Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[bauc]

I'm just glad that all of the rumors that we heard about Honda not being ready with their PU and that they are almost 3 months behind schedule came false with the demo drive yesterday at Silverstone

[ian_s]

the PU they ran at silverstone could have been 100hp down and running no ERS, for all we know. just because it ran in a car, doesnt mean its running on schedule.

[Manoah2u]

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

credit goes to vinsg for posting in the Mclaren thread

[Manoah2u]

I still think no matter how well Mercedes tries to keep things secret, the data about their engine can be either directly observed or calculated/deducted. The question is how much Honda would need it but surely it won't be worse knowing what the greatest engine is doing. At least they have a lot better reference points than Renault and Ferrari.

in basic, the specific rules to which the engine must comply [displacement, fuel flow, etc etc] don't allow for a very 'wide variety' of engine design possibilities. With that, it means that both the Ferrari, Renault and Merc engine all will have certain similarities. Therefore, you'll have somewhat of a base formula to which all engines will have to comply.

Now Honda is arguably in the best position for their engine development; they have the benefit of having Mclaren intel on the Merc powerplant; something other engine providers simply do not have.

I'd say of all teams Honda will have the best judgement on how to benefit from Mercedes' engine, which obviously is by far the strongest this year.

It's not like either renault, ferrari or honda can make a carbon-copy of the Merc engine. Frankly, that's impossible, not the least because of the 'spirit of the design' mercedes has for their engine [ in other words; mclaren years ago got a huge benefit from f-duct but it only worked because the entire chassis was built upon this concept. other teams have mimiced this but could not benefit the way mclaren could because they did not have it as their 'design spirit' - thus you can make use of someone else's tricks, but it takes more to get the same advantage].

However, Mercedes' split-turbo design is very interesting and no doubt Ferrari and Renault will be interested in mimicing this 'device', and so will Honda. The position Honda is in, in regards to Mclaren sharing the knowledge (even how little that may be) of the Merc powerplant, will grant them a huge benefit in comparison to Ferrari and Renault, whom both are far out of Merc's engine reach.

I dare to say the Honda powerplant will outperform the Renault and Ferrari engines straight away. Not only that - I'm having the feeling they can actually pose an immediate threat to Mercedes.

I feed this thought / theory also by the mentioning that Hamilton contract talks have started today instead of on Monday, as originally mentioned in news articles. Could Mercedes be fearing Lewis might actually learn that the Honda engine is so good that Mclaren is a real threat to Merc in 2015 - perhaps MCL even has gained data from the Silverstone test that Lewis might have better chances for another shot for his WDC title in 2015 with Mclaren Honda?

anyway, without intending to turn this into a silly season fusion -

the smoke as seen in the silverstone vid, is this smoke from braking or smoke from wheelspin?

[sectionate]

I wonder if McLaren will have picked up any of Merc's design ideas for next year through overhearing the Merc engineers...

[gary123]

the smoke as seen in the silverstone vid, is this smoke from braking or smoke from wheelspin?

Wheelspin. The track is wet because it rained in the morning.

[noname]

However, Mercedes' split-turbo design is very interesting and no doubt Ferrari and Renault will be interested in mimicing this 'device', and so will Honda.

Mercedes domination has little, if anything, with the turbo architecture they choose being superior. Both concepts have their pros and cons, some of them are non technical. I suppose one of the reason Mercedes decided to go this path, and did it successfully, was they developed entire PU in house. And seems like chassis and PO teams were working really well together.

For Renault and Ferrari switching to different architecture would mean necessity to face quite a lot of challenges they are not even aware of, challenges Merc solved years ago. They spent years working on their systems, they built good understanding of them. Building on this knowledge is IMHO wiser choice.

[turbof1]

However, Mercedes' split-turbo design is very interesting and no doubt Ferrari and Renault will be interested in mimicing this 'device', and so will Honda.

Mercedes domination has little, if anything, with the turbo architecture they choose being superior. Both concepts have their pros and cons, some of them are non technical. I suppose one of the reason Mercedes decided to go this path, and did it successfully, was they developed entire PU in house. And seems like chassis and PO teams were working really well together.

For Renault and Ferrari switching to different architecture would mean necessity to face quite a lot of challenges they are not even aware of, challenges Merc solved years ago. They spent years working on their systems, they built good understanding of them. Building on this knowledge is IMHO wiser choice.

It's still a part of the reason, although Ferrari did stumbled on the concept as well. However Ferrari too did develop the chassis in tandem with the PU and they are clearly behind in both power and aero.

Ferrari specifically has to deal with a too small turbo, and some other less obvious things.

[Blackout]

However, Mercedes' split-turbo design is very interesting and no doubt Ferrari and Renault will be interested in mimicing this 'device', and so will Honda.

Mercedes domination has little, if anything, with the turbo architecture they choose being superior. Both concepts have their pros and cons

Are you serieous?
The Merc architecture has far more pros ans far less cons compared to the other architectures. Even the gearbox can be stiffer and/or lighter thanks to that architecture. Regarding weight distribution, stiffness, cooling, turbo lag, Ters power management, drag, consumption, weight etc, the Merc arcitecture provides so many benefits. They optimised almost every thing.
The architecture alone explains a lot of their domination.

Yes they build 'every' thing in house. they have a chassis team, made a single PU for their 4 teams... just like Ferrari did. And just like Ferrari, they have experience with (K)ERS...
Renault in the other hand, had far less experience with the ERS, worked on 4 different iterations of the PU for their 4 teams, and had no chassis team. They procuced a very classic and universal PU...

[Cold Fussion]

Why does a split turbo allow for a smaller gearbox?

[xpensive]

However, Mercedes' split-turbo design is very interesting and no doubt Ferrari and Renault will be interested in mimicing this 'device', and so will Honda.

Mercedes domination has little, if anything, with the turbo architecture they choose being superior. Both concepts have their pros and cons, some of them are non technical.
...

Au contraire, it has everything to do with their superiority, I'm still certain that they have a clutch, which the spannerman (Whiting) mindlessly approved upon some years back. This way they can disconnect the turbine to reduce inertia and speed up the compressor with the MGU-H only, which in turn allows the use of log-xhausts, all in all dramatically improving throttle-response and packaging.

[Blackout]

Why does a split turbo allow for a smaller gearbox?

The gearbox isnt really smaller IMO.
As you know, in the classic/Renault layout, the Gearbox casing hosts the turbine, the compressor and the compressor's airbox/duct. These alements obviously take more place than the Merc layout where the Gbox only containes a turbine. That means the Merc Gbox has less weight lying behind the engine and this weight (turbine and Gbox internals) is closer to the car's COG.
On top of that, a Renault/Ferrari Gbox needs bigger holes to accomodate the tubo<->engine pipework (exhaust and compressor pipes) so it reduces it's stiffness making the engineers add more stiffness and weight... In addition to that, a Merc Gbox probably has a smaller/thinner footprint on the floor compared to an encumbered Renault/Ferrari gearbox...

[noname]

Why does a split turbo allow for a smaller gearbox?

As you know, in the classic/Renault layout, the Gearbox casing hosts the turbine, the compressor and the compressor's airbox/duct.

Those turbos are not inside the casing.They are separate units, and they are located above the gearbox. None of the ducts goes through gearbox.

[Cold Fussion]

Why does a split turbo allow for a smaller gearbox?

The gearbox isnt really smaller IMO.
As you know, in the classic/Renault layout, the Gearbox casing hosts the turbine, the compressor and the compressor's airbox/duct. These alements obviously take more place than the Merc layout where the Gbox only containes a turbine. That means the Merc Gbox has less weight lying behind the engine and this weight (turbine and Gbox internals) is closer to the car's COG.

Where are you getting this idea from? None of the renderings have shown such a layout and I don't remember seeing any photos of the gearbox casing housing the turbo.

[Blackout]

Why does a split turbo allow for a smaller gearbox?

As you know, in the classic/Renault layout, the Gearbox casing hosts the turbine, the compressor and the compressor's airbox/duct.

Those turbos are not inside the casing.They are separate units, and they are located above the gearbox. None of the ducts goes through gearbox.

Nope the turbos hang almost completely inside the Gearbox casing. Only the Ferrari Gbox has no 'holes' beacause the exhaust pipes join the turbine above the Gbox.
The E22 Gbox, holes and engine mounting points:


Compared to the V8 casing


Look at the Williams turbine outlet...


Look at the Merc's turbine, it lies below the upper Gbox-to-engine mounting points: