Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[basti313]

Marca is reporting some idiotic rumors: Honda has a pool of 8 complete power units just for testing.

Why idiotic? As far as I know this is old news and a realistic number if they want to go a good milage like 100laps per day. With the reliability of last year one engine per day is not enough.

[Joseki]

Marca is reporting some idiotic rumors: Honda has a pool of 8 complete power units just for testing.

Why idiotic? As far as I know this is old news and a realistic number if they want to go a good milage like 100laps per day. With the reliability of last year one engine per day is not enough.

Last year they used 2 power units for 3 testing sessions.

[drunkf1fan]

Marca is reporting some idiotic rumors: Honda has a pool of 8 complete power units just for testing.

Why idiotic? As far as I know this is old news and a realistic number if they want to go a good milage like 100laps per day. With the reliability of last year one engine per day is not enough.

Last year they used 2 power units for 3 testing sessions.

A large part of that was that they couldn't actually run. The car had a lot of electronic problems on top of engine problems. Electronic problems on what should be more of an evolution of last years chassis and systems should have far far fewer electronic failures and as such would be much more likely to be able to run more miles.

With Honda's track record and inability to find reliability problems on the dyno rather than the track and with last years engine barely able to do a race without blowing up they could easily be in a situation where they need way more than 2 engines across all the tests.

This has been my main concern for Honda, they didn't find the majority of the reliability problems on the dyno for the start of the season but the new mgu-h/compressor used in Canada which was also tested on the dyno was even less reliable. The engine continued to be unreliable all year which to me points to a problem with their testing. Merc/Ferrari managed to find the massive majority of problems on the dyno and brought a reliable engine to the track. I hope they've addressed it but I think it's fairly likely they'll have problems which means testing could be a different kind of bad to last year. Last year they didn't run enough to blow up engines, this year they might run enough to blow up a bunch of engines.

[PABLOEING]

The question will be the number of tokens in his first 2016 Spec engine......and the remaining tokens for the rest of the season

[damager21]

I think all the news we are getting to read about Honda these days are sheer speculation. I don't see journalists getting any details from manufacturers or teams about their new car.

Literally every week there is some news or the other about Honda. It started with Honda having cracked its ERS problem and producing 223bhp more than last year. The moment Honda issued a statement that this is not true, everyone started talking negative. The engine is facing major reliability issues, the performance on dyno is not as expected, new engine will not be ready for the first test, Honda already thinking about using more than 5 engines during the year, size zero as a concept is obsolete and now we hear that they have 8 engines available for the test.

Its all about shooting in the dark, if they get it right they will claim that they were the first ones to break this news. On the contrary if Honda was to come up a high performance reliable engine, no one is gonna question these journalists. So nothing to loose.

[drunkf1fan]

The question will be the number of tokens in his first 2016 Spec engine......and the remaining tokens for the rest of the season

I can't see it mattering too much, unless they are just not admitting a large change in concept and using all the tokens to create a engine without the compressor in the V then if the engine isn't good at the start of the season I can't see any limited number of tokens changing that during the season. If it starts a bad engine it will finish a slightly better bad engine, if it starts a good engine then it will finish a slightly better good engine.

I do wonder if privately they know compressor in the V is dead, they don't have enough time rather than tokens to make a good enough and well tested new concept engine so have to stick out another year before they can bring a completely new concept in 2017 with no tokens and also the extra time to work on it.

[OO7]

There is no big power increase to be had from the minute efficiency increase that goes with a larger compressor or turbine. On the other hand, if the size is arbitrarily increased so that the flow capacity is no longer a perfect match for the engine airflow, there will be a large loss of efficiency. Have another look at the map. The best efficiency is only obtained over a very small range of flow (x-axis) and boost (y-axis).

The reason Honda is going to a bigger turbo this year is - they got it wrong last year.

Turbine sizing is a similar situation BTW. The mass flow and temperature of exhaust gas will dictate the size (swallowing capacity) of the turbine. From there, the engine developer will select the turbine housing to find the best compromise between - "low back pressure" (good for engine power) and "high back pressure" (good for turbine power). There is a lot of talk about using a "bigger turbine" to make more MGUH power but the fact is "more turbine power" requires a smaller, more-restrictive turbine nozzle (turbine housing).

How much of a difference would variable geometry systems make (I understand that the regs currently forbid such devices).

[Facts Only]

There is no big power increase to be had from the minute efficiency increase that goes with a larger compressor or turbine. On the other hand, if the size is arbitrarily increased so that the flow capacity is no longer a perfect match for the engine airflow, there will be a large loss of efficiency. Have another look at the map. The best efficiency is only obtained over a very small range of flow (x-axis) and boost (y-axis).

The reason Honda is going to a bigger turbo this year is - they got it wrong last year.

Turbine sizing is a similar situation BTW. The mass flow and temperature of exhaust gas will dictate the size (swallowing capacity) of the turbine. From there, the engine developer will select the turbine housing to find the best compromise between - "low back pressure" (good for engine power) and "high back pressure" (good for turbine power). There is a lot of talk about using a "bigger turbine" to make more MGUH power but the fact is "more turbine power" requires a smaller, more-restrictive turbine nozzle (turbine housing).

How much of a difference would variable geometry systems make (I understand that the regs currently forbid such devices).

Variable geometry turbos are there to increase the size of the map, they really are there to benefit road cars and especially trucks with large operating windows. F1 Turbos are designed to run at an optimum efficiency all of the time. Adding veins and such like into the Turbine/Compressor housing just adds a blockage and reduces peak efficiency. Even if they were allowed they wouldn't be used, well that was our view anyway.

[OO7]

Variable geometry turbos are there to increase the size of the map, they really are there to benefit road cars and especially trucks with large operating windows. F1 Turbos are designed to run at an optimum efficiency all of the time. Adding veins and such like into the Turbine/Compressor housing just adds a blockage and reduces peak efficiency. Even if they were allowed they wouldn't be used, well that was our view anyway.

Assuming the only restriction on the PU relating to the turbo was that there could only be one, but multiple stages, variable speeds between potential stages, compressor and turbine etc were allowed, what do you think we would be seeing?

[godlameroso]

Variable geometry turbos are there to increase the size of the map, they really are there to benefit road cars and especially trucks with large operating windows. F1 Turbos are designed to run at an optimum efficiency all of the time. Adding veins and such like into the Turbine/Compressor housing just adds a blockage and reduces peak efficiency. Even if they were allowed they wouldn't be used, well that was our view anyway.

Assuming the only restriction on the PU relating to the turbo was that there could only be one, but multiple stages, variable speeds between potential stages, compressor and turbine etc were allowed, what do you think we would be seeing?

Those technologies are there to reduce lag, but the MGU-H is much better at it than any of those systems you mentioned. Money would be better spent in making the ICE more efficient, you're limited by fuel flow so you can only get so much power from the ICE. Maximize ICE power means more heat energy to recover.

[Facts Only]

Variable geometry turbos are there to increase the size of the map, they really are there to benefit road cars and especially trucks with large operating windows. F1 Turbos are designed to run at an optimum efficiency all of the time. Adding veins and such like into the Turbine/Compressor housing just adds a blockage and reduces peak efficiency. Even if they were allowed they wouldn't be used, well that was our view anyway.

Assuming the only restriction on the PU relating to the turbo was that there could only be one, but multiple stages, variable speeds between potential stages, compressor and turbine etc were allowed, what do you think we would be seeing?

I'm pretty sure we would have what we have now. Most of the things you mention are to maximise the driveability and compressor map size as well as response.

The only thing that I think is really restricting what teams would like to do is the rules on the placement of the turbo (on the centre plane paralelle to it) and the tailpipe rules if those rules weren't in place we would have some very interesting layouts.

My guess would be down on the floor in front of the engine sitting transverse blowing the exhaust straight out into the floor.

[Bence]

Wazari, what do you know about the parallel programs; ie. smaller compressor in the V-valley or the bigger compressor outside? AFAIK there were two separate development paths, but when and how did the finalized version win? How was/is their development potential? Or are they going to track test both concepts? What happened to their plans where they wanted to bolt an engine into a Super Formula car for realistic testing purposes?

[OO7]

Thanks Facts Only and godlameroso.

[Wazari]

Mr. Bence, I don't know if I fully understand your question. From my understanding, having the compressor outside the "vee" was never a consideration once the packaging requirements from McLaren were disclosed. Development potential? Track test both concepts? I don't know what you mean by development potential and there is only one design of the PU??

I don't think Honda ever had plans to fit their F1 PU into a Super Formula car. I think that was all a "what if" conjured up by some media people. I don't know if the FIA would allow that.

[hemichromis]

Wazari, what do you know about the parallel programs; ie. smaller compressor in the V-valley or the bigger compressor outside? AFAIK there were two separate development paths, but when and how did the finalized version win? How was/is their development potential? Or are they going to track test both concepts? What happened to their plans where they wanted to bolt an engine into a Super Formula car for realistic testing purposes?

Many people seem to assume that manufacturers should be emulating Mercedes with there split turbo and compressor outside of the Vee, the manufacturers seem to disagree.