Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[bauc]

My question for the next year PU is this:

Snce we will have shorter breaking distances next year due to the increased DF levels, does this mean that the PU will have less kinetic energy available form the breaks to store and to use as a boost?

[tok-tokkie]

The amount of kinetic energy is half of the mass of the car x the square of the speed change. How far the car travels is not part of the equation.

[rgava]

My question for the next year PU is this:

Snce we will have shorter breaking distances next year due to the increased DF levels, does this mean that the PU will have less kinetic energy available form the breaks to store and to use as a boost?

I understand that there will be less energy to recover from braking due mainly to lower speed difference from start to finish of braking.
Because top speed will be lower due to increased drag and turn passing speed will be higher due to increased grip from bigger tyres and increased DF.
But what I don't know is if the total recoverable energy will be enough or lower than needed according to regulation limits.
Someone with more knowledge can clear this for us?

[hurril]

The amount of kinetic energy is half of the mass of the car x the square of the speed change. How far the car travels is not part of the equation.

Yes but the share allowed to be taken up is 160kW, which isn't nearly the available amount. So the distance (well: time) most definitely is part of that equation.

[restless]

However I feel very optimistic about next year's PU due to the experience gained over the last two seasons. I will give my thoughts to the MP4-31 chassis in the hardware section.

Do you think that changing fuel supplier won't be very taxing at start of the season?

[Thunder]

However I feel very optimistic about next year's PU due to the experience gained over the last two seasons. I will give my thoughts to the MP4-31 chassis in the hardware section.

Do you think that changing fuel supplier won't be very taxing at start of the season?

Again thank you for your continued kind words.

Here is some food for thought, just because you have a sponsor's logo on the side of the car, that doesn't always mean you have their products in your PU or burning their fuel.

[Facts Only]

A bit like WF1 with Petrobas on the sidepod and Petronas in the tank, its not unheard of

[bauc]

Again thank you for your continued kind words.

Here is some food for thought, just because you have a sponsor's logo on the side of the car, that doesn't always mean you have their products in your PU or burning their fuel.

So the sticker on the car will say Castrol, but the fuel will be Mobil 1, maybe they agreed a year of transition for Honda where Mobil 1 will continue to supply them but they will no be represented on the car

[godlameroso]

So, if I understand correctly what Wazari posted and what I read speculated from various source here Honda is focusing on 3 aspect for the 2017 PU:
- Implementing this CVCC/TJI combustion technology into their V6 turbo.
- Having both the V6 and the ERS system working simultaneously in the correct operational window.
- Different layout to free space for the modifications needed and lower the CoG.

If everything goes according to plans (or better) Honda will supply McLaren with a much more powerful, reliable and "lighter" PU next year.

Personally I'm really excited for next year, I've already booked a fly to Barcelona for the first test day.

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 3 utilizzando Tapatalk

Nice! Be sure to take lots of pictures and video so we can dissect every minute detail

[Craigy]

So the sticker on the car will say Castrol, but the fuel will be Mobil 1, maybe they agreed a year of transition for Honda where Mobil 1 will continue to supply them but they will no be represented on the car

Has it ever been established that Exxon/Esso/Mobil are the supplier to Honda/McLaren?
This sort of work is pretty specialised. It would be a specialist team if it were from a big company, or perhaps subbed out to a specialist.

[Wazari]

So the sticker on the car will say Castrol, but the fuel will be Mobil 1, maybe they agreed a year of transition for Honda where Mobil 1 will continue to supply them but they will no be represented on the car

Has it ever been established that Exxon/Esso/Mobil are the supplier to Honda/McLaren?
This sort of work is pretty specialised. It would be a specialist team if it were from a big company, or perhaps subbed out to a specialist.

Esso did supply lubricants and fuel to McLaren this season.

[PlatinumZealot]

My question for the next year PU is this:

Snce we will have shorter breaking distances next year due to the increased DF levels, does this mean that the PU will have less kinetic energy available form the breaks to store and to use as a boost?

Very good question... I think they will always downsize the brakes to compensate. For sure the kinetic energy changes will be interesting. We don't know yet how fast the cars will be at the end of straight, we know that they are heavier by 20kg, we know that increased drag will reduce braking power needed... so it is insteresting indeed, but the variable that is easy to control is the size of the brakes and the electrical generation of the MGUK.

[PlatinumZealot]

Well, the season is over. I have mixed feelings about posting in this forum but since many of you have requested that I post my thoughts about the past season I feel I owe it to some. I can write pages about this year's car but I will try and summarize my opinions about the MP4-31 and the PU. Now that the season has ended, I believe I can speak a little more loosely. I can not give exact figures and please no questions about next year's PU. With regards to next year's PU, I really can't add to what has "officially" been said. I will say that initial testing is going better than my own expectations. Also moderators, please feel free to move areas of this post if you feel it necessary to do so. The following are strictly my thoughts.

This year's PU biggest handicap was not peak power but fuel efficiency. I was extremely disappointed that certain upgrades to the combustion process could not implemented this year. The token system really handcuffing what we wanted change. Each major component of this PU has a domino effect on another. To fully implement all the desired changes was not possible this season. The compressor IMO was the biggest Achilles and the ICE had to run at a higher RPM range than desired to make this combination have the desired output to the MGU-H thus in turn having even more of a negative on fuel efficiency. I think many would be surprised at the actual peak power gaps between all four PU's.

This year has been a tremendous learning experience for me. I have a much better understanding of the desired balance needed to operate these PU's at peak efficiency and power. It's a balancing act that obviously Mercedes has done an impressive job with. Next year will be difficult with a new set of restrictions. However I feel very optimistic about next year's PU due to the experience gained over the last two seasons. I will give my thoughts to the MP4-31 chassis in the hardware section.

Thanks, Wazari.

So the compressor was definitely made bigger from what we could see through those little gaps (can you confirm?), but it's match with the ICE wasn't fuel efficient due to other factors that could not be corrected within the token system.

Just want to say I was quite impressed with the Honda engine performance (and the sound!) in the last race. It could keep up the williams on such a power track where the toro rosso was having a lot of trouble.

[ENGINE TUNER]

This year's PU biggest handicap was not peak power but fuel efficiency. I was extremely disappointed that certain upgrades to the combustion process could not implemented this year. The token system really handcuffing what we wanted change. Each major component of this PU has a domino effect on another. To fully implement all the desired changes was not possible this season. The compressor IMO was the biggest Achilles and the ICE had to run at a higher RPM range than desired to make this combination have the desired output to the MGU-H thus in turn having even more of a negative on fuel efficiency. I think many would be surprised at the actual peak power gaps between all four PU's.

This year has been a tremendous learning experience for me. I have a much better understanding of the desired balance needed to operate these PU's at peak efficiency and power. It's a balancing act that obviously Mercedes has done an impressive job with. Next year will be difficult with a new set of restrictions. However I feel very optimistic about next year's PU due to the experience gained over the last two seasons. I will give my thoughts to the MP4-31 chassis in the hardware section.

With all due respect, this(in bold) does not make sense(to me).

Rules 5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h. and
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.

tells us that fuel usage(100kg/hr) at 10.5K rpm is the same as fuel usage (100kg/hr) at 15K rpm so how then are you claiming that raising the rpm to increase the desired MGU-H output decreases fuel usage(or do you mean "efficiency" another way?) when fuel usage is the same as defined by the rules?

Are you claiming that the other PU manufacturers are running less than 100kg/hr above 10.5K rpm? If so, then why do they all continue to run their cars constantly above 10.5K rpm, not allowing upshifts to drop the revs below that threshold?

In my understanding fuel "usage" can only really be improved by decreasing time on throttle, and that can only be done by Increasing "efficiency" by creating more HP to the wheels with the same 100kg/hr of fuel, decreasing drag, improving traction and increasing corner exit speed.

I appreciate your response.

[PhillipM]

That rather depends on whether the Honda had the airflow to support full fuel flow at 10.5krpm