pdf
(fig.2 in the patent disclosure is the same as fig.4 in the conference paper).
Has Honda disclosed any work in this area, people?
The team couldn't win races with Mercedes PUs, either. They need to sort their chassis just as much as Honda needs to close the gap. It was evident the chassis had issues when they were not close in Monaco. I highly doubt the Mclaren chassis would have even snagged a podium with a Mercedes PU.
dren wrote:The team couldn't win races with Mercedes PUs, either. They need to sort their chassis just as much as Honda needs to close the gap. It was evident the chassis had issues when they were not close in Monaco. I highly doubt the Mclaren chassis would have even snagged a podium with a Mercedes PU.
dren wrote:The team couldn't win races with Mercedes PUs, either. They need to sort their chassis just as much as Honda needs to close the gap. It was evident the chassis had issues when they were not close in Monaco. I highly doubt the Mclaren chassis would have even snagged a podium with a Mercedes PU.
This is BS reasoning when Mclaren have specifically touted all the chassis and aero progress they've made since '14. The design teams between then and now are totally different and there was a wind tunnel upgrade since then.
Just as an experiment see how much Manor closed up on Mclaren every time they went to a power sensitive track even though Mclaren stated all year that their entire aero focus was on minimizing the loss at power tracks.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970
“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
dren wrote:The team couldn't win races with Mercedes PUs, either. They need to sort their chassis just as much as Honda needs to close the gap. It was evident the chassis had issues when they were not close in Monaco. I highly doubt the Mclaren chassis would have even snagged a podium with a Mercedes PU.
This is BS reasoning when Mclaren have specifically touted all the chassis and aero progress they've made since '14. The design teams between then and now are totally different and there was a wind tunnel upgrade since then.
Just as an experiment see how much Manor closed up on Mclaren every time they went to a power sensitive track even though Mclaren stated all year that their entire aero focus was on minimizing the loss at power tracks.
Manor is probably not a good example. They had a very low drag coefficient, low DF car. McLaren started the year with the philosophy of running low DF but quickly shifted focus to due numerous chassis issues.
“If Honda does not race, there is no Honda.”
“Success represents the 1% of your work which results from the 99% that is called failure.”
With the size zero and Merc, 2015 initially would have been learning. But with Alonso, a fast engine and a clear development path they would have finished second in the wcc. Ferrari would have had year 2016 in 2015.
In 2016 they would have started second and stayed second through the year with Merc denying them equal engine development and software.
Monaco is the track that shows how good your chassis is.
Chassis wasn't that good.(bad rear suspension, bad DF to drag ,didn't work in low DF or very high DF setup)
Pretty much except a very little sweet spot in setup(high DF), it was a bitch to drive.(with more power Alonso would just crash more)
So even with MB power,it would only be good at a couple tracks but still lose to MB and one of the RB at those tracks.
Still behind MB,RB and only beat Ferrari at 3-5 tracks.
Sasha wrote:Monaco is the track that shows how good your chassis is.
Chassis wasn't that good.(bad rear suspension, bad DF to drag ,didn't work in low DF or very high DF setup)
Pretty much except a very little sweet spot in setup(high DF), it was a bitch to drive.(with more power Alonso would just crash more)
So even with MB power,it would only be good at a couple tracks but still lose to MB and one of the RB at those tracks.
Still behind MB,RB and only beat Ferrari at 3-5 tracks.
Mclaren development was severely compromised by the reliability and low on power at certain periods. This would not have been a problem with Merc engine where they could have had a clear path either high downforce or low downforce, not switching from one to another
Sasha wrote:Monaco is the track that shows how good your chassis is.
Chassis wasn't that good.(bad rear suspension, bad DF to drag ,didn't work in low DF or very high DF setup)
Pretty much except a very little sweet spot in setup(high DF), it was a bitch to drive.(with more power Alonso would just crash more)
So even with MB power,it would only be good at a couple tracks but still lose to MB and one of the RB at those tracks.
Still behind MB,RB and only beat Ferrari at 3-5 tracks.
IMO what's the point in cherry picking McLaren with the best engine but not the rest? Give everyone the same and they would've been behind Mercedes, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and maybe Ferrari still.
Chassis was only good in high-speed/high-DF tracks like Spa. Monaco '16 was bit of a lottery and normally only test the chassis max downforce level, suspension and drivability.
And something tells me, with so much struggles and Dennis being kicked out, i cannot be Zen inside the McL organisation.
