Formula 1, 2019 - Page 2 - McLaren Life
 171Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #16 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 11:43 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyb View Post
why do we think that Honda have over taken Renault? am not saying that they haven't, its just not my impression... could be wrong ..
Yes given that we only have the results from a Toro Rosso F1 chassis Honda power superiority over Renault may not have been clearly demonstrated. There is some less visible data from other test chassis’s.

Also I believe I saw split time and acceleration measurements indicating Honda spec 3 PU has higher peak power output than Renault.

Some relevant quotes

“Honda is making big steps forward,” said Tost in an interview shared with RaceFans. “Yesterday we had the new spec (3) in the car and was really fantastic.”
The upgrade means “Honda is in front of Renault” now, said Tost, adding he believes its “complete package” is now superior to the current Renault power unit.
“The power unit the years before was so not so reliable, not so strong. We knew some deficiencies but Honda caught up dramatically and they are doing a fantastic job.”

And
“The publications say that Honda's Spec 3 engine will be 26kW (35hp) more powerful than its current one, relegating Renault to last place in the power stakes.”

We shall see .....
eMcL is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 01:38 PM
Owner
Owner
 
Mikeyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
Yes given that we only have the results from a Toro Rosso F1 chassis Honda power superiority over Renault may not have been clearly demonstrated. There is some less visible data from other test chassis’s.

Also I believe I saw split time and acceleration measurements indicating Honda spec 3 PU has higher peak power output than Renault.

Some relevant quotes

“Honda is making big steps forward,” said Tost in an interview shared with RaceFans. “Yesterday we had the new spec (3) in the car and was really fantastic.”
The upgrade means “Honda is in front of Renault” now, said Tost, adding he believes its “complete package” is now superior to the current Renault power unit.
“The power unit the years before was so not so reliable, not so strong. We knew some deficiencies but Honda caught up dramatically and they are doing a fantastic job.”

And
“The publications say that Honda's Spec 3 engine will be 26kW (35hp) more powerful than its current one, relegating Renault to last place in the power stakes.”

We shall see .....
Indeed we shall see. I suspect there’s some confirmational bias coming from red bull, but equally it wouldn’t be surprising if Honda had finally got their sh*t together.

My own perception was that they did a good job in Japan but after that it was definitely normal Honda from a pace perspective.
Mikeyb is offline  
post #18 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 02:45 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyb View Post
Indeed we shall see. I suspect there’s some confirmational bias coming from red bull, but equally it wouldn’t be surprising if Honda had finally got their sh*t together.

My own perception was that they did a good job in Japan but after that it was definitely normal Honda from a pace perspective.
Yes I agree on the bias. But the whole approach of Honda - Red Bull in dedicating and supporting the 2018 Toro Rosso team to the PU development, sacrificing points and positions to test new PU elements etc has I think paid off. This translation from f1today was posted on F1technical.net shows the effort intensity continues —-

HPD
Post 03 Dec 2018

The secret Honda Hybrid test

In our earlier version of Technical Analysis of the RA619H, which Red Bull Racing will use in 2019, we could report that Honda has gone another route with the construction of its engine. For example, during the last three seasons in the MGU-H system, almost 1.3 mega joules per round of electricity were won. In collaboration with Brembo, the ability of the MGU-K has also been boosted. These independent items, which fall within the current power units, can be tested on street cars. Honda has a supercar in its arsenal, called the NSX and seems to have tested these systems last month on their own circuit, Suzuka. Honda tested the MGU-K and MGU-H from 2019 in a prototype NSX. This NSX was equipped with a current configuration engine, the 3.5L twin turbo V6. This has been brought to the level by engine control that gives the current RA918H engine performance. The temperatures of this 3.5 L V6 have been brought to the same level by Honda as the engine that is now in the Toro Rosso. With this configuration, Honda has done a test at Suzuka to see how much energy one could generate with the new MGU-K and MGU H systems. This NSX drove around 100 laps a day for three days on the Suzuka circuit, and the Units, the MGU-H and MGU-K generated more mega joules than initially intended. Indeed, this test confirmed that the hybrid systems of the Honda have a profit percentage compared to the current engine of nearly 6.5%. To make a calculation. With every 100 HP that these systems can deliver, Honda has already gained 6.5 extra for the 2019 version by optimizing these systems. In theory we talk about a higher percentage of profit, since this NSX V6 has a double turbo. Could this be a reason for Honda to share their turbo, like Mercedes, in the same way?

