Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[mrluke]

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.

I know you are new but you should get up to speed on the Engine thread.

If you using all of your 100kg/hr, at 10,500rpm you will have lower mechanical losses than at 15,000rpm. Therefore for the same fuel usage you will make less power i.e. lower overall efficiency -> increased fuel usage / longer periods of fuel saving.

There is also reference to the MGU-h, if ICE rpm needed to increase to achieve the flow through the turbo in order to get the required recovery then you are essentially burning fuel to convert to electrical energy.

[ENGINE TUNER]

If you using all of your 100kg/hr, at 10,500rpm you will have lower mechanical losses than at 15,000rpm. Therefore for the same fuel usage you will make less power i.e. lower overall efficiency -> increased fuel usage / longer periods of fuel saving.

There is also reference to the MGU-h, if ICE rpm needed to increase to achieve the flow through the turbo in order to get the required recovery then you are essentially burning fuel to convert to electrical energy.

Fuel usage is the same at all engine speeds above 10.5K rpm(unless any of the PU's are running below max fuel at those speeds, which I highly doubt).

How do you go from same fuel usage to increased fuel usage? Yes efficiency will decrease as rpm increases, but instantaneous fuel usage remains the same. The only thing that matters is total time on throttle.

Since the fuel rate is fixed the only ways to decrease total fuel usage is to stay on throttle a shorter amount of time, and that can only happen by increasing HP(and thus efficiency), decreasing drag, raising corner exit speed or improving traction.

Wazari wrote:
This year's PU biggest handicap was not peak power but fuel efficiency.

But the only way to increase fuel efficiency(of the PU) is by increasing "peak" power(between 10.5K rpm and approx 13K).

Poor efficiency was the symptom, "peak" power was the real problem.

[turbof1]

Wazari wrote:
This year's PU biggest handicap was not peak power but fuel efficiency.

But the only way to increase fuel efficiency(of the PU) is by increasing "peak" power(between 10.5K rpm and approx 13K).

Poor efficiency was the symptom, "peak" power was the real problem.

That's not what he meant. The issue is that you can only have 100kg of fuel for the entire race. On average you are not running 100kg/h during the race, but more like 66kg/h. So peak power is not the issue when it comes down to the fuel efficiency, but rather a "too thirsty" engine (or insufficient energy recovery systems).

[ENGINE TUNER]

Wazari wrote:
This year's PU biggest handicap was not peak power but fuel efficiency.

But the only way to increase fuel efficiency(of the PU) is by increasing "peak" power(between 10.5K rpm and approx 13K).

Poor efficiency was the symptom, "peak" power was the real problem.

That's not what he meant. The issue is that you can only have 100kg of fuel for the entire race. On average you are not running 100kg/h during the race, but more like 66kg/h. So peak power is not the issue when it comes down to the fuel efficiency, but rather a "too thirsty" engine (or insufficient energy recovery systems).

Nobody runs 66 kg/h down the straights, they all run max fuel 100kg/hr down the straights. The drivers aim to be either 100% throttle or 100% brakes for as much as possible, partial throttle is to be minimized. Zero fuel is used off throttle.

The ICE can not be "too thirsty" because they are all limited to 100kg/hr, the only reason one engine will use more fuel over the course of a race is because it has to stay on throttle longer because of a lack of power, not because it uses more fuel instantaneously.

[turbof1]

But the only way to increase fuel efficiency(of the PU) is by increasing "peak" power(between 10.5K rpm and approx 13K).

Poor efficiency was the symptom, "peak" power was the real problem.

That's not what he meant. The issue is that you can only have 100kg of fuel for the entire race. On average you are not running 100kg/h during the race, but more like 66kg/h. So peak power is not the issue when it comes down to the fuel efficiency, but rather a "too thirsty" engine (or insufficient energy recovery systems).

Nobody runs 66 kg/h down the straights, they all run max fuel 100kg/hr down the straights. The drivers aim to be either 100% throttle or 100% brakes for as much as possible, partial throttle is to be minimized. Zero fuel is used off throttle.

The ICE can not be "too thirsty" because they are all limited to 100kg/hr, the only reason one engine will use more fuel over the course of a race is because it has to stay on throttle longer because of a lack of power, not because it uses more fuel instantaneously.

There are races where you just can't do that without falling short of crossing the finish line. There is lift and coasting involved, so partial throttle is involved as a necessity. Therefore, you need an PU that still produces a lot of power at a fuel rate below 100kg/h. The way to do that is by increasing energy recovery and deployment, as well as having fuel that brings the most energy (this is however an area heavily restricted).

One example particular for Honda is Canada, where this year and last year Alonso specifically complained his *ss off for having to save fuel:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... pects.html

http://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/21305 ... ered-honda

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/33043900

[GoranF1]

Honda better do their homework...next year PU more important than ever....

https://twitter.com/F1sMyDrug/status/803678079939964928

[Joseki]

But the only way to increase fuel efficiency(of the PU) is by increasing "peak" power(between 10.5K rpm and approx 13K).

Poor efficiency was the symptom, "peak" power was the real problem.

That's not what he meant. The issue is that you can only have 100kg of fuel for the entire race. On average you are not running 100kg/h during the race, but more like 66kg/h. So peak power is not the issue when it comes down to the fuel efficiency, but rather a "too thirsty" engine (or insufficient energy recovery systems).

Nobody runs 66 kg/h down the straights, they all run max fuel 100kg/hr down the straights. The drivers aim to be either 100% throttle or 100% brakes for as much as possible, partial throttle is to be minimized. Zero fuel is used off throttle.

The ICE can not be "too thirsty" because they are all limited to 100kg/hr, the only reason one engine will use more fuel over the course of a race is because it has to stay on throttle longer because of a lack of power, not because it uses more fuel instantaneously.

Probably something that is confusing you is the fact that full throttle doesn't mean that 100 kg/h of fuel are used by the engine over 10.5k rpm, all the manufacturers are well below the maximum fuel flow permitted in the race most of the time.

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 3 utilizzando Tapatalk

[ENGINE TUNER]

There are races where you just can't do that without falling short of crossing the finish line. There is lift and coasting involved, so partial throttle is involved as a necessity. Therefore, you need an PU that still produces a lot of power at a fuel rate below 100kg/h. The way to do that is by increasing energy recovery and deployment, as well as having fuel that brings the most energy (this is however an area heavily restricted).

One example particular for Honda is Canada, where this year and last year Alonso specifically complained his *ss off for having to save fuel:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... pects.html

http://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/21305 ... ered-honda

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/33043900

Hamilton finished Canada GP in 1:31:05.3 or 91.09 minutes x .59(59% full throttle) x 1.667kg/min(=100kg/hr)=89.57kg of fuel.(approximately, without accounting for partial throttle, formation lap, pit stops, yellow flags, etc)

Now Hamilton was able to finish the race FASTER(than Alonso and everyone else), while using the same TOTAL amount of fuel(or less), but we didn't hear any commands or complaints about him needing to save fuel.

Alonso needed to save fuel, not because his PU was using more fuel at any 1 time than the other PU's but because the Honda PU was so underpowered that it took longer down the straight and thus spend much higher percentage of time on full throttle.

I don't think any of the PU manufacturers run less than 100kg/hr flow rate when they are at full throttle because
1) It would be difficult to use the waste gate & MGUK to precisely regulate the boost pressure
2) it would be more beneficial to run below 10.5k rpm at the same below max fuel rate(and we never see them below 10.5K unless off throttle.

So the problem with the Honda PU is that it does not produce enough power between 10.5K and 13K rpm, plus also the MGUH and compressor problems, not that it uses any more fuel than any of the PU's at an instantaneous rate.

So can Wazari confirm if any of the PU's run less than max fuel while on full throttle?

[ENGINE TUNER]

Probably something that is confusing you is the fact that full throttle doesn't mean that 100 kg/h of fuel are used by the engine over 10.5k rpm, all the manufacturers are well below the maximum fuel flow permitted in the race most of the time.

That is not what we saw when Riccardo was DQ'd for excessive fuel rate in 2014, and they are all making much more power now.

Also, using the waste gate to control the bits to meter the air is very problematic, yes they can help do so with the MGUK but that brings up its own issues.

And lastly, using less than 100kg/hr fuel rate at above 10.5K rpm is not a good strategy, they would just run below 10.5K rpm at the corresponding fuel rate that they "need" to finish the race.

[turbof1]

There are races where you just can't do that without falling short of crossing the finish line. There is lift and coasting involved, so partial throttle is involved as a necessity. Therefore, you need an PU that still produces a lot of power at a fuel rate below 100kg/h. The way to do that is by increasing energy recovery and deployment, as well as having fuel that brings the most energy (this is however an area heavily restricted).

One example particular for Honda is Canada, where this year and last year Alonso specifically complained his *ss off for having to save fuel:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... pects.html

http://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/21305 ... ered-honda

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/33043900

Hamilton finished Canada GP in 1:31:05.3 or 91.09 minutes x .59(59% full throttle) x 1.667kg/min(=100kg/hr)=89.57kg of fuel.(approximately, without accounting for partial throttle, formation lap, pit stops, yellow flags, etc)

Now Hamilton was able to finish the race FASTER(than Alonso and everyone else), while using the same TOTAL amount of fuel(or less), but we didn't hear any commands or complaints about him needing to save fuel.

Alonso needed to save fuel, not because his PU was using more fuel at any 1 time than the other PU's but because the Honda PU was so underpowered that it took longer down the straight and thus spend much higher percentage of time on full throttle.

I don't think any of the PU manufacturers run less than 100kg/hr flow rate when they are at full throttle because
1) It would be difficult to use the waste gate & MGUK to precisely regulate the boost pressure
2) it would be more beneficial to run below 10.5k rpm at the same below max fuel rate(and we never see them below 10.5K unless off throttle.

So the problem with the Honda PU is that it does not produce enough power between 10.5K and 13K rpm, plus also the MGUH and compressor problems, not that it uses any more fuel than any of the PU's at an instantaneous rate.

So can Wazari confirm if any of the PU's run less than max fuel while on full throttle?

So what if we are going to include the periods of partial throttle too? Exactly, we will end up above 100kg of fuel.

Alonso needed to save fuel, not because his PU was using more fuel at any 1 time than the other PU's but because the Honda PU was so underpowered that it took longer down the straight and thus spend much higher percentage of time on full throttle.

Basically the same what I am saying, looked from a different perspective.

(I do appreciate the effort of doing a mathematical model though, so +1 for that)

[ENGINE TUNER]

Basically the same what I am saying, looked from a different perspective.

(I do appreciate the effort of doing a mathematical model though, so +1 for that)

It is not the same, you are(maybe) claiming that the other PU's are running less than 100kg/hr on full throttle above 10.5k rpm and I say they all run full 100kg/hr fuel rate when above 10.5k rpm. YUGE difference, very BIGLY difference.

also the partial throttle fuel use is almost negligible(especially since they all lift & coast not just to save fuel but to recharge the batteries via KERS) remember the drivers try to be either 100% all throttle or 100% brakes 100% of the time

[turbof1]

Basically the same what I am saying, looked from a different perspective.

(I do appreciate the effort of doing a mathematical model though, so +1 for that)

It is not the same, you are(maybe) claiming that the other PU's are running less than 100kg/hr on full throttle above 10.5k rpm and I say they all run full 100kg/hr fuel rate when above 10.5k rpm. YUGE difference, very BIGLY difference.

No we are looking both at power per kg of fuel. You are simply starting from a different variable. Nowhere did I state teams run less then 100kg/hr above 10.500 rpm (I even think that would be an infraction of the technical rules and could result in DSQ). What I do state is that teams do not run 10.500 rpm or above constantly. Not possible with corners.

[ENGINE TUNER]

No we are looking both at power per kg of fuel. You are simply starting from a different variable. Nowhere did I state teams run less then 100kg/hr above 10.500 rpm (I even think that would be an infraction of the technical rules and could result in DSQ). What I do state is that teams do not run 10.500 rpm or above constantly. Not possible with corners.

It would not be an infraction to the rules(as they are written) to run below max fuel above 10.5K rpm, it would just be incredibly silly. They barely use any fuel in the off/partial throttle partial phases, and of course they come off throttle for the necessary corners, that is why the 59%(for example) of full throttle enters the equation.

That's not what he meant. The issue is that you can only have 100kg of fuel for the entire race. On average you are not running 100kg/h during the race, but more like 66kg/h. So peak power is not the issue when it comes down to the fuel efficiency, but rather a "too thirsty" engine (or insufficient energy recovery systems).

In the above, I wasn't sure if you meant that they ran 66kg/hr at full throttle above 10.5k rpm, because when I said they don't, you didn't reply to that, but then somebody else claimed that they run below max fuel rate above 10.5K rpm.

[hurril]

In the above, I wasn't sure if you meant that they ran 66kg/hr at full throttle above 10.5k rpm, because when I said they don't, you didn't reply to that, but then somebody else claimed that they run below max fuel rate above 10.5K rpm.

The average consumption comes out as 66kg/h.

[ENGINE TUNER]

In the above, I wasn't sure if you meant that they ran 66kg/hr at full throttle above 10.5k rpm, because when I said they don't, you didn't reply to that, but then somebody else claimed that they run below max fuel rate above 10.5K rpm.

The average consumption comes out as 66kg/h.

Not if they use way less than the full 100kg per race which Merc usually does, we've seen them win races using less than 75kg.