Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
PlatinumZealot wrote:Their compressor is working as well as it should to provide enough air for what the combustion can support.
It would be too easy if the compressor was Honda's problem. We have seen them raise the airbox up to make the compressor bigger, and even Arai himself said in 2015 that the 2016 compressor would be close in size to the Mercedes one. So not sure why we are digging up old bones with regard to the compressor.
How do you come to this conclusion, when the plan has been known for months already, next year the compressor will no longer be nested in the V. They would keep their current concept if what you're saying is true. Not saying you're wrong, we're all speculating after all, maybe they're just misdirecting us?
Honda did a good job in their 2nd year.
Arai said in a interview they now have sligtly more power than 2015 Ferrari in TR .
2015 Ferrari PU has TJI since Canada GP that year and Honda still does not.
"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication & competence."
PlatinumZealot wrote:Their compressor is working as well as it should to provide enough air for what the combustion can support.
It would be too easy if the compressor was Honda's problem. We have seen them raise the airbox up to make the compressor bigger, and even Arai himself said in 2015 that the 2016 compressor would be close in size to the Mercedes one. So not sure why we are digging up old bones with regard to the compressor.
How do you come to this conclusion, when the plan has been known for months already, next year the compressor will no longer be nested in the V. They would keep their current concept if what you're saying is true. Not saying you're wrong, we're all speculating after all, maybe they're just misdirecting us?
It could have a number of other draw backs that they want to correct.
These are direct quotes from Hasegawa about the latest PU upgrades (Spa 7 tokens); hopefully it enables the more knowledgeable members here to expand their theories about Honda's development route/options for the remaining 3 tokens and 2017 potential.
Kudos to @Muramasa from Autosport forums for the translations!
* This time's upgrade involves update into ICE itself including combustion chamber and its surroundings, so power has increased. However, half looking forward to, half anxious.
- using 7 tokens, modified combustion chamber of ICE as well as TC in order to prevent/compensate lower exhaust energy and lower energy recovery at turbo due to lower exhaust temp from higher efficiency
* Engine efficiency improvement means less exhaust energy which means less regeneration at turbo. In order to recover that, we've made modification to turbo in a way that the same amount of energy recovery can be obtained from less heat energy.
* Ever since Canada where we modified turbo, the deployment has already reached the level comparable to rivals, but Jenson was saying that with this time's modification our deployment period at straight after eau rouge is longer than rivals.
* It's hard to make the kind of output increase that drivers would notice instantly, besides, at power circuits like Spa, this time's upgrade would not lead to lap time and result by making big leap forward.
- In KERS testing that was to be introduced for 2009, drivers were unable to feel the additional 60kW, so.
* We asked drivers to trial and compare practice mode and race mode. Practice mode was set almost at same power as previous PU, but Jenson evaluated like "the difference/gain I get when switching practice mode to race mode is obviously bigger in this new unit". He also said, "it's proving that this new spec of PU is an improvement", so we are encouraged by that.
|| nuance is that,
|| - power at practice mode: spec 3 = spec 2
|| - power at race mode: spec 3 > spec 2
* Regarding ERS as well, Jenson evaluated that deployment was not only not inferior to others, but also actually superior than others, at least at full throttle section before and after eau rouge.
* In terms of progress amount for this year, we are able to make bigger progress than Renault, also we consider the gap has decreased obviously, but it's not an upgrade that would be enough to exceed merc and ferrari. At circuits like Spa, we would've just dropped positions if we did nothing, but we still managed to maintain roughly our usual position thanks to the upgrade, that's what it is.
PlatinumZealot wrote:Thanks. Notice they did not mention the compressor.
Nor the turbine, they said turbo, although it's obvious because the turbine is the part that's involved with the MGU-H.
We're still left in the dark as to what they've done exactly. We know that the upgrades caused a combustion efficiency increase which lowers exhaust gas temperature. So how would one modify the turbo to allow you to harvest the same or even more electrical energy, and increase power at the same time? Changing the turbine alone wouldn't do it. They spent 7 tokens, it kind of narrows it down, combustion (3) and injection (2) take up 5 tokens, leaving 2, either for the compressor or the turbine. Now, if your combustion upgrade lowers exhaust gas temperatures, one way to bring them back up is to simply run more boost. I'm at a loss as to how you could do it with the turbine, perhaps it's more effective as a blowdown turbine? Wouldn't adding more backpressure limit engine power even more? In fact wasn't that what the Silverstone update tried to solve in light of the Canada update?
Just trying to make sense of it I guess and I'm overthinking it.
PlatinumZealot wrote:Thanks. Notice they did not mention the compressor.
Nor the turbine, they said turbo, although it's obvious because the turbine is the part that's involved with the MGU-H.
We're still left in the dark as to what they've done exactly. We know that the upgrades caused a combustion efficiency increase which lowers exhaust gas temperature. So how would one modify the turbo to allow you to harvest the same or even more electrical energy, and increase power at the same time? Changing the turbine alone wouldn't do it. They spent 7 tokens, it kind of narrows it down, combustion (3) and injection (2) take up 5 tokens, leaving 2, either for the compressor or the turbine. Now, if your combustion upgrade lowers exhaust gas temperatures, one way to bring them back up is to simply run more boost. I'm at a loss as to how you could do it with the turbine, perhaps it's more effective as a blowdown turbine? Wouldn't adding more backpressure limit engine power even more? In fact wasn't that what the Silverstone update tried to solve in light of the Canada update?
Just trying to make sense of it I guess and I'm overthinking it.
They said turbine...
More likely the housing and wheel were modified to fit the new exhaust energy profile. Just a matter of altering the curvature of the blades.. or even slightly reducing the housing cross section.. only small changes are needed.
I take it as they will now have a leaner more efficient ICE. So this will require more mass air from the compressor. They will do it by one of two different ways. Increase mass air flow by either a larger more efficient compressor, or up the boost???
The turbines efficiency will also have to be more efficient due to a lower heat from the ICE. IMO they will make it larger to deal with the higher mass air flow and a lower heat exhaust.
The ICE will only flow more air if the air density is increased. That means higher pressure, lower temperature or both. Regardless of how it is achieved, the operating point of the compressor will move to the right (and up if the boost is also increased). The probability is the new operating point is no longer in the heart of the efficiency island (peak efficiency contours on the compressor map) so a change to the compressor would be beneficial or even essential.
Regarding the turbine. The new massflow condition will have the same effect here although turbine efficiency is usually "broader", less sensitive to flow changes. Increased massflow will reduce exhaust temperature but exhaust energy will not reduce much, especially if the boost is higher (allowing higher exhaust pressure). OTOH if the more efficient combustion results in a reduced heat content in the exhaust, this would be more problematic. (Increased combustion efficiency must result in a reduction in heat loss to the cylinder, the exhaust gas or both. The reduction is equal to the extra power at the crankshaft)
gruntguru wrote:The ICE will only flow more air if the air density is increased. That means higher pressure, lower temperature or both. Regardless of how it is achieved, the operating point of the compressor will move to the right (and up if the boost is also increased). The probability is the new operating point is no longer in the heart of the efficiency island (peak efficiency contours on the compressor map) so a change to the compressor would be beneficial or even essential.
Regarding the turbine. The new massflow condition will have the same effect here although turbine efficiency is usually "broader", less sensitive to flow changes. Increased massflow will reduce exhaust temperature but exhaust energy will not reduce much, especially if the boost is higher (allowing higher exhaust pressure). OTOH if the more efficient combustion results in a reduced heat content in the exhaust, this would be more problematic. (Increased combustion efficiency must result in a reduction in heat loss to the cylinder, the exhaust gas or both. The reduction is equal to the extra power at the crankshaft)
Re: "Increased combustion efficiency must result in a reduction in heat loss to the cylinder."
This might be pedantic but ... Combustion efficiency is just heat energy released / fuel energy and has the opposite effect to that stated. Increased indicated thermal efficiency results in reduced heat loss.
GG said exactly that. It's axiomatic that less heat absorbed by the cylinder means more heat being "used" for something else. If combustion is faster, that means less time for heat to radiate into it's immediate surroundings. A weird analogy is the difference of passing your hand quickly over a candle vs moving it slowly.
the only real "gain" is being able to run leaner at higher boost levels tho surely ? and all the other tweakings have drawbacks, ie, if they tighten the exhaust volute to increase turbine power/increase compressor size etc, then it costs in terms of ice hp (pumping losses)