The effect on the dyno

Toyohiro Tanabe, F1 Technical Director at Honda, says the following: "Motor tests carried out on a car can not be carried out with FIA rules, at least not in the current configuration, but tests on test benches are possible. dyno in Milton Keynes so that it can be rotated with the gearbox There are already several tests, including a test with the bodywork including the gearbox We have the advantage that our facility in Milton Keynes is not far away from the Red Bull factory . " A very interesting note from Tanabe. The three dynos that Honda has were described by former McLaren Engineer Mark Priestley as Milton Keynes, Sakura and Austria. Further investigation has shown that it is not in Austria, but in Faenza at Toro Rosso. Honda has three independent teams that test the RA619H on the dynos. These tests are necessary to test the reliability, stability and operation with the gearbox. Tanabe's remark that the gearbox, engine and chassis have already become acquainted with each other concerns here in all probability an RB14 from the beginning of the year. This could be a car that could no longer be used. By this we mean the car with which Max Verstappen hit the wall in Monaco. Verstappen got a new car for the Sunday.

Honda, the Super Formula car

At the end of this year the current configuration of the Super Formula car, the Dallara SF14, disappears. This car is almost identical to the current Formula 1 car in terms of length, width and wheelbase. We are talking about a margin of a few inches here. The gossip that Honda wanted to test its power unit on a Super Formula car in Suzuka in 2015 was confirmed in that year by the project manager of Honda at the time, Yasuhisa Arai. Also the team with which this test would be carried out, Team Mugen, had already released a chassis and converted it to install the Honda RA615H. This modified chassis with associated parts is still at the factory at Team Mugen.

In Japan, the rumors have been rekindled about a test with Honda and this Super Formula car. Since this car, the Dallara SF14, is no longer competitive in its current form, because it will be replaced by the SF19, Honda suddenly has access to a chassis that is approved by the FIA ​​and according to the regulations can be used as test vehicle. The product that Honda wants to set up here, the RA619H, has not yet officially participated in a Grand Prix. A 'loophole' in the regulations
https://www.f1today.net/nl/nieuws/f1...019-motor-test
eMcL is online now  
 
post #19 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 03:36 PM
Owner
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: UK, Thailand
Posts: 229
Sorry to change the subject somewhat, although still F1 2019, but just throwing this post season thought in for debate.
If McLaren have another disappointing first half of next season, how secure do you feel Zak Browns position will be? After all, he has hardly (IMO) covered himself in glory since he joined.
Huahincraig is offline  
post #20 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 04:00 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huahincraig View Post
Sorry to change the subject somewhat, although still F1 2019, but just throwing this post season thought in for debate.
If McLaren have another disappointing first half of next season, how secure do you feel Zak Browns position will be? After all, he has hardly (IMO) covered himself in glory since he joined.
Yeah but Zak inherited a mess — how long he will be granted to fix things is debatable. Of course he is setting the stage for continuity......

f1today
Brown: McLaren struggles due to 'lack of consistent leadership'
McLaren CEO Zak Brown believes that a lack of consistent leadership was the cause of the team's struggle throughout the 2018 season. The Woking outfit mostly endured a tough year, after recording five top-eight finishes with Fernando Alonso in the opening five races.

However, point finishes were a rarity for the team after that, and it ended the year in sixth place in the constructor's standings, despite coming under pressure from Racing Point Force India who only started scoring after the summer break.

And Brown thinks that McLaren's downfall has been coming for a number of years: "Ultimately what got us here this year started five years ago. This year’s problem is years in the works," Brown said. "My summary of that is that we’ve had a lack of consistent leadership.

"I don’t point the fingers at any one individual. That was a lack of focus because of all the activities that were going on, from the boardroom down: buyouts; merging of companies; team principals in; team principals out; CEOs in; CEOs out.

"It was just a constant revolving kind of lack of focus, and I think that’s what created the issue. And then what fell out of that is that people didn’t have clear goals and accountability, responsibility. Ultimately that’s what produced a poor race car this year. It was kind of our structure, our organisation.

"The individual people are extremely talented. We’ve got world championships, we’ve got over 100 people that have been here for over 20 years. They haven’t forgotten how to win we just didn’t have the right infrastructure in place, and that’s what we’ve set out to fix."

Three senior personnel left McLaren this year, as Tim Goss, Eric Boullier and Matt Morris bowed out. Gil de Ferran was appointed as sporting director, while Toro Rosso's James Key is expected to join sometime in 2019.

When asked by Crash.net if a season like 2018 was important for McLaren to reveal its core problems, Brown said: "I would have preferred to have a good year, but of course, this year was a surprise to all of us.

"It did get you to look in the mirror quickly, get really close to the team, make some changes, so ideally long term we will have benefited the racing team from this year. We’ve uncovered lots of areas that we’ve had some shortcomings, that ultimately will be a good point because we think we addressed them or we’re on our way to addressing them."

Published on 06 December 2018
https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2...ent-leadership
Huahincraig likes this.
eMcL is online now  
post #21 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 04:18 PM
Owner
Owner
 
Mikeyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
Yeah but Zak inherited a mess — how long he will be granted to fix things is debatable. Of course he is setting the stage for continuity......

f1today
Brown: McLaren struggles due to 'lack of consistent leadership'
McLaren CEO Zak Brown believes that a lack of consistent leadership was the cause of the team's struggle throughout the 2018 season. The Woking outfit mostly endured a tough year, after recording five top-eight finishes with Fernando Alonso in the opening five races.

However, point finishes were a rarity for the team after that, and it ended the year in sixth place in the constructor's standings, despite coming under pressure from Racing Point Force India who only started scoring after the summer break.

And Brown thinks that McLaren's downfall has been coming for a number of years: "Ultimately what got us here this year started five years ago. This year’s problem is years in the works," Brown said. "My summary of that is that we’ve had a lack of consistent leadership.

"I don’t point the fingers at any one individual. That was a lack of focus because of all the activities that were going on, from the boardroom down: buyouts; merging of companies; team principals in; team principals out; CEOs in; CEOs out.

"It was just a constant revolving kind of lack of focus, and I think that’s what created the issue. And then what fell out of that is that people didn’t have clear goals and accountability, responsibility. Ultimately that’s what produced a poor race car this year. It was kind of our structure, our organisation.

"The individual people are extremely talented. We’ve got world championships, we’ve got over 100 people that have been here for over 20 years. They haven’t forgotten how to win we just didn’t have the right infrastructure in place, and that’s what we’ve set out to fix."

Three senior personnel left McLaren this year, as Tim Goss, Eric Boullier and Matt Morris bowed out. Gil de Ferran was appointed as sporting director, while Toro Rosso's James Key is expected to join sometime in 2019.

When asked by Crash.net if a season like 2018 was important for McLaren to reveal its core problems, Brown said: "I would have preferred to have a good year, but of course, this year was a surprise to all of us.

"It did get you to look in the mirror quickly, get really close to the team, make some changes, so ideally long term we will have benefited the racing team from this year. We’ve uncovered lots of areas that we’ve had some shortcomings, that ultimately will be a good point because we think we addressed them or we’re on our way to addressing them."

Published on 06 December 2018
https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2...ent-leadership
difficult to see them firing any further people.. they have to try and make the changes that they have made work.. the only thing that has surprised me over the last year or so was the letting go of Tim Goss.. I assume, completely without basis in fact, that there was some strong representations as to the strength of the chassis which perhaps were proven unfounded..

they have some great people there, no doubt.. I think the hires that they have made have made the team stronger, and there is basis for optimism, equally due to the comments that the sheikh made the other day... if they know why they went wrong, that is a great start.. .although it does suggest to me that investment needs to be made, as some of the facilities are no longer state of the art as they once were.. this may also indicate the lack of relative budget... (tell us something we don't know.. )

it is difficult to believe that they aren't going to turn it round .. whilst sadly the past is no indicator of future success, the quality of people there, who have been there a long time, is amazing and there is a huge depth of knowledge to pull from.. that must count still, even if they don't currently have an acknowledged technical star such as Newey or Allison... bringing back Pat Fry seem to me to be a very good move and will provide short term stability perhaps?

id also love to see them tempt Ian Morgan back.. but I am biased and I doubt he would return...
eMcL and Huahincraig like this.

