Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[FW17]

In that video @ ~:49 we see what looks like 435lb ft of tq @ 11,3xx rpm, that's right around 1,000hp. I guess everyone is going to be close to that number next year despite the denials.

It's more like 935-940 HP.

That torque value is in Nm not lbft

The HP value will be 690 HP

[Abarth]

1000 HP, well....
Last time I checked, flow limit is still 100 kg/h and only from 10'500 min-1 up, substantial power demanding ancillaries cannot be driven electrically, MGU-K is still at 160 HP max, the possible fuel formulations are within some limits.
So how can they achieve 50%+ efficiency, with substancial friction power because of the high revs, etc.?
Just how can they reach and surpass low revving 2 Stroke marine diesel engines, which have the aim to be super efficient, in a very narrow operating range?

[kasio]

1000 HP, well....
Last time I checked, flow limit is still 100 kg/h and only from 10'500 min-1 up, substantial power demanding ancillaries cannot be driven electrically, MGU-K is still at 160 HP max, the possible fuel formulations are within some limits.
So how can they achieve 50%+ efficiency, with substancial friction power because of the high revs, etc.?
Just how can they reach and surpass low revving 2 Stroke marine diesel engines, which have the aim to be super efficient, in a very narrow operating range?

well answer to all Your questions is knowledge or in full sentence "with knowledge". Same physics applies to F1 engine as to marine diesels and it consists of different factors. They work on one factor to increase other!
Same principle is applied to F1 engine. Its knowledge beyond your imagination thats why it seems fiction to You.

[Phil]

For next year, the initial testing seems very encouraging. A new combustion process is in place. IMO, the extra 5 kilos of fuel will play a major factor on many courses. I think you will see a 3 to 8% increase in peak power among the various PU's. I can not wait for winter testing. I am very curious on how the MP4-32 chassis will perform.

Wazari,
I don't usually take part in this topic, but your last sentence has triggered a question; How much of a challenge is it for you or for Honda to be relying on what is effectively a joint-effort in trying to build the best car. Let me explain; McLaren is building the chassis and you are building the PU. Compare that to say a team like Mercedes who is building pretty much everything as one single company and can design its car with both in mind. I would imagine Honda is less eager to share intimate knowhow of the engine you are building as would perhaps McLaren about some parts of the chassis because in the motor world, both companies are rivals in building and using that knowledge for its road car programs.

How much is it a challenge in, i.e. building the best PU next year (lets say you do) only then to see that the chassis by McLaren isn't. Or maybe to put it more diplomatic, having the best chassis and the best PU but fail on packaging issues. Even if you have a fantastic working relationship with McLaren, I could imagine a joint-effort like this to be still a higher handicap than i.e. Mercedes or Ferrari face as factory-teams. At the end of the day, Honda and McLaren will only ever be as good and efficient as both are together. We've seen in the last 3 years how the best PU in a less sophisticated car (Williams) falls short in many ways. On the other hand, we've also seen the opposite, when a PU fails a strong chassis and a team therefore needs to run its car in a compromised manner (RedBull '15) to still be as competitive as possible. How well can a workable and constuctive relationship be upheld, especially in the pressure both Honda and McLaren face, as two very historic racing teams and their image?

[Craigy]

Just how can they reach and surpass low revving 2 Stroke marine diesel engines, which have the aim to be super efficient, in a very narrow operating range?

• F1 PU engineers can spec their fuel needs very precisely and have pure fuel in their tanks (as opposed to the tar-like bunker stuff the marine diesels run on, which often has quite a lot of unhelpful contaminants).
• Marine diesels have to run for years without shutdown between overhauls.
  Obviously F1 engines have to last about 5 races but can more or less be taken to bits and inspected in between, and run on the edge of the engineering, without the margins required for durability.
• The manufacturing of the marine diesels is done down to a price - and the materials cost is quite a bit of that price.
  The F1 engine manufacturing processes can be quite expensive due to the nature of the business, and given their size can be made from whatever is needed and then given all the treatments needed (peenings/coatings/heat treatments/hardenings, etc).
• Marine diesels cannot be toleranced as precisely as F1 engines can, owing to their size and fuel types - you cannot spec a tiny injector if you plan to run sand through it, for example

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, like technology cycle (F1 engines are fairly up to date in terms of bleeding edge - big marine diesels take time to develop and build).

Horses for courses.

[Tommy Cookers]

what was Burmeister & Wain eg S90 series is now up to 54.6% bte
and normal operation is available down to 10% of max power at 7 rpm
http://marine.man.eu/applications/proje ... E-C9_4.pdf
what was Wartsila is now up to 52.7% btehttp://marine.man.eu/applications/projectguides/2stroke/content/printed/S80ME-C9_4.pdf

[Abarth]

[[...]Its knowledge beyond your imagination thats why it seems fiction to You.

Thanks. Please PM me as soon as they break the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is a bitch, btw).

[Abarth]

what was Burmeister & Wain eg S90 series is now up to 54.6% bte
and normal operation is available down to 10% of max power at 7 rpm
http://marine.man.eu/applications/proje ... E-C9_4.pdf
what was Wartsila is now up to 52.7% btehttp://marine.man.eu/applications/projectguides/2stroke/content/printed/S80ME-C9_4.pdf

Thanks for that link, pretty interesting. With all possible harvesting of exhaust heat, MAN states a 152g/kWh (with 42.7 MJ/kg fuel), which corresponds to 55.5% bte.
Another example are Gas and Steam combined cycle power plants. Siemens recently achieved >60% efficiency, but needed to implement any possible technology (and space, and weight) to use the waste heat.
F1 engines are not allowed to harvest the residual heat after the turbine, which is still remarkably high and could be used to power a generator via steam turbine.

To generate 1'000 hp in compound (sustained) operation and with a (high!) 46 MJ/kg fuel, 57.5% efficiency is needed.
OK, let's forget the sustained operation and let us assume qualifying mode, compressor operated 100% electrically, therefore no backpressure and perhaps an even higher boost to help to push the pistons down during intake, and let's assume +50HP because of this. Let us also assume that MGU-K contributes, compared to compund mode, with +50HP. Still 900 HP in a sustained mode. Still 52% bte....

[Pierce89]

In that video @ ~:49 we see what looks like 435lb ft of tq @ 11,3xx rpm, that's right around 1,000hp. I guess everyone is going to be close to that number next year despite the denials.

It's more like 935-940 HP.

That torque value is in Nm not lbft

The HP value will be 690 HP

I didn't watch the video, just doing the math the way he wrote it.

[Wazari]

For next year, the initial testing seems very encouraging. A new combustion process is in place. IMO, the extra 5 kilos of fuel will play a major factor on many courses. I think you will see a 3 to 8% increase in peak power among the various PU's. I can not wait for winter testing. I am very curious on how the MP4-32 chassis will perform.

Wazari,
I don't usually take part in this topic, but your last sentence has triggered a question; How much of a challenge is it for you or for Honda to be relying on what is effectively a joint-effort in trying to build the best car. Let me explain; McLaren is building the chassis and you are building the PU. Compare that to say a team like Mercedes who is building pretty much everything as one single company and can design its car with both in mind. I would imagine Honda is less eager to share intimate knowhow of the engine you are building as would perhaps McLaren about some parts of the chassis because in the motor world, both companies are rivals in building and using that knowledge for its road car programs.

How much is it a challenge in, i.e. building the best PU next year (lets say you do) only then to see that the chassis by McLaren isn't. Or maybe to put it more diplomatic, having the best chassis and the best PU but fail on packaging issues. Even if you have a fantastic working relationship with McLaren, I could imagine a joint-effort like this to be still a higher handicap than i.e. Mercedes or Ferrari face as factory-teams. At the end of the day, Honda and McLaren will only ever be as good and efficient as both are together. We've seen in the last 3 years how the best PU in a less sophisticated car (Williams) falls short in many ways. On the other hand, we've also seen the opposite, when a PU fails a strong chassis and a team therefore needs to run its car in a compromised manner (RedBull '15) to still be as competitive as possible. How well can a workable and constuctive relationship be upheld, especially in the pressure both Honda and McLaren face, as two very historic racing teams and their image?

Yaa, kore wa taihen muzukashii shitsumon desu ne.......

Good question. Complicated question. In my opinion sharing of knowledge is not the biggest issue and really doesn't create conflict as it stands. Logistics isn't really an issue either IMO. However, compared to the "works" teams such as Ferrari or Mercedes, the biggest issue is split leadership. In essence with a works team you have one leadership team guiding the entire program whereas others ultimately have two leadership bodies trying to work in harmony. Honda's situation is unique in that they don't have their "own" car so I think that works better for McLaren. There is zero conflict of interest in terms of being shown up by a customer's car over the factory car. Although the hardware is identical between factory and customer car's PU, small advantages such as fuel compounds, mapping updates or options are more likely to be had by the factory teams. If all other things were equal, which we know are not, a 5 to 10 HP advantage can make a difference as can a 1 to 2 % advantage in fuel efficiency.

The relationship between the two leadership teams is IMO crucial and as is very, very difficult situation at best. Although the end goal is common, the philosophies on the path to get there are more times than not harmonious. Conflicts can arise although these issues thankfully are dealt with by people with much more authority than I. That's where I find this chassis vs. PU debate among fans interesting. Both parties have the same data and the numbers state the facts. Everyone knows each other's weaknesses and areas for improvement. The question is how fast can the improvements be achieved in a pace faster than the others. That's the key to winning in this crazy sport. Money, manpower, brilliant and lucky decisions bring a winning race car.

[FW17]

Hi Wazari


Are there any methods of flame quenching away from piston crown and cylinder walls currently being used in F1

What are the likely ways of achieving this?

Can a perforated plate slightly above the piston head be useful along with a slotted edge to generate hot air jets along the cylinder wall/piston junction to keep the flame away from the metal surfaces?

[Wazari]

Hi Wazari


Are there any methods of flame quenching away from piston crown and cylinder walls currently being used in F1

What are the likely ways of achieving this