I stopped reading after this. I really don't know why you bother with the great wall of text™.
Stating your assumption again, doesn't make it correct.
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
I stopped reading after this. I really don't know why you bother with the great wall of text™.
Stating your assumption again, doesn't make it correct.
The article does seem to blurr the line between heat and power , neither of which are particularly good terms to use, heat being very strange.
On the one hand he says they don't get enough heat and then they get too much.
In reality, probably their energy recovery and storage is not very good, the turbo is small and so the turbo has to work harder . Which is good if does so with the same input, bad if just can't do it.
I suspect they have tried to move the tech up the curve, smaller, faster more efficient. But they in fact got less efficient. This has several Whammy's, lack of power, lack of reliability and difficult packaging due to much greater heat loss from the inefficient system.
I say all this from the point of view of not having studied the tech used in f1 at all.
It wouldn't be the first time an f1 team or engine supplier turned out not to be as clever as they thought they were.
On the one hand he says they don't get enough heat and then they get too much.
In reality, probably their energy recovery and storage is not very good, the turbo is small and so the turbo has to work harder . Which is good if does so with the same input, bad if just can't do it.
I suspect they have tried to move the tech up the curve, smaller, faster more efficient. But they in fact got less efficient. This has several Whammy's, lack of power, lack of reliability and difficult packaging due to much greater heat loss from the inefficient system.
I say all this from the point of view of not having studied the tech used in f1 at all.
It wouldn't be the first time an f1 team or engine supplier turned out not to be as clever as they thought they were.
Honda are not harvesting enough (heat) energy via the generator on the MGU-H, while at the same time physically damaging the sensors due to physical heat from the high rpm of the turbine is how I'm understanding it.
It was patently obvious at Monza that McLaren Honda were running out of puff down the straights. Merc/Ferrari/Renault can direct (excess/wasted) energy recovered from the turbo on the fly from the MGU-H straight into the MGU-K. This is not subject to the energy recovery limits as it's a direct feed rather than stored energy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
They aren't assumptions and neither did I state most of them again, I pointed out the other things he got wrong which you'd know if you read it but instead you took the ignorant stance on stating something the author didn't stay then doubling down on it.
I thought I'd also point out the guy incorrectly claims this is the first story that lays out this story... it isn't even close. There is literally nothing new in the article at all, everything is known and it misses out further known things like Arai claiming for a fact they are changing the layout.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Have you taken this up with the author? If not you're wasting your keypresses.
When you've been editor of Autosport then I might pay more attention to your rants.
Imagine my care, if you ignore logic and believe everything you read when some of it at the very least is factually incorrect(Arai stating they are changing the layout IS fact) and much of it with a little critical thought is plainly incorrect.
I pointed out the factual and logical inconsistencies, if you fail to be able to take that on board and still just believe it because the guy is in journalism... as is Crofty, Ted and a bunch of other people who show a consistent lack of understanding of what they are talking about that is on you.
Oh, Scarbs, someone equally(for some reason) respected, I and many others took umbrage with his "I was told by a source Mclaren have a multistage axial compressor" and he wrote a semi retraction, in that after days of being mocked on the forums for copying forum rumours and painting them as fact he stated it might be a single stage axial or it could just be a small radial. This should really indicate the quality of technical journalism in the sport. A rumour for months on f1technical(where scarbs posts) got turned into an official autosport btw story, which everyone pointed out was impossible(multistage part because it's against the rules specifically).
Literally every level of sports media is rife with completely inept pundits, commentators and journalism, with 99% of football rumours literally made up..... F1 is no different, autosport is no different. What you miss is that when people have access they get things like interviews with drivers and use that kind of story to provide some credibility(to gullible people) for the rest of the crap they make up.
Last edited:
Additionally .... having a go at journalists using the power of hindsight after they've got a bad source is bad form. It's not as if it's lazy journalism, the information they'd like is not available as it's kept secret within the organisations for sporting reasons. It works for Mercedes as proven by the split turbo in the last two years of F1, and their blinder at the 1994 Indy 500 with the pushrod engine.
If you think can do a better job than Mark Hughes, Scarbs, Ted and everyone else then go ahead. I'd suggest this computer overclocking forum isn't the best career starter though.
