STUCK WITHIN THE ‘VEE’
Honda motorsport boss Yasuhisa Arai told F1i that the Japanese manufacturer needed a bigger turbo on its 2016 power unit, while providing a ‘more sophisticated size zero’ concept of the engine. But engineers in Sakura do not enjoy the same margin as their Italian counterparts. With technical regulations strictly mandating a 90-degree engine, Honda need to find other ways to free up some space and lodge a bigger turbo within its V6.
Mercedes is not letting up the pressure in that realm either, with Cowell telling reporters in Brixworth that the world champions had already increased the size of its own turbo.
“The efficiency of the ICE is going to go up and up each year and the efficiency of the turbo compounding is going to go up and up each year and that means that the turbo sizing number is going to go up as long as it is not stealing from the engine.”
If the optimum turbine size surpasses what the engine ‘Vee’ can fit, is it still possible for Honda to offset this constraint with significant aero gains? While very promising in theory, isn’t the Japanese manufacturer’s power unit architecture going to limit development in the long run?
What’s more, Cowell explained that the turbo sizing was only one part of the equation. Even if a lot of energy can be recovered with a bigger turbine, it must then be efficiently transferred – i.e. with as little loss as possible – to the crankshaft.
“Cowell: “The turbo sizing number is going to go up as long as it is not stealing from the engine.”
In order to dent Mercedes’ huge lead, McLaren-Honda has taken big technical risks and trialled bold and unprecedented solutions. The Japanese engineers actually had to make several attempts to meet McLaren’s chassis/aero technical specifications. Their dismal 2015 campaign was a stark reminder of how difficult it is to find the right chassis/engine balance.
Between 2011 and 2013, Renault’s V8 was both powerful and able to generate a lot of exhaust gasses, which allowed Red Bull chief designer Adrian Newey to introduce its potent blown diffuser system. In order to meet its customer’s requirements and improve the overall package, the French engine manufacturer had to go against its own nature (and received little thanks in return).
© Renault
LEARNING FROM RENAULT'S EARLY 2000s FAILURE
Instances where giving priority to the chassis over the engine actually worked have been few and far between. When Renault returned to F1 in 2001, first under the Benetton moniker then as the Renault F1 Team one year later, the French manufacturer developed an intriguing 111-degree V10 engine. The rationale behind engineer Jean-Jacques His’ design was to lower the car’s centre of gravity.
Again, the project looked good on paper, but it did not translate in practice and turned out to be a disaster in terms of results. Renault learned its lessons from the failure and reverted to a more conventional architecture ahead of the 2003 season after it became clear that recurrent vibration issues could not be overcome. However, Patrick Faure, who was Renault F1 president at that time, did no regret exploring that avenue and even encouraged the French manufacturer to think out of the box.
“We didn't expect such a difficult year,” Faure was quoted as saying in June 2001 by grandprix.com. “But if we had to, we would do it again because we had a choice: either to build a Supertec engine and fight for the third row, but have no chance to overtake McLaren or Ferrari, or to really go for it with a totally new architecture, but accept that we have more difficulty.”
That sounds quite familiar, doesn’t it?
Check out Red Bull Racing's 2016 livery
Eric Silbermann: Shiny event launches matt car
Key dates for the 2016 F1 season
Keep up to date with all the F1 news via Facebook and Twitter