Last edited by Mikeyb; 12-06-2018 at 04:27 PM.
Mikeyb is offline  
post #22 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 04:21 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Of course Mercedes and Ferrari are a moving target ….. and Toro Rosso have dog chassis

———————————————

espn.com
Renault puts figure on power deficit to Ferrari and Mercedes

Renault boss Cyril Abiteboul says there is no reason why his team should still be lagging behind Mercedes and Ferrari in terms of engine power next year.

Renault has struggled to match the power output of its rivals since the start of turbo-hybrid era in 2014 and customer team Red Bull, which will switch to Honda power next year, often criticised the French manufacturer for its lack of power.

Abiteboul believes the gap in performance between Renault's power unit and the class-leading Ferrari and Mercedes engines was over 50bhp in qualifying this year and roughly 25bhp in the race. But the Renault boss says there is no reason why Renault shouldn't close the gap over the winter break and hopes his team will start the 2019 season on an equal footing with the most powerful engines on the grid.

"We're missing about 15 to 20 kilowatts of engine power [20-27bhp] in the race, which under certain conditions could be made up for by the Red Bull chassis. But in qualifying we estimate our deficit at 40 kilowatts [53bhp], and that's significant," Abiteboul told Auto Motor und Sport.

"With a customer engine from Mercedes or Ferrari we would have qualified in seventh place in Abu Dhabi. This shows that we have a better chassis than our competitors [in the midfield], but also shows we are not as good as the three top teams.

"That's why the main focus at first is on engine development. Next year, I don't want to have to say anymore that we lacked too much power in qualifying. There's no reason why we shouldn't close the gap to Mercedes and Ferrari with the engine over the winter. With the chassis it will take a little longer."

The Renault factory team finished fourth in the constructors' championship this year, but was 297 points off Red Bull in third place. Abiteboul is not expecting his team to start challenging the top three in the next 12 months but does expect to see the gap reduce in size.

"It's hard for me today to set targets for next year," he added. "In sport, that always depends a bit on the performance of the others. But if the curve points upwards like ours, you want this trend to continue.

"Maybe we won't be able to do that in terms of the world championship position, but we want to reduce the gap to the top. Let's wait and see what happens with Red Bull and Honda. Red Bull never gets tired of telling how good Honda is compared to us. May I say that Toro Rosso is still behind us?"
http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/25...rrari-mercedes
eMcL is online now  
post #23 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 05:22 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
RACEFANS.net
Mercedes suffer “setback” with new engine concept

6th December 2018
by Keith Collantine

Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff says the team had a “setback” with its engine development ahead of the 2019 F1 season.

Speaking at an event for team sponsor Hewlett-Packard, Wolff described how the team had set itself more stretching goals for 2019 based on paddock intelligence about the progress their rivals were making.
“There is a tremendous development race that is happened as we speak,” said Wolff. “Finding downforce, reducing drag and of course the engine is a very important part, adding more horsepower to the engine.

“So we are setting ourselves really ambitious targets. We have actually increased the targets six weeks ago because we heard some rumours that others were doing well.”

Wolff said the team is still “on-slope” in terms of the rate of gains it expected to make from its development plan. “We’ve had some good weeks in the wind tunnel,” he said, but admitted the power unit programme hadn’t gone as smoothly.

“We’ve had a little bit of a setback on the engine side where we believed the new concept would deliver a little bit more. But these guys are very ambitious like all of us and so I’m optimistic.

“We will know when the first qualifying session gets underway in Melbourne, this is the moment where everybody shows their cards.”