If you think can do a better job than Mark Hughes, Scarbs, Ted and everyone else then go ahead. I'd suggest this computer overclocking forum isn't the best career starter though.
Yes interesting read that (Thanks Duke).The actual design sounds brilliant though, the compressor should be able to rotate at 130,000 revs, more than any other team's... but because of it's situe it's not able to achieve that without overheating and frying everything, with the size zero back end hindering reliability. As a result of that McLaren have had to run the power down, and much less HP than their rivals, which in turn effects the other energy recovery systems. Apparantly McLaren have two PUs in development, a modification of 2015s to fit within the size zero package at increased power and reliability as well as a substitute engine setup which can be used by the homologation date in Feb if the existing concept can't be improved enough, but that would require a chassis rethink.
Still, next year's car will be for the first time 100 percent Prodromous', surely next year is going to be at least a bit better than this year!
edit - full version in Duke's link above ^
I read a really good explanation of the design problems in a lengthy Reddit post, can't seem to find it now. I do hope they sort themselves out, it's a shame for everyone involved to be languishing at the rear end of the field.
Jay
Bathurst this coming Sunday!
Just trying to figure out how best to watch it, as BT cocked up last year by overrunning basketball and I missed the first 5 or 6 laps. Does anyone know if V8 supercars broadcast online anywhere just in case?
Just trying to figure out how best to watch it, as BT cocked up last year by overrunning basketball and I missed the first 5 or 6 laps. Does anyone know if V8 supercars broadcast online anywhere just in case?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Well done for being unable to read, again. Nothing changed between Scarbs back tracking except everyone pointing out he was wrong. Nothing I've said has been in hindsight, this Hughes article was written and posted after Arai said they were changing the layout and everything else he's said, the 130k rpm, being unable to achieve it and needing a higher rpm on the compressor has been known for 6 months.
Scarbs posted based off discussions and rumours of a message board, the rules were plainly there to see. Mclaren didn't have a multistage axial compressor full stop, Scarbs posted a story claiming a 'source' told him it was, two days later after everyone mocking him he's backtracking. He didn't have a source because a source wouldn't have told him that Mclaren were using a compressor that was completely impossible to be run in the rules. Much of what Scarbs says is twaddle and absolutely nothing I've critiqued him or Hughes on has been from hindsight.
Your defence so far is firstly by saying Hughes said something he didn't... that made even less sense(the heat as electrical output golden nugget you came up with), then claiming I'm using hindsight to pick apart what they are saying. What I've posted is entirely coherent, you seem to be unable to comprehend it though, saying that you were unable to comprehend Hughes article from the heat as electrical output comment.
For the record Hughes is known for his political F1 coverage but has always been mocked for his technical insight because it's always been inaccurate.
Last edited:
I'm amazed people still reply to him :
It's on MotorsTV, if you can put up with the cruddy resolution. Otherwise chuck me a trust message and I'll chuck you a link to a site that should have a VLC stream available.
I'm going to miss it unfortunately. At Brands all weekend for the BTCC.
I'm not stressed. Could be time to put him back on the list again.
OK, so you're back on. Enjoy arguing with yourself!
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
BTCC at Brands every time, even though you can't see most of the circuit. Just record the F1 and watch it later. There'd be nothing worse than sitting watching an F1 race that will likely turn out to be same old while ignoring the chance to one of the best racing circuits on the continent and getting a full programme of racing (and you don't get Ginetta Juniors at Sochi).
It's on MotorsTV, if you can put up with the cruddy resolution. Otherwise chuck me a trust message and I'll chuck you a link to a site that should have a VLC stream available.
I'm going to miss it unfortunately. At Brands all weekend for the BTCC.
I'm not stressed. Could be time to put him back on the list again.
OK, so you're back on. Enjoy arguing with yourself!
Yeah, I try to avoid motors if I can, had to resort to it last year for the first part, thought I was going to have a haemorrage.
I'll send something to your trust. I see it starts at 1am, so suspect even BT couldn't **** up their schedule that much! Probably fall asleep for an hour, but won't have my Mum ruining the result for me this year, after the rollocking she got last year from me. (Who else has a mother that is a motorsport fan and knows the results before you?)
Haha. Unlucky. I'd double check the start time as I've got it down as 12-12:30am start according to the BT TV Guide (converting from 6pm US Central time (-6hrs) so I may be wrong)