- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
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.
How big was the advantage of being used to late engine changes in the past?
James Key: The advantage was big [laughs]. It was not easy even at V8 times. But with these power units, it's incredibly complicated. There is an awful lot to consider. The physical design of being able to put everything in the right place plays an important role. But there are many other structural elements, such as the entire control units and cooling circuits, of which there are quite a few in these hybrid engines. Technically, this makes it very complicated. We had worse than a decision in September. Since we had experience as a team here, we were able to handle it efficiently. It was not a big problem for us.
The biggest difference between Renault and Honda in architecture is certainly the turbo concept. At Honda sits the compressor - as with Mercedes - at the front of the engine and the turbocharger behind it, at Renault turbo and supercharger are one unit. McLaren's chief technology officer Tim Goss says he prefers Renault packaging. You probably think differently now ...
James Key: That's very diplomatic of him [laughs]. What else should one say? We have also experienced both variants. There are both advantages and disadvantages. The supercharged packaging in front of the engine is a bit simpler than with both parts in the back. With more space in front, it is easier to find gas volumes and to lay certain lines. The oil tank is also less restricted. At the rear, it is more difficult, because there jams all the heat. You also have to keep in mind that the turbo is closer to the gearbox. The exhaust is further back, which additionally increases the temperature at the transmission. On the chassis side, there is pros and cons, but our backside is much cleaner now.
We now have more space and freedom behind the engine for suspension parts and so on. It's a bit narrower at the front, but Honda has found a fantastic arrangement where the parts are housed very well in the little space they have. It was not the compromise we feared. The downside we had was that we could not do that from the outset for 2018 with Honda. But we can do that for 2019 and we are looking for ways to further optimize it. I prefer the Honda approach. Not only because we have Honda now, but because they have some great features around this engine philosophy. It is a tidy approach.
You mentioned that the collaboration came too late to be able to bear fruitful factory team results. But are there any details on the engine that they could influence?
James Key: There are a few small things that Honda has been able to change for us, but also some things we've changed for them. We have already talked about developmental steps that work for both sides. They have already been able to do some work and more over the course of the season. Our approach with them is to give them the flexibility they need to focus on engine development. We do not want to give them too many restrictions through the chassis. As a result, there were no late changes for her, which was very important. We'd better make some compromises, but then benefit from a better engine. That's an important balance to find.
They have already mentioned the transmission. The transmission is not only gearbox, but also houses suspension components of the rear axle and the articulation points of control arms and pull lever. Toro Rosso builds the gearbox itself and uses the innards of Red Bull. How big is the advantage of being able to design the rear axle yourself?
James Key: In any case, it's an advantage. The entire transmission has been redesigned for the Honda Split Turbo installation and other things. It allowed us to revise the entire architecture at the rear, which was not bad. The rear suspension was a new development anyway. The result is a completely new gearbox. It may have been even more critical from a time ago than the chassis, but the guys did a great job getting it together so quickly. This helps if you are suddenly in such a situation because you have a late engine decision. Then you have to be in control of these things around it. This control we have with the gearbox now. That's why we were able to adjust that so quickly. The gearbox we had was quite flexible, so it was not a fundamental redesign. We could adapt it to the principles we already had.
The side boxes look very similar to last year, the airbox has become much larger. Does that mean the Honda engine needs more cooling than the Renault?
James Key: No, I would rather say that the cooling requirements are different because there are different ways of cooling certain circuits in the engine. The side boxes have even become a bit smaller, but they have kept their shape. We wanted to see how the air flow changes as we cool more about the airbox and less about the side boxes. But here, too, we are following a trend of the past years. The 2015 coolers (with Ferrari engine) were quite large, but it also depends a lot on how the engine looks like, whether the space above the engine is a good place to arrange cooling systems. We have managed to stay as much as possible with the shape of the Honda engine. The layout is not dissimilar to the solution we had planned for the Renault engine.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/form ... interview/
More and more I like these guys of TR. They look very honest with their answers.HPD wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 13:40How big was the advantage of being used to late engine changes in the past?
James Key: The advantage was big [laughs]. It was not easy even at V8 times. But with these power units, it's incredibly complicated. There is an awful lot to consider. The physical design of being able to put everything in the right place plays an important role. But there are many other structural elements, such as the entire control units and cooling circuits, of which there are quite a few in these hybrid engines. Technically, this makes it very complicated. We had worse than a decision in September. Since we had experience as a team here, we were able to handle it efficiently. It was not a big problem for us.
The biggest difference between Renault and Honda in architecture is certainly the turbo concept. At Honda sits the compressor - as with Mercedes - at the front of the engine and the turbocharger behind it, at Renault turbo and supercharger are one unit. McLaren's chief technology officer Tim Goss says he prefers Renault packaging. You probably think differently now ...
James Key: That's very diplomatic of him [laughs]. What else should one say? We have also experienced both variants. There are both advantages and disadvantages. The supercharged packaging in front of the engine is a bit simpler than with both parts in the back. With more space in front, it is easier to find gas volumes and to lay certain lines. The oil tank is also less restricted. At the rear, it is more difficult, because there jams all the heat. You also have to keep in mind that the turbo is closer to the gearbox. The exhaust is further back, which additionally increases the temperature at the transmission. On the chassis side, there is pros and cons, but our backside is much cleaner now.
We now have more space and freedom behind the engine for suspension parts and so on. It's a bit narrower at the front, but Honda has found a fantastic arrangement where the parts are housed very well in the little space they have. It was not the compromise we feared. The downside we had was that we could not do that from the outset for 2018 with Honda. But we can do that for 2019 and we are looking for ways to further optimize it. I prefer the Honda approach. Not only because we have Honda now, but because they have some great features around this engine philosophy. It is a tidy approach.
You mentioned that the collaboration came too late to be able to bear fruitful factory team results. But are there any details on the engine that they could influence?
James Key: There are a few small things that Honda has been able to change for us, but also some things we've changed for them. We have already talked about developmental steps that work for both sides. They have already been able to do some work and more over the course of the season. Our approach with them is to give them the flexibility they need to focus on engine development. We do not want to give them too many restrictions through the chassis. As a result, there were no late changes for her, which was very important. We'd better make some compromises, but then benefit from a better engine. That's an important balance to find.
They have already mentioned the transmission. The transmission is not only gearbox, but also houses suspension components of the rear axle and the articulation points of control arms and pull lever. Toro Rosso builds the gearbox itself and uses the innards of Red Bull. How big is the advantage of being able to design the rear axle yourself?
James Key: In any case, it's an advantage. The entire transmission has been redesigned for the Honda Split Turbo installation and other things. It allowed us to revise the entire architecture at the rear, which was not bad. The rear suspension was a new development anyway. The result is a completely new gearbox. It may have been even more critical from a time ago than the chassis, but the guys did a great job getting it together so quickly. This helps if you are suddenly in such a situation because you have a late engine decision. Then you have to be in control of these things around it. This control we have with the gearbox now. That's why we were able to adjust that so quickly. The gearbox we had was quite flexible, so it was not a fundamental redesign. We could adapt it to the principles we already had.
The side boxes look very similar to last year, the airbox has become much larger. Does that mean the Honda engine needs more cooling than the Renault?
James Key: No, I would rather say that the cooling requirements are different because there are different ways of cooling certain circuits in the engine. The side boxes have even become a bit smaller, but they have kept their shape. We wanted to see how the air flow changes as we cool more about the airbox and less about the side boxes. But here, too, we are following a trend of the past years. The 2015 coolers (with Ferrari engine) were quite large, but it also depends a lot on how the engine looks like, whether the space above the engine is a good place to arrange cooling systems. We have managed to stay as much as possible with the shape of the Honda engine. The layout is not dissimilar to the solution we had planned for the Renault engine.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/form ... interview/
It would be marginal. Cant believe they are using the same engine as last year. That Ted guy is looking very smart now. He did say this in his rambles when every report was saying its got new innovations.Snorked wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 23:48Honda received an unexpected power boost: http://members.f1-life.net/report/64994/
Was this known prior to testing or was this boost noticed after analysing the testing data?
Wow, and when i said this at beginning of testing, that most of compromises was on on TR side and that TR chasis was not build around Honda engine, i was mocked by Honda "experts".Wazari wrote: ↑17 Mar 2018, 08:05I think the above mentioned article is poorly written and open for confusion. The 618 is not a variation of the 617. The block is the same as some internal components and the turbine housing is similar but that's about it. People that are saying that TR is using last year's PU are mistaken. Also the current 618 is not Spec 4.0 but really 4.1 or 4.2 that will open the season. I am going to call the next upgrade 4.5 as the ICE will receive major changes on the top end.
Also the current "packaging" is something that TR could not take full advantage of as the chassis for this year was designed with the Renault PU in mind. The integration comes with compromises on both sides but mainly on TR's side.
i think you misunderstood. honda did not have to fit their engine into a restricted size zero concept like they did with mclaren. that was what i am trying to say. honda engine was compromised by mclaren size zero concept just like what happening with mclaren with their renault engine and having overheating issues. and TR had to listen to honda advice and work their chassis aroung the honda engine so the they can integrated the honda engine in a short time. and not the opposite. its pretty evident with all the struggles mclaren are going with the renault engine in testing. and do u think it will end in testing? no i think some of their issues might come up in race because they did not consider enough cooling for the renault and other parts when they did the designing.Wow, and when i said this at beginning of testing, that most of compromises was on on TR side and that TR chasis was not build around Honda engine, i was mocked by Honda "experts".
Well done techman and etusch, well done.
TR gave Honda extra space to redesign the exhaust manifold and as a result they gained 10Kw.Snorked wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 23:48Honda received an unexpected power boost: http://members.f1-life.net/report/64994/
Was this known prior to testing or was this boost noticed after anaylasing the testing data?
I wouldn't be so absolute in your conviction with so much speculation as the basis of your conclusion. Especially when the season hasn't started! But being realistic and pragmatic will help keep your blood pressure down.McMika98 wrote: ↑17 Mar 2018, 00:11It would be marginal. Cant believe they are using the same engine as last year. That Ted guy is looking very smart now. He did say this in his rambles when every report was saying its got new innovations.Snorked wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 23:48Honda received an unexpected power boost: http://members.f1-life.net/report/64994/
Was this known prior to testing or was this boost noticed after analysing the testing data?
Anothe
Once again the preseason speculation and dreams were enthralling. With reality kicking in next week, eagerly waiting for 2019 speculation to begin.
Thanks for the consideration and my BP will be fine. My point was that i enjoy the speculation and lofty goals pre-season more than the actual race which more or less has been a dull affair for a few seasons unless one is a Mercedes fan. On topic the Honda preseason event had a good turnout as always and its clear they are concentrating on the second half of the season. No triple for Harltley this year.
Yes it was reported by Yoneya Mineoki-san that the extra space of the STR13 cowling and exhaust area intended for the Renault allowed Honda to revise their exhaust resulting in a 10Kw increase. He also mentioned some concern regarding race simulation pace -while on fresh tires their pace matches Renault but appear to be suffering more tire degradation possibly due to set up or driver skill. The early season strategy will be to let the front end of the midfield battle and suffer failures and stay close enough in the points paying positions to get bumped up after a few Renault DNFs.No343NoLife wrote: ↑17 Mar 2018, 09:44TR gave Honda extra space to redesign the exhaust manifold and as a result they gained 10Kw.Snorked wrote: ↑16 Mar 2018, 23:48Honda received an unexpected power boost: http://members.f1-life.net/report/64994/
Was this known prior to testing or was this boost noticed after anaylasing the testing data?
Source F1GP News(FujiTV)