Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Thunder]

@GoranF1: I'm saving Wazari some work here as i'm pretty sure everything about these "sources" has been said. Especially TJ13.

The items I have posted are what I understand to be IMO accurate and from reliable sources within Honda. Also unless it's coming from Honda or McLaren personnel, all the other stuff I would consider to be pure speculation which media is infamous for doing. The items I have posted I really wouldn't consider "earth shattering" news either.

The 223 HP figure was very clever. IMO it's just another way of saying Honda found 60 HP increase from their ICE which is plausible but again IMO maybe a little optimistic.

Really testing will be the initial tell all. Everyone at McLaren-Honda is working at a frenzied pace. I understand that initial dyno results have met or exceeded expectations. Few minor issues as expected, from what I understand mostly sensor related issues.

I am excited to see the results of the first test days and see what the gap is between Mercedes and the others.

Also from me:
The Dyno is exactly the place where you want Parts to fail, that's the very reason they are used. So i'm not in the slightest shocked to i hear Turbos fail on the Dyno.

[1nver]

make the right job i wait them to others level after symmer break maybe.....

Yeah, like the last year

[turbof1]

Oh dear god, is TJ13 on that as well? *shivers*

If they can reliably drive race distances or mileage similar to race distances the first few days, I think that would be a very good indication where they are. Nobody runs the PU in full performance right off the bat.

[GoranF1]

I agree whit you guys....and the thing is the "incoming" news or rumors are exactly the opposite of what they were last year...the official quotes from Honda are also opposite of last year....so i thing situation on track might be opposite as well.

[PlatinumZealot]

You really need to treat the compressor and turbine as two separate components when you discuss their sizing. The only thing they have in common is their RPM.

. . . . and the massflow. Turbine massflow is always equal to compressor massflow plus fuel flow (about 4 or 5% extra)
. . . . and the pressure ratio. Turbine PR cannot be a lot different to compressor PR.

Exhaust flow, pressure ratio and temperature dictate the turbine size.

From my own experience the compressor PR and turbine PR don't always run close PR numbers. Depending on rpm, boost there can be as much as a 30% difference.

My DD turbo Talon, compressor PR verse turbine PR is
30% PR difference @ 4500 rpm@25 lbs.
12% PR difference @ 5500rpm@28lbs.
9% PR difference @ 6500rpm@28lbs.
0% PR difference @ 7500rpm@28lbs.
9% PR difference @ 8500rpm@28lbs.
Now on this setup its kinda a hybrid turbo, but even when I match the compressor size more to the turbine size the numbers on my turbo simulator show a higher PR % difference.

I have a lot more examples from customer cars with data logs showing more of the same.

Did you have four pressure sensors? Inlet and entry for both compressor and turbine? Or was it all compared to atmospheric pressure... remember the losses in the intake and exhaust pipe is significant so you might get different numbers. But anyway I do agree that the PR can be different.

[PlatinumZealot]

We keep on talking about the gross output of these PU's , but taking into account the complexity of the tuning they entrail, I bet the killer punch is within the software.

The more predictive and automatic, the better. I do not know how much telemetry and mapping are regulared but these engines ask for constant managing, it's in their essence. When managing how much do you harvest at any point within the track, without a powerful software, you'll end spending a lot of workforce, budget, time, in the same task your competitor spends a mouse click.

I mean, there's a lot to tweak: fuel, fuel flow, harvesting in it's various forms... How much grip, how cool is the air... And then more strategic layers, what do we want, how do we defend against X. All comes in the end on how much and how easily you can translate that into fine track-specific tuning.

As I see it, those factors are well known individually, but difficult to manage as an orchestra without a tool.

And this software must be fed with good data from experienced engineers. This new formula is certainly a challenge, no wonder Honda prefers keeping everything in house.

This is why I think Honda struggled so much in the beginning. It's not their prowess as engineers, it's perhaps they lacked a team dealing with the organizational engineering part.

It is the combustion that makes the most difference.. it is a knock on effect of inefficiencies if your combustion is not right. The software part is easier and cheaper to sort out within a given time of than the combustion and electrical hardware.

[ringo]

You really need to treat the compressor and turbine as two separate components when you discuss their sizing. The only thing they have in common is their RPM.

. . . . and the massflow. Turbine massflow is always equal to compressor massflow plus fuel flow (about 4 or 5% extra)
. . . . and the pressure ratio. Turbine PR cannot be a lot different to compressor PR.

Exhaust flow, pressure ratio and temperature dictate the turbine size.

You are probably thinking a proper gas turbine that has constant pressure combustion.

Because you have the engine's pistons in between, and also isochoric combustion, you will have a much different pressure ratio; depending on your piston compression ratio and also the gas pressure as the gases pass through the exhausts to the turbine. There really isn't the same relation as you would have with a Breyton Cycle.

[Wazari]

Thank you Thunders . Again, my question would be, where is this "information" coming from? How do you define "highly unreliable" from dyno tests? Who is Marco Canceso and what is his source from Honda?

It all boils down to what happens on the track. New turbine, ECU, compressor, MGU-H/K, ICE, revised cooling, new bodywork, new suspension, etc., how does it all work together? No one knows....... Most importantly the livery. Livery changes can account for 1 to 2 seconds according to some publications and they're always correct

[ringo]

Hi Wazari,

I am very curious about last years MGUH. Why did it not work as intended?
Was there a major oversight from the emech engineers working on that machine?
It's difficult to understand why the MGUH simply couldn't harvest from the turbo rotor. i'm not sure if it's down to thermal issues, or simply poor and mismatched design.
Could you shed some light on that please.

[pgfpro]

. . . . and the massflow. Turbine massflow is always equal to compressor massflow plus fuel flow (about 4 or 5% extra)
. . . . and the pressure ratio. Turbine PR cannot be a lot different to compressor PR.

Exhaust flow, pressure ratio and temperature dictate the turbine size.

From my own experience the compressor PR and turbine PR don't always run close PR numbers. Depending on rpm, boost there can be as much as a 30% difference.

My DD turbo Talon, compressor PR verse turbine PR is
30% PR difference @ 4500 rpm@25 lbs.
12% PR difference @ 5500rpm@28lbs.
9% PR difference @ 6500rpm@28lbs.
0% PR difference @ 7500rpm@28lbs.
9% PR difference @ 8500rpm@28lbs.
Now on this setup its kinda a hybrid turbo, but even when I match the compressor size more to the turbine size the numbers on my turbo simulator show a higher PR % difference.

I have a lot more examples from customer cars with data logs showing more of the same.

Did you have four pressure sensors? Inlet and entry for both compressor and turbine? Or was it all compared to atmospheric pressure... remember the losses in the intake and exhaust pipe is significant so you might get different numbers. But anyway I do agree that the PR can be different.

Actually nine sensors. Two compressors inlet and outlet. Two turbine inlet and outlet. One wheel speed sensor on the compressor side. I did this for data reasons when I was running my stage compound system. The example above is now just my single turbo system with five sensors.

Most radial turbo manufacturers well tell you anything past 40% PR difference on either side of 0 will be a poor compressor turbine match.

[kptaylor]

@Wazari,opinion?

http://thejudge13.com/2016/02/17/honda- ... -continue/" target="_blank

Same Marca source that's been talked about. Also, one would have expected the budget to increase as Honda doesn't want a replay of 2015 in order to save face in 2016.

[pgfpro]

delete

[Andres125sx]

Thank you Thunders . Again, my question would be, where is this "information" coming from? How do you define "highly unreliable" from dyno tests? Who is Marco Canceso and what is his source from Honda?

It all boils down to what happens on the track. New turbine, ECU, compressor, MGU-H/K, ICE, revised cooling, new bodywork, new suspension, etc., how does it all work together? No one knows....... Most importantly the livery. Livery changes can account for 1 to 2 seconds according to some publications and they're always correct

It wouldn´t surprise me if his source is Alonso, as they stated in the article he´s active on the factory following the development process

I know you must be thinking it´s not good for Honda publishing this kind of info, when it´s just part of the R&D process and the only real fact wich should be judged is on track perfomance, but this is F1T, we can´t wait to see the car on track, we need more info about how the development process is going

BTW, not sure how other people will take this (if we assume it´s true), but to me this are the news I was expecting. When you need to re-build a whole part of your product/engine, you undoubtedly will find unintended consequences. Nobody with a brain will expect going from 2-2,5second per lap slower car/PU to a competitive PU with no reliability problems in one winter. To me if they really are competitive but have some reliability problems, that means they´re doing a great job and that´s the route to continue, the only way to, sooner or later, compete with Mercedes

[godlameroso]

pgfpro is your setup biased on the compressor or turbine side?

[pgfpro]

pgfpro is your setup biased on the compressor or turbine side?

Sorry I don't understand the question???