Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[godlameroso]

So how do you shift a turbine's most efficient RPM from 110-135k to 45-60k as you are saying?

By making a better compressor that delivers more airflow per rpm, easiest way is to make the compressor bigger, more challenging is to design a better impeller and compressor housing. This goes double for the turbine. Now to make a turbine that fulfills all those criteria while minimizing backpressure. Because I imagine if you make a turbine that's too small you'd shift peak boost but also increase back pressure. You would have to size your turbine large enough to avoid back pressure, relying on MGU-H motor mode to keep the turbo at the right rpm until engine exhaust gas is enough to take over somewhere around 7,000 - 8,000 rpm where peak crankshaft torque is generated.

[gruntguru]

Biggest isn't most efficient, most efficient is turbine with lowest back pressure possible, with compressor that makes the highest needed boost pressure at lowest rpm over widest margin possible, only then can you maximize mgu-h harvesting. If you get this right you can have an extra 160hp for the whole race distance.

If max mgu-h speed is 125,000 rpm, and your turbo is making max boost between 45,000 and 60,000 rpm, and you overdrive the mgu-h to it's max speed, you have the potential to generate much more electricity than if your turbo makes max boost at 110-135k rpm. It's not hard to see how.

by godlameroso » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:41 am

Per wrote:So how do you shift a turbine's most efficient RPM from 110-135k to 45-60k as you are saying?

By making a better compressor that delivers more airflow per rpm, easiest way is to make the compressor bigger, more challenging is to design a better impeller and compressor housing. This goes double for the turbine. Now to make a turbine that fulfills all those criteria while minimizing backpressure. Because I imagine if you make a turbine that's too small you'd shift peak boost but also increase back pressure. You would have to size your turbine large enough to avoid back pressure, relying on MGU-H motor mode to keep the turbo at the right rpm until engine exhaust gas is enough to take over somewhere around 7,000 - 8,000 rpm where peak crankshaft torque is generated.

This is all so wrong. Please stop presenting stuff as fact when it is based on your own intuition or opinion.

Have a look at a compressor map. If the compressor is making "max boost" at 45 - 60 k rpm it will make four times that boost at 120 k.

Turbine and compressor technology are very mature. Honda (or any F1 team) are not advancing these technologies. They are not designing better impellers and compressor housings. Minimising turbine backpressure and sizing turbines and compressors has been happening for over 100 years. There just isn't 50 hp or even 20 hp to be found in these areas.

The small differences that exist from team to team in this area are in the matching of turbomachinery to the vast range of operating points of the ICE and the PU as a whole.

[godlameroso]

You're the one that keeps saying you can't think of these engines as just turbocharged engines, you are not even considering why the turbo needs to be sized in this specific way. I'll let you explain why moving to larger more efficient turbos would help heat recovery then. I promise I won't say another word on the subject, just please answer me this, why does a larger more efficient turbo aid heat recovery?

[hemichromis]

Biggest isn't most efficient, most efficient is turbine with lowest back pressure possible, with compressor that makes the highest needed boost pressure at lowest rpm over widest margin possible, only then can you maximize mgu-h harvesting. If you get this right you can have an extra 160hp for the whole race distance.

If max mgu-h speed is 125,000 rpm, and your turbo is making max boost between 45,000 and 60,000 rpm, and you overdrive the mgu-h to it's max speed, you have the potential to generate much more electricity than if your turbo makes max boost at 110-135k rpm. It's not hard to see how.

A turbo that makes max boost at 45-60,000 rpm would need to be well over double the size of one that achieves the same boost at 125,000 rpm would it not?

I also don't understand what you mean by 'overdriving' the MGU-H and why a slower spinning turbo will assist with that.
Are you alluding to the MGU-H rpm limit?

[Lucky]

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/02 ... i-sui.html

[Joseki]

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/02 ... i-sui.html

Ok I'm italian so I can do a recap of the article. It start with the 2015 problem Honda had, battery, turbine not working at the correct speed, the MGU-H, the overheating problems and the low efficiency of the energy transfer from MGU-H to MGU-K.

Then there are some infos about the 2016 PU:

* The layout will stay pretty much the same.

* They redesigned the turbocompressor (made in 2015 and for this season by IHI), the battery, the cooling system and both MGU.

*After the tests on dyno they had good results on power, also thanks to Mobil, they recovered most of the 30 bhp ICE gap but they are still not on par with Mercedes and Ferrari.

* There are still urgent reliability issues to solve.

* Both MGU-H and MGU-K are still not as efficient as Mercedes and Ferrari while they are generating power.

* The energy transfer are still not as efficient as Mercedes, and they say something I'm not able to translate 'cause I don't have the technical knowledge ("Tutte queste “trasformazioni” di corrente elettrica, realizzate grazie all'uso di un inverter, sarebbe preferibilmente eseguirle a voltaggi elevati per evitare problemi dal punto di vista termico. Honda ha provato ad alzare i propri voltaggi, cercando di superare i 500 V (Mercedes lavora quasi a 700 V)" = "All THESE " Transformations " of electrical current , realized through the use of an inverter , would preferably execute a High voltage for AVOID Problems from the thermal point of view . Honda tried to Raise their voltages , Trying to Overcome the 500 V ( Mercedes works almost a 700 V )". Thanks Google Translate). This is causing reliabilty issues.



The article ends with some consideration about Ferrari and Honda: the reliability issues can harm pretty badly their season with just 8 days of testing.





I hope Wazari can confirm or dismiss this post.

[GoranF1]

Mercedes doesnt believe in "size sub zero"

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... pt-672435/

[Blackout]

Yeah you can say the Merc layout is size zero and the Honda is size sub zero.

People and journos forget how compact* the Merc PU is and how short the distance between its turbine and exhaust /compresor and intercooler /intercooler and intake plenum is...

*at he back of the PU, the merc turbine and exhaust do not clutter the gearbox area much, like the Honda. And the coque-integrated intercooler and its water rad do not clutter the sidepods, unlike the Honda. The only busy area in the Merc is the front of the V6/back bulckhead of the coque, but things are not much more cumbersome there as the Honda if you look closely...
Thats why the Merc PU, from the most forward tip to the very back, is very short, like the Honda. But must be tighter if you look at it from the front or the top thanks to it cooling layout.

[GoranF1]

http://www.f1analisitecnica.com/2016/02 ... i-sui.html

Ok I'm italian so I can do a recap of the article. It start with the 2015 problem Honda had, battery, turbine not working at the correct speed, the MGU-H, the overheating problems and the low efficiency of the energy transfer from MGU-H to MGU-K.

Then there are some infos about the 2016 PU:

* The layout will stay pretty much the same.

* They redesigned the turbocompressor (made in 2015 and for this season by IHI), the battery, the cooling system and both MGU.

*After the tests on dyno they had good results on power, also thanks to Mobil, they recovered most of the 30 bhp ICE gap but they are still not on par with Mercedes and Ferrari.

* There are still urgent reliability issues to solve.

* Both MGU-H and MGU-K are still not as efficient as Mercedes and Ferrari while they are generating power.

* The energy transfer are still not as efficient as Mercedes, and they say something I'm not able to translate 'cause I don't have the technical knowledge ("Tutte queste “trasformazioni” di corrente elettrica, realizzate grazie all'uso di un inverter, sarebbe preferibilmente eseguirle a voltaggi elevati per evitare problemi dal punto di vista termico. Honda ha provato ad alzare i propri voltaggi, cercando di superare i 500 V (Mercedes lavora quasi a 700 V)" = "All THESE " Transformations " of electrical current , realized through the use of an inverter , would preferably execute a High voltage for AVOID Problems from the thermal point of view . Honda tried to Raise their voltages , Trying to Overcome the 500 V ( Mercedes works almost a 700 V )". Thanks Google Translate). This is causing reliabilty issues.



The article ends with some consideration about Ferrari and Honda: the reliability issues can harm pretty badly their season with just 8 days of testing.





I hope Wazari can confirm or dismiss this post.

as a Mclaren Honda fan i will take the power whit poor reability despite 2015....

[godlameroso]

More voltage means you can send less current and still have the same power. I think the regulations limit voltage to 1,000 volts but this could just be the ES.

[livinglikethathuh]

It's the same logic as electric train power lines have 25000V on them. That's how they are able to power trains with thin wires and have acceptable losses in the wire.
There may be something lost in the translation, but if Honda really is routing all power through an inverter, they will be losing quite a lot in MGU-H-->MGU-K power flow. Mercedes probably only regulates its voltage through a transformer and sends it to the -K.
P.S. I'm a layman in electronics, someone with better knowledge may say I'm wrong, this is just my reasoning.

P.P.S. The only thing that comes to my mind when people say sub-zero is this;

[basti313]

More voltage means you can send less current and still have the same power. I think the regulations limit voltage to 1,000 volts but this could just be the ES.

The problem with 500V sounds like the usual border. We are building measurement electronics and most parts are specified up to 500V. When we want to cross these 500V everything gets harder...cost is an issue for us, not for F1 but the size and the weight is definitely a problem in F1. Also the efficiency drops once we go away from standard 500V electronics.

There may be something lost in the translation, but if Honda really is routing all power through an inverter, they will be losing quite a lot in MGU-H-->MGU-K power flow. Mercedes probably only regulates its voltage through a transformer and sends it to the -K.

No, you are bound to an inverter. Using DC parts is no option due to cooling and efficiency and you always need charging electronics supplying clean DC to the battery. So the inverster option with K and H running in arbitrary AC frequency is the best option.

[livinglikethathuh]

^ With the MGU-K and H both operating AC, why is there a need to convert to DC? From ES to -H or -K I can understand but not this.
Am I missing something?

[Craigy]

More voltage means you can send less current and still have the same power. I think the regulations limit voltage to 1,000 volts but this could just be the ES.

Also - Less current means smaller, lighter cables and less heating of them. It does mean that the chances of sparking goes up, so insulation by design and materials becomes more of a factor, adding complexity. In F1, "lighter" and "higher performance" trumps simplicity.

[smlbstcbr]

^ With the MGU-K and H both operating AC, why is there a need to convert to DC? From ES to -H or -K I can understand but not this.
Am I missing something?

Frequency wouldn't be constant, they would need to design components for working in a range of frequencies. Rectifying the voltage solves this problem and delivers DC power, which can be inverted to any AC frequency or used in almost anything. Plus, working with AC has some drawbacks, the main one being the power factor.