Mercedes have swept all five constructors’ championship titles since the current power unit regulations were introduced in 2014. However rivals Ferrari reduced the gap to them in 2018, which was the first season when teams were required to use just three power units for all 21 races. The same restriction remains in place for next year’s championship.
https://www.racefans.net/2018/12/06/...ngine-concept/
eMcL is online now  
post #24 of 689 Old 12-06-2018, 10:18 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,246
From current Motor Sport magazine, the most detailed explanation I have seen of the aerodynamic problems of the MCL33:

Anonymous former technical director: "The flow around the wider (for 2018) front tyre, with an endplate sat in front of it, has got a higher pressure rise than before, and that just disturbs what you're trying to achieve. Similarly, with the rear corner - with the diffuser change and the wider rear tyre - you've got a similar thing going on there and you need to get the car to somewhere where it's performing aerodynamically sensibly, then after that you can start working on it.
"In the barge board area, where there is now a lot more real estate to work with, you have to start with something where, while you're looking for load, you're not throwing vast losses at the car. The danger is that you leap in too early on and try to crank on load into it when you haven't got the basics under control."

McLaren's Andrea Stella: "With the current regs the capacity to keep delivering downforce in the corners is critical. This is the reason why there are cars that belong to another category, just because they can control the dowforce through the corner in all the conditions of yaw, crosswind, etc."

Mark Hughes: "The brittleness of that outwash flow, so difficult to model accurately, seems to be the biggest difference between the cars of the top three and even the very best of the rest. In McLaren's case there have been additional barriers."

Stella: "We tried to expand and consolidate some concepts of the 2017 car into this one. In hindsight, after lots of methodical investigation, we had embedded some aero issues into the car, creating a bottleneck, making development of the car very difficult. The fundamental capacity to keep delivering downforce through the corners had gone beyond our calculation."

Hughes: "When the airflow down the sides cannot be accelerated in the desired manner, it seriously degrades the diffuser's performance, which relies partly on the draw being made on it by the airflow that has travelled down the sides and then squeezed between the rear tyre and diffuser. As the flow exits that gap it pulls on the flow coming through the diffuser, thereby making the underfloor work harder.
"The consequence of not getting those vortices in the right places and losing the consistency of airflow down the sides of the body therefore usually means a shortfall in rear downforce.
"To get around the resultant lack of rear stability, McLaren had to run a much bigger rear wing than ideal - and its cars were consequently very draggy on the straights."
New Britain is online now  
post #25 of 689 Old 12-07-2018, 12:01 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
From current Motor Sport magazine, the most detailed explanation I have seen of the aerodynamic problems of the MCL33:

Anonymous former technical director: "The flow around the wider (for 2018) front tyre, with an endplate sat in front of it, has got a higher pressure rise than before, and that just disturbs what you're trying to achieve. Similarly, with the rear corner - with the diffuser change and the wider rear tyre - you've got a similar thing going on there and you need to get the car to somewhere where it's performing aerodynamically sensibly, then after that you can start working on it.
"In the barge board area, where there is now a lot more real estate to work with, you have to start with something where, while you're looking for load, you're not throwing vast losses at the car. The danger is that you leap in too early on and try to crank on load into it when you haven't got the basics under control."

McLaren's Andrea Stella: "With the current regs the capacity to keep delivering downforce in the corners is critical. This is the reason why there are cars that belong to another category, just because they can control the dowforce through the corner in all the conditions of yaw, crosswind, etc."

Mark Hughes: "The brittleness of that outwash flow, so difficult to model accurately, seems to be the biggest difference between the cars of the top three and even the very best of the rest. In McLaren's case there have been additional barriers."

Stella: "We tried to expand and consolidate some concepts of the 2017 car into this one. In hindsight, after lots of methodical investigation, we had embedded some aero issues into the car, creating a bottleneck, making development of the car very difficult. The fundamental capacity to keep delivering downforce through the corners had gone beyond our calculation."

Hughes: "When the airflow down the sides cannot be accelerated in the desired manner, it seriously degrades the diffuser's performance, which relies partly on the draw being made on it by the airflow that has travelled down the sides and then squeezed between the rear tyre and diffuser. As the flow exits that gap it pulls on the flow coming through the diffuser, thereby making the underfloor work harder.
"The consequence of not getting those vortices in the right places and losing the consistency of airflow down the sides of the body therefore usually means a shortfall in rear downforce.
"To get around the resultant lack of rear stability, McLaren had to run a much bigger rear wing than ideal - and its cars were consequently very draggy on the straights."
“the most detailed explanation I have seen of the aerodynamic problems of the MCL33:”
Difficult to understand how air flow around wider tires, end plates and barge board effects would have been overlooked. Guess @Mikeyb explanation that lack of state of the art wind tunnel access and CFD modeling simulation tools at McLaren must be correct. The engineers don't have the tools.

What does this mean?
“McLaren's Andrea Stella: "With the current regs the capacity to keep delivering downforce in the corners is critical. This is the reason why there are cars that belong to another category, just because they can control the downforce through the corner in all the conditions of yaw, crosswind, etc."

Is Andrea Stella saying Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull are in the F1 category and the other competitors including McLaren are not competing in the same category? edit Maybe lack of tools to model all corner aero conditions?

What a mess, it appears that there were so many problems that McLaren decided to give up on 2018

Last edited by eMcL; 12-07-2018 at 12:11 AM.
eMcL is online now  
post #26 of 689 Old 12-07-2018, 08:01 AM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
“the most detailed explanation I have seen of the aerodynamic problems of the MCL33:”
Difficult to understand how air flow around wider tires, end plates and barge board effects would have been overlooked. Guess @Mikeyb explanation that lack of state of the art wind tunnel access and CFD modeling simulation tools at McLaren must be correct. The engineers don't have the tools.

What does this mean?
“McLaren's Andrea Stella: "With the current regs the capacity to keep delivering downforce in the corners is critical. This is the reason why there are cars that belong to another category, just because they can control the downforce through the corner in all the conditions of yaw, crosswind, etc."

Is Andrea Stella saying Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull are in the F1 category and the other competitors including McLaren are not competing in the same category? edit Maybe lack of tools to model all corner aero conditions?

What a mess, it appears that there were so many problems that McLaren decided to give up on 2018
English is not Stella's first language, and I think his word choices are slightly skewing the meanings.

By saying "beyond calculation", he's not saying that they didn't try to figure it out, but rather that they did not succeed in figuring it out. As you suggest, there is no way in the world that McLaren would have overlooked the effects in principle, but they were unable to model those effects accurately enough when they were designing the car.

I believe that wind tunnels that can replicate and measure aero forces under yaw are a relatively new development. The MTC wind tunnel was state-of-the-art when it was built, but unfortunately that was about 16 years ago.

"Another category" is just (I surmise) how an Italian would express "another level". As I read the quotes from Stella, they reminded me of interviews with Valentino Rossi.
New Britain is online now  
post #27 of 689 Old 12-07-2018, 02:00 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
English is not Stella's first language, and I think his word choices are slightly skewing the meanings.

By saying "beyond calculation", he's not saying that they didn't try to figure it out, but rather that they did not succeed in figuring it out. As you suggest, there is no way in the world that McLaren would have overlooked the effects in principle, but they were unable to model those effects accurately enough when they were designing the car.

I believe that wind tunnels that can replicate and measure aero forces under yaw are a relatively new development. The MTC wind tunnel was state-of-the-art when it was built, but unfortunately that was about 16 years ago.

"Another category" is just (I surmise) how an Italian would express "another level". As I read the quotes from Stella, they reminded me of interviews with Valentino Rossi.
Wow … Yes so the problem appears to be that McLaren have fallen behind on the wind tunnel tools, equipment, sensors etc. The old adage of worker blaming tools does not apply here …

Did the engineers ask for advanced cornering dynamic wind tunnel tools and up to date CFD? Were the requests refused?
If not requested then engineering incompetence, if they did ask, then management incompetence. Truth somewhere in between?
This won't be a quick fix a process for continuous systemic improvement needs to be put in place.

————————————————

INSIGHT: F1 WIND TUNNEL TECHNOLOGY REACHES AMAZING NEW LEVELS
INNOVATION

BY: JAMES ALLEN*
12 FEB 2018*
Here at JA on F1 we like to take readers’ questions direct to people who know the answer. That’s how the original FOTA Fans Forum started in 2010.
We had this question about the level of sophistication of F1 wind tunnels and we put it to Professor Mark Gillan, formerly chief operations engineer at Toyota and Williams in F1 and a leading expert on wind tunnel development.
His answer shows how amazing the level of technology has become – with teams even able to introduce exhaust flows into the testing model – but also raises questions about how there is this whole side to the sport which is hidden away and secret.

Question: What do you know about or have heard about centrifugal forces research in F1? What if any differences are there between a stationary wind tunnel model. A rolling road wind tunnel model and a engine running, wheels turning wind tunnel model/actual car.
Hell, it keeps bikes running upright as if they have a ghost rider. There’s a strong force there. It has at least been looked at? Is there any exploitation of it in F1?
Prof Mark Gillan’s answer: Recent developments over the last decade in motorsport wind tunnel testing have been transformative.
However it should be noted that some of what goes on within an F1 tunnel facility is somewhat artificially directed by the restrictions in facility usage (via the F1 regulations), especially with regards to model size (now at 60% max scale in F1 through regulation), speed, wind on time, number of runs and tunnel occupancy.

During the last decade there has been a dramatic push in the following areas:
i) Aggressive application of enhanced efficient wind tunnel testing methodologies, including continuous motion systems, high speed data acquisition analysis, with ultra-quick model changes;
ii) Shape, aeroelasticity and turbulence intensity matching of model scale to full scale;
iii) True cornering studies with proper interference correction methodologies;
iv) Steel belt rolling road systems with eccentric wheel drive units for tracking tyre contact patch movement and measuring wheel lift through the belt;
v) Real time robotic flow visualisation and automatic minimal interference full flow field interrogation;
and
vi) Remote health monitoring of facility and Key Performance Indicators (or KPIs) tracking tools.
So to specifically answer your reader’s question; over the last decade the wind tunnel model testing process has transitioned from fixed steady state single ride height, yaw and steer systems to fully dynamic continuous motion models, integrated with high speed balances, pressure sensors and acquisition systems that map the entire operating envelope of the car within a few minutes of wind on time.
Typically this sweep is done with a roof-mounted hexapod system (see below)
The rolling road systems and integrated boundary layer bleed systems not only give a more realistic flow field around the car – particularly in the diffuser region – but also allows you to measure wheel-lift through the belt using the eccentric wheel pads that sit underneath the tyre contact patches.
The teams can also run pseudo exhaust flows using integrated pneumatic systems or on board high speed electric motors.
There are even attempts to represent cornering manoeuvres, but this activity and process is secret.

As the teams drive their continuous motion systems faster and faster they do come up against limits and inertial effects play into this.
The teams then feed these complex multi-dimensional aero maps (measured in the tunnel) into their driver in the loop simulators.
The simulators help the teams better understand the importance of transient effects and stability criteria though performing “what if” studies.
These studies help drive the weighting criteria and KPIs in the tunnel and pinpoint what the test programme should include.
With each week F1 wind tunnel testing becomes more advanced, more dynamic and more realistic, with continuous improved correlation between CFD, the tunnel and the track.


How the hexapod works
The picture (courtesy MTS Systems Corporation) shows a modern F1 rolling road set up with hexapod, fairing strut which connects the hexapod to the 60% model and the rolling road itself.
The top of the fairing strut is aligned with the ceiling in the wind tunnel so the hexapod is completely hidden in the ceiling. The hexapod provides 6 degrees of motion for the model and forces and moments are taken from an internal balance that sits inside the model and is about the size of a large shoe box. To be exact whilst the hexapod can provide yaw motion, yaw is actually provided by a separate drive unit under the driver’s helmet in order to keep the faired strut aligned with the air flow in the tunnel and to have minimal blockage.
The model sits on a 1mm thick steel belt that is driven by the rolling road via a set of rollers. These rollers also steer the belt to ensure that it is not ripped off by the side forces that are generated by the wind tunnel model. The speed of the belt is the same as the airflow and the boundary layer ahead of the belt is removed using suction plates and then re-injected aft of the road. The belts range in sizes but modern rolling roads are over 3m wide and about 9m long.
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2018/...ng-new-levels/

Last edited by eMcL; 12-07-2018 at 02:03 PM.
eMcL is online now  
post #28 of 689 Old 12-07-2018, 02:24 PM
InnerCircle
Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
Wow … Yes so the problem appears to be that McLaren have fallen behind on the wind tunnel tools, equipment, sensors etc. The old adage of worker blaming tools does not apply here …

Did the engineers ask for advanced cornering dynamic wind tunnel tools and up to date CFD? Were the requests refused?
If not requested then engineering incompetence, if they did ask, then management incompetence. Truth somewhere in between?
This won't be a quick fix a process for continuous systemic improvement needs to be put in place.

————————————————

AIUI, wind tunnels (at least the ones sophisticated and sensitive enough for F1 applications) are exceptionally robust structures. In the case of McLaren, the wind tunnel is really a huge concrete bunker in the basement of MTC, with massive concrete walls, floor and roof. It was configured thus partly for engineering reasons but partly for political reasons. That is, the local planning authority (whose rulings, backed up by the national planning appeals process, are absolute and vastly more restrictive than American "zoning") told McLaren that the only way they would be allowed to build a wind tunnel on the site would be to bury it underground.

As you can imagine, once constructed, and with a collection of busy workshops and offices above and beside it, the wind tunnel bunker is not really susceptible to modifications to its basic structure. It would be exceptionally difficult (even if approved by the local authority) for McLaren to open up or move metre-thick walls in order to install devices that replicate and measure yaw or crosswind effects.

As you know, McLaren also use the Toyota wind tunnel in Koln. I don't know if it has been upgraded since it was built, but the basic structure should date from when Toyota were making their big push in F1 more than a decade ago.
New Britain is online now  
post #29 of 689 Old 12-07-2018, 05:34 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Britain View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMcL View Post
Wow … Yes so the problem appears to be that McLaren have fallen behind on the wind tunnel tools, equipment, sensors etc. The old adage of worker blaming tools does not apply here …

Did the engineers ask for advanced cornering dynamic wind tunnel tools and up to date CFD? Were the requests refused?
If not requested then engineering incompetence, if they did ask, then management incompetence. Truth somewhere in between?
This won't be a quick fix a process for continuous systemic improvement needs to be put in place.

————————————————

AIUI, wind tunnels (at least the ones sophisticated and sensitive enough for F1 applications) are exceptionally robust structures. In the case of McLaren, the wind tunnel is really a huge concrete bunker in the basement of MTC, with massive concrete walls, floor and roof. It was configured thus partly for engineering reasons but partly for political reasons. That is, the local planning authority (whose rulings, backed up by the national planning appeals process, are absolute and vastly more restrictive than American "zoning") told McLaren that the only way they would be allowed to build a wind tunnel on the site would be to bury it underground.

As you can imagine, once constructed, and with a collection of busy workshops and offices above and beside it, the wind tunnel bunker is not really susceptible to modifications to its basic structure. It would be exceptionally difficult (even if approved by the local authority) for McLaren to open up or move metre-thick walls in order to install devices that replicate and measure yaw or crosswind effects.

As you know, McLaren also use the Toyota wind tunnel in Koln. I don't know if it has been upgraded since it was built, but the basic structure should date from when Toyota were making their big push in F1 more than a decade ago.

Yes. And as all of these problems must have been known inside McLaren since at least early 2018 and now with management full attention we can be sure that fixes have been put in place.
But it will take time to make up for this lost time and experience ....

Guess we will know that McLaren F1 is back on top of their game when they podium/finish ahead of Renault and start complaining (Horner style) about the lack of PU performance and reliability—haha
eMcL is online now  
post #30 of 689 Old 12-08-2018, 12:18 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,925
eMcL is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the McLaren Life forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome