Mclaren MP4-29H

[marcush.]

I emphatically contest the claim -change only 1 thing at a time..
todays buzz word is DoE as you sure know very well.Done right this is the short track towards results.It does not say change randomly 500 parameters and try to make sense of it of course-but a structured method of preplanning will help to quickly get on top of all the variables.

On the other hand change on thing at a time:
a crude example would be to set up and develop the car without any downforce -less wings - (like Bruce Mclaren did ...) and only when completeted add the wings ..a complete nonsense as you can imagine the wings simply will play havoc with your springs as the downforce will easily squash the springs and render your setup effort useless...

Sure i have to confess DoE is just a phrase and reality is total chaos.... [-o< at least that´s how things go in my work with every dog and his engineer attending a training in DoE and doing something rediculous afterwords in his work .

[turbof1]

I emphatically contest the claim -change only 1 thing at a time..
todays buzz word is DoE as you sure know very well.Done right this is the short track towards results.It does not say change randomly 500 parameters and try to make sense of it of course-but a structured method of preplanning will help to quickly get on top of all the variables.

On the other hand change on thing at a time:
a crude example would be to set up and develop the car without any downforce -less wings - (like Bruce Mclaren did ...) and only when completeted add the wings ..a complete nonsense as you can imagine the wings simply will play havoc with your springs as the downforce will easily squash the springs and render your setup effort useless...

Sure i have to confess DoE is just a phrase and reality is total chaos.... [-o< at least that´s how things go in my work with every dog and his engineer attending a training in DoE and doing something rediculous afterwords in his work .

This. And thank you for reminding about the correct expression for the practice (it was itching like hell that I just couldn't find the correct term).

[CBeck113]

DoE works when trying to maximize an existing, known product. The classic learning object is a catapult, on which you have five or six different attributes which you can adjust, with the goal of making the catapult shoot the furthest. Before you begin to adjust at will, you have to play with each attribute to find out its affect, and once you've tested all the individual affects you can begin the actual DoE to find the best settings.

But this isn't a catapult with five or six settings to adjust, it is the first in-car run of the McLaren with the Honda motor. If DoE was so good, then they wouldn't have had to do this test. But the simulations only go so far in telling you what's going to happen and how the PU will respond in the chassis, be it torsional stiffness, actual power delivery or even vibrations and possible ressonance issues between the chassis and PU. If you are looking at these things then DoE is garbage. Aero changes too, and even cooling changes unless you expect to have problems (i.e. Honda needs more cooling than Mercedes). You put the PU in and see if that what you simulated actually is true - you just measure and react if something goes wrong.

[Edax]

Sure i have to confess DoE is just a phrase and reality is total chaos.... [-o< at least that´s how things go in my work with every dog and his engineer attending a training in DoE and doing something rediculous afterwords in his work .

So true.... Thank god it seems to be subsiding now [-o< I guess it takes another 10 years for people to forget that DoE doesn't work and then we may get the same craze all over again.

My experience: If it comes to testing then you will find that in 9 out of 10 cases an experienced engineer would map out a more efficient experiment than DoE, simply because he has more knowledge about the system than DoE needs as input.

In the hands of an inexperienced engineer it leads to very elaborate testing scemes, which usually are as deeply flawed as they are time consuming and expensive.

Anyway I think that in these type of tests they are not looking at mapping out a parameter space or optimizing within a parameter space.

Probably their main objective is not even to test the motor, but to test their development tools (computer models, Fumo's, testbed etc.). They are simply looking for correlation between their predictions and reality.

[marcush.]

As always ...there is not a single truth here ...but it amazes me again and again that our design engineers do not even bother talking or even discussing with the test engineers what to test why and when.
I rarely see more than colourful presentations of their work -in former years you called it calculations (no color) but todays
it´s Simulation and that is giving it much more importance as it seems....
Why those calculations are not tried to validate in actual testing (for example placing your temperature sensors exactly in the same position where you originally calculated your temp ) is beyond me .On the other hand I had more than one design engineer telling me testing is necessary as not everything can be calculated....
I sure know some guys have the fitting answer ready to shoot from their hip...
I shrugged and walked away when last time I was confronted with this view of testing ...

[vinsg]

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=yout ... 8fmyxlQUQg[/youtube]

[mclaren111]

Is it my imagination, or is the engine much louder than current 2014 engines ??

[Thunder]

When comparing it to the existing Engines that sounds at most like the Ferrari to me. It screams more than the quite muffled Renault and Merc, thats great. The Ferrari sounds much louder than the others on TV.

[mclaren111]

Pity that with all the limitations these engines can not use all the refs available.

More fuel and units per anum should solve that and get these PU's to scream as good as V8's

[Edax]

When comparing it to the existing Engines that sounds at most like the Ferrari to me. It screams more than the quite muffled Renault and Merc, thats great.

I would place it somewhere between the Merc and the Ferrari. It isn't as deep a grunt as the Merc, but also lacks the higher noises of the Ferrari. But of course you would need to hear it at full throttle to make a proper comparison. It may also be that they are running more with an opened wastegate, than they would at a later stage.

The Ferrari sounds much louder than the others on TV.

TV images are a bad reference. As commented by others it seems like they are filtering the noise in some way. I find the noise in reality much more "interesting" and "richer" than on the TV images. You can much better hear the interaction between the different components and the elaborate engine mapping. I actually like it much more than previous engines (Of course making it louder would enhance the experience).

It is hard to comment on the overall sound level, but what does strike me is how well you can hear the car on approach. I went to Spa, and one thing which struck me is how concentrated the sound field is. Standing at Radillon for instance you can barely hear the cars approaching (actually you first heard the rumble strip on the inside of eau rouge, before the actual car), but once they have passed you can follow them all the way down Kemmel and into Rivage after which the sound suddenly disappears upon turn in.

I guessed that is due to the placement of the exhaust, at the back instead of on the sidepods. Old F1 cars also used to have that effect to some extend. But that makes me wondering whether they have changed something to the exhaust architecture.

[sectionate]

Is it my imagination, or is the engine much louder than current 2014 engines ??

Probably used a decent mic setup, unlike the trackside mics which still have the same level of muffling as last year

[FW17]

LH contract talks started today all of a sudden.

Guess they do not want Honda to be part of the equation.

[Sevach]

...
You still have to prove in what way, for instance, a new wing would tinker with the PU.
...

Look turboman, I cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist, but it's my xperience that you should always focus on the task at hand,
rather than fool around with this and that and getting nothing done properly. But again, that's just meme.

Isn't there a rule that says in those "promotional" days you must run the car in a spec that has raced already?

I don't know how Honda fits into this rule though... Maybe since everyone was locked when that rule came they didn't think to include engines in the wording.

[Holm86]

...
You still have to prove in what way, for instance, a new wing would tinker with the PU.
...

Look turboman, I cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist, but it's my xperience that you should always focus on the task at hand,
rather than fool around with this and that and getting nothing done properly. But again, that's just meme.

Isn't there a rule that says in those "promotional" days you must run the car in a spec that has raced already?

I don't know how Honda fits into this rule though... Maybe since everyone was locked when that rule came they didn't think to include engines in the wording.

I think you're right, I've herd something like that before.

[db__]

I don't know how Honda fits into this rule though... Maybe since everyone was locked when that rule came they didn't think to include engines in the wording.

I think you're right, I've herd something like that before.

A quick look at the sporting regulations suggests that the only restrictions on a promotional day are the duration (100km) and the tires that may be used.

22.1

Each competitor will also be permitted to carry out two Promotional Events (PE) with the above cars which will not be considered TCC. A PE shall be defined as an event in which a competitor participates purely for marketing or promotional purposes. No such test may exceed 100km in length and only tyres manufactured specifically for this purpose by the appointed supplier may be used.