Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[pgfpro]

Is the pressure ratio biased towards the compressor or turbine. When you say 30%, does that mean the PR is 30% higher on the compressor side or the turbine side? Sorry I realize now it's a silly question.

OK I understand now;)
30% PR difference @ 4500 rpm@25 lbs. higher on the compressor side then turbine (9 engine delta pressure)
12% PR difference @ 5500rpm@28lbs. higher on the compressor side then turbine (5 engine delta pressure)
9% PR difference @ 6500rpm@28lbs. higher on the compressor side then turbine (2 engine delta pressure)
0% PR difference @ 7500rpm@28lbs. same (-2 engine delta pressure)
9% PR difference @ 8500rpm@28lbs. lower on the compressor side then turbine(-6 engine delta pressure)

[FW17]

.

There was a lot of clamor last year about Honda using an SF14 to test there engine

So did Honda ever put any part of the engine on the SF14 like the turbo and MGUH unit or a prototype head design?

[Wazari]

.

There was a lot of clamor last year about Honda using an SF14 to test there engine

So did Honda ever put any part of the engine on the SF14 like the turbo and MGUH unit or a prototype head design?

I have not heard of any components from the F1 PU being fitted to the inline 4 engine which I don't see as being possible nor have I heard of the F1 PU being bolted on to the Dallara chassis.

[krisfx]

.

There was a lot of clamor last year about Honda using an SF14 to test there engine

So did Honda ever put any part of the engine on the SF14 like the turbo and MGUH unit or a prototype head design?

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... -super-gt/

I believe their Super GT car was used for PU concepts if RCE are anything to go by.

[Postmoe]

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.

Good software is expensive enough. If you want to manage your combustion tunes on the go and with more than an excel sheet, of course. I mean, you want to have certain levels of automation and predictive analytics so you can put your ressources in other areas. That's why a supply chain solution starts at 100K for the smalest company.

[Lucky]

http://www.inautonews.com/mclaren-honda ... -barcelona?

[Thunder]

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partner ... -17894562/

More than 900 bhp they say..... It's on.

[OO7]

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partner ... -17894562/

More than 900 bhp they say..... It's on.

They mentioned 'a Formula 1 engine', not the Honda Formula 1 engine, giving us leeway for creative interpretation.

[Del Boy]

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.

Good software is expensive enough. If you want to manage your combustion tunes on the go and with more than an excel sheet, of course. I mean, you want to have certain levels of automation and predictive analytics so you can put your ressources in other areas. That's why a supply chain solution starts at 100K for the smalest company.

I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I thought software has to FIA approved and be used in the standard FIA designated (supplied by McLaren electronics) ECU.
2016 technical regulations 8.2.1 Control electronics

[mikeerfol]

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partner ... -17894562/

More than 900 bhp they say..... It's on.

They mentioned 'a Formula 1 engine', not the Honda Formula 1 engine, giving them leeway for creative interpretation.

Exactly, we know the Honda engine is something between GP2 and F1

[Wazari]

McLaren Honda will not be taking any 2015 ICE or PU's to Barcelona, only new 2016 PU's.

Oh sorry, I didn't see the above article when I posted this originally.

[Thunder18]

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partner ... -17894562/

More than 900 bhp they say..... It's on.

They mentioned 'a Formula 1 engine', not the Honda Formula 1 engine, giving them leeway for creative interpretation.

Add the hybrid energy to the mix too then,

[taperoo2k]

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.

Good software is expensive enough. If you want to manage your combustion tunes on the go and with more than an excel sheet, of course. I mean, you want to have certain levels of automation and predictive analytics so you can put your ressources in other areas. That's why a supply chain solution starts at 100K for the smalest company.

I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I thought software has to FIA approved and be used in the standard FIA designated (supplied by McLaren electronics) ECU.
2016 technical regulations 8.2.1 Control electronics

I believe teams can run their own code on the ECU but it has to be FIA approved and is restricted so a team can't develop software that controls traction as an example. Everything else is to do with the ECU is locked down. McLaren do have expertise in software, so that's not really an issue for them. No idea if Honda do the PU maps themselves or get help from McLaren via data mining the data collected during races.

[Postmoe]

Good software is expensive enough. If you want to manage your combustion tunes on the go and with more than an excel sheet, of course. I mean, you want to have certain levels of automation and predictive analytics so you can put your ressources in other areas. That's why a supply chain solution starts at 100K for the smalest company.

I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I thought software has to FIA approved and be used in the standard FIA designated (supplied by McLaren electronics) ECU.
2016 technical regulations 8.2.1 Control electronics

I believe teams can run their own code on the ECU but it has to be FIA approved and is restricted so a team can't develop software that controls traction as an example. Everything else is to do with the ECU is locked down. McLaren do have expertise in software, so that's not really an issue for them. No idea if Honda do the PU maps themselves or get help from McLaren via data mining the data collected during races.

I'm thinking about the software they need to develop the car holistically, not the ECU.

They cannot use an excel sheet, they need some kind o ERP-like tool to manage the different layers of information from the different teams, only for the engine.

If combustion is key to harvesting, they need to manage several equilibriums. The way I see it, they need a solid sofware only for tuning the engine for a specific GP, with what if scenarios, analytics, etc. I mean... if not, they would need to gather info from the ICE guys, then the MGU guys, then the fuel guys... nightmarish.

Technically, there is nothing avoiding you to put middleware to link the ECU system to this development tool, as long as you don't touch the code.

[dren]

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partner ... -17894562/

More than 900 bhp they say..... It's on.

That reads more like an advertisement for their sponsors. I wouldn't read into it much. It also eludes to the ICEs revving to 15,000 rpms which we all know they are not.