Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[BrunoH]

yap, Synthetic fuels is the way to go. so we can all enjoy v8 and v12 engines for many more years to come

[KAIZEN]

CAC Bypass 2（Charge Air Cooler Bypass 2）
The POV was between CAC and Surge Turk, releasing unnecessary boost pressure to the induction pod.
It means that the work that the compressor was doing was abandoned.
By adding a bypass valve between the compressor and the turbine, the CB2 merges the released intake air with the exhaust and uses it to drive the turbine.

[mzso]

That would be Fantastic... I'm sooo Tired of this EV Nonsense...

yap, Synthetic fuels is the way to go. so we can all enjoy v8 and v12 engines for many more years to come

Don't dream too hard. The wake-up will be painful.
With the amount of effort put into battery and EV tech the way is set for ever increasing electrification. Not to mention various state deadlines.
Also the traditional manufacturers are not in a really good state:

[ispano6]

That would be Fantastic... I'm sooo Tired of this EV Nonsense...

yap, Synthetic fuels is the way to go. so we can all enjoy v8 and v12 engines for many more years to come

Don't dream too hard. The wake-up will be painful.
With the amount of effort put into battery and EV tech the way is set for ever increasing electrification. Not to mention various state deadlines.
Also the traditional manufacturers are not in a really good state:

Those are assumptions made with the notion that ICE will never evolve. A part of going carbon neutral is electrification, but doesn't necessarily mean fully electric for all cars. Battery resources too are finite and ever evolving. Carbon capture and absorbing methods too will evolve.

I should mention the part of HCCI aren't Asaki's words, that is my interpretation of what technologies could result from Honda's involvement with F1. Ethanol and green hydrogen too are possible future fuels to consider aside from biofuels.

[godlameroso]

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... RA621H.jpg

CAC Bypass 2（Charge Air Cooler Bypass 2）
The POV was between CAC and Surge Turk, releasing unnecessary boost pressure to the induction pod.
It means that the work that the compressor was doing was abandoned.
By adding a bypass valve between the compressor and the turbine, the CB2 merges the released intake air with the exhaust and uses it to drive the turbine.

Like the bypass tubes on the J58 That no one is protesting likely means everyone else is already doing this. It shouldn't be banned anyway, lowering turbine gas temperature would likely limit NOx. Green creds n' all.

[PlatinumZealot]

Self-ignition is commercially available from Mazda.
It's a technology that can be done with a gasoline engine.

After watching the NHK 2021 Honda special they make clear that what Honda has come up with is a new innovation so I wouldn't say that Honda's technology is "commercially" available, yet.

Carbon nanotubes are far from ready for use yet. Still a pie in the sky application. The contacts of carbon nantoube to metal is your problem... And actually making the nanotube without defects....

Lithium metal batteries should be ready in a few years. About a 30% improvement in density can be expected.

Looks like I was right after all (I mentioned this possibility in August of last year). As shown in the NHK BS1 2021 Special program, Honda did in fact incorporate carbon nanotubes into their upgraded battery!
This innovation was finally brought to the track during the 2021 mid-season after a decade of testing and development. It's awesome to see that it went into Formula 1 and now will be one of the core technologies that future Honda vehicles will use. In the documentary, Asaki is immensely proud and pleased and mentions that there will be an impact "for the rest of his life" in how much of what was learned in F1 will go toward road cars. We may even see a production car with Honda HCCI engines running on biofuels and without the entire line-up going all electric.

Hold your horses, Tex.

There are Carbon Nanotube batteries and then are "Carbon Nanotube batteries."

One of them is marketing schpiel for added carbon nanotube dust/cuttings/sprinkles etc which has been around for years. You can buy those sort of lithium batteries for your RC car or plane or whatever. That nanotube additive gives some small gain like better current stability or life or something, but nothing eath shattering. This is likley what Honda has and other manufactuers too.

Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes... Not nanotube dust. Huuge difference. We won't see those until someone figures out how to grow them long enough consistently enough and to put them into a battery that can take the bumps and bruises in an F1 car.

[ispano6]

Hold your horses, Tex.

There are Carbon Nanotube batteries and then are "Carbon Nanotube batteries."

One of them is marketing schpiel for added carbon nanotube dust/cuttings/sprinkles etc which has been around for years. You can buy those sort of lithium batteries for your RC car or plane or whatever. That nanotube additive gives some small gain like better current stability or life or something, but nothing eath shattering. This is likley what Honda has and other manufactuers too.

Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes... Not nanotube dust. Huuge difference. We won't see those until someone figures out how to grow them long enough consistently enough and to put them into a battery that can take the bumps and bruises in an F1 car.

My original post was that Honda was researching carbon nanotubes as a material to improve battery efficiency and performance and they did indeed use exactly the research from 2009 in their latest battery upgrade. It ain't no marketing shpiel like you want it to be. It's a real innovation that was put to use AND will be used in future Honda electrified products!

BTW, there IS a difference between carbon nano-materials and carbon nano-tubes. There are li-on batteries that use carbon nano-material additives, Honda's newest battery uses carbon nano-tubes in a specific way.

[mzso]

Battery resources too are finite and ever evolving.

What do you mean by that? You don't burn batteries so all the precious material will remain there. And as battery usage increases it will only be cheaper to recycle old worn out batteries.

Ethanol and green hydrogen too are possible future fuels to consider aside from biofuels.

This is a tad contradictory. Ethanol is bio-fuel. It's the only way we produce it. Albeit very costly.
Hydrogen is not really a fuel in the traditional sense. There's none just lying around to be used, and it's not even bio-produced by anone. You need to synthesize it. It's a very problematic power storage medium. Inefficient to produce store and use, compared to batteries.

Those are assumptions made with the notion that ICE will never evolve. A part of going carbon neutral is electrification, but doesn't necessarily mean fully electric for all cars.

ICE has little room for improvement at this point IMO, and that at great cost. Besides it can't match the potential of even fuel-cell EVs. By far the most significant improvement it had in practice in recent times was hybridization.

[restless]

Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes...

Can you add something more? First time to hear, and quick search gave me only several hits, all of them ~10+ years old

[mzso]

Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes...

I'm quite sure nanotubes are not supercoducting by the meaning of the term, only highly conductive.
By the looks of it only in a lab setting in flawless condition.

[PlatinumZealot]

Battery resources too are finite and ever evolving.

What do you mean by that? You don't burn batteries so all the precious material will remain there. And as battery usage increases it will only be cheaper to recycle old worn out batteries.

Ethanol and green hydrogen too are possible future fuels to consider aside from biofuels.

This is a tad contradictory. Ethanol is bio-fuel. It's the only way we produce it. Albeit very costly.
Hydrogen is not really a fuel in the traditional sense. There's none just lying around to be used, and it's not even bio-produced by anone. You need to synthesize it. It's a very problematic power storage medium. Inefficient to produce store and use, compared to batteries.

Those are assumptions made with the notion that ICE will never evolve. A part of going carbon neutral is electrification, but doesn't necessarily mean fully electric for all cars.

ICE has little room for improvement at this point IMO, and that at great cost. Besides it can't match the potential of even fuel-cell EVs. By far the most significant improvement it had in practice in recent times was hybridization.

You havent been reading research papers I see. Ispano is correct on a number of things there.

Lead researchers consider green-fuels to be the next stage for mobility because of the challenges and limitations with battery technology. Mining of the raw materials posion the environment just as much as oil if not more. Some mines are not ethicaly operated. Current batteries are extremely expensive to recycle. The Lithium is limited and in a few countries and will be another strained Geo-political resource in due time. Battery obseletion is an issue too, among other issues.

This has been discussed at length on here already but basically no major automaker is putting their eggs into one basket.

Jump to fifty seconds in the video below where a Professor in engineer does a way better explanation than I can do.

https://www.wusa9.com/video/entertainme ... wsource=cl

[PlatinumZealot]

Now my original post is refering to a superconducting battery using full crystal carbon-nantoubes...

I'm quite sure nanotubes are not supercoducting by the meaning of the term, only highly conductive.
By the looks of it only in a lab setting in flawless condition.

They can be made superconducting mind you. But lets say because of practicallity (temperatures mostly) we are achieveing less than that level... My point still stands though.

Currently we add small dusty particles to Lithium Ion batteries.Here you see they add about 0.06% to the anode. It can also be used in the cathode.

https://tuball.com/nanotubes-for/high-p ... -batteries

So you see what I mean when I say marketing.. It's a very tiny amount.

So this "New technology" that Honda is doing has been around and I used by the other teams.

The batteries I am talking about are using multiple-graphene layers and nanotube contacts to entirely make the cathode. When you do this you get more capacity but more imoortantly a huge bump in power (up to x10) capability. The challenge here is that this was done under lab conditions with a very thin cathode. Practically, you would need a thicker robust cathode.

[PlatinumZealot]

https://f1-motorsports-gp.com/wp-conten ... RA621H.jpg

CAC Bypass 2（Charge Air Cooler Bypass 2）
The POV was between CAC and Surge Turk, releasing unnecessary boost pressure to the induction pod.
It means that the work that the compressor was doing was abandoned.
By adding a bypass valve between the compressor and the turbine, the CB2 merges the released intake air with the exhaust and uses it to drive the turbine.

I think doing that would be illegal. That Idea was floated around here quite a bit when these engines came to be in 2014. But the rules said all air going through the compressor must pass through the engine.

So very likley it recirculates back into the compressor and not dumped to the turbine.

However, If Honda had a secondary chamber separate from the turbine that the air could affect the turbine somehow then return to the compressor you could have something there.

[Big Tea]

Battery resources too are finite and ever evolving.

What do you mean by that? You don't burn batteries so all the precious material will remain there. And as battery usage increases it will only be cheaper to recycle old worn out batteries.

Ethanol and green hydrogen too are possible future fuels to consider aside from biofuels.

This is a tad contradictory. Ethanol is bio-fuel. It's the only way we produce it. Albeit very costly.
Hydrogen is not really a fuel in the traditional sense. There's none just lying around to be used, and it's not even bio-produced by anone. You need to synthesize it. It's a very problematic power storage medium. Inefficient to produce store and use, compared to batteries.

Those are assumptions made with the notion that ICE will never evolve. A part of going carbon neutral is electrification, but doesn't necessarily mean fully electric for all cars.

ICE has little room for improvement at this point IMO, and that at great cost. Besides it can't match the potential of even fuel-cell EVs. By far the most significant improvement it had in practice in recent times was hybridization.

You havent been reading research papers I see. Ispano is correct on a number of things there.

Lead researchers consider green-fuels to be the next stage for mobility because of the challenges and limitations with battery technology. Mining of the raw materials posion the environment just as much as oil if not more. Some mines are not ethicaly operated. Current batteries are extremely expensive to recycle. The Lithium is limited and in a few countries and will be another strained Geo-political resource in due time. Battery obseletion is an issue too, among other issues.

This has been discussed at length on here already but basically no major automaker is putting their eggs into one basket.

Jump to fifty seconds in the video below where a Professor in engineer does a way better explanation than I can do.

https://www.wusa9.com/video/entertainme ... wsource=cl

(Cant get the vid, but) Carbon neutral of course does not mean not producing any carbon, just not more carbon than goes into production of it. A fuel that produces carbon (at use) can still be carbon neutral or even carbon negative.
Too soon to rule them all out.

[mzso]

You havent been reading research papers I see. Ispano is correct on a number of things there.

Lead researchers consider green-fuels to be the next stage for mobility because of the challenges and limitations with battery technology.

The mystical "lead researchers". Naturally people working one one thing are pushing that thing.
Reality is not moving in that direction of green fuels. So far there's little going for it.
Producing crops for bio-fuel is an abomination of a waste. And so far there's no process to produce fuel on a wide-scale from actual waste, economically. The FIA claimed such, but it's wholly unproven, and in fact they released zero details about it.
Synthesizing fuel is just a waste of energy that could be used to power BEVs.

Mining of the raw materials posion the environment just as much as oil if not more. Some mines are not ethicaly operated. Current batteries are extremely expensive to recycle. The Lithium is limited and in a few countries and will be another strained Geo-political resource in due time. Battery obseletion is an issue too, among other issues.

All of this is unfounded propaganda. (Except the "ethical" stuff, which no-one actually cares about.)
Batteries are not expensive to recycle there's just too little of it. And in "due time" lithium needs will plainly plummet, because of the huge build-up of aged-out batteries.
The oil comparison is ridiculous, if you saw images of broken oil tankers or even oil leaks at extraction sites. There's also the very environmentally unpopular fracking. That thing is filthy and it goes everywhere. Not to mention the burning of it.
Mining of lithium is no worse than any other mineral ore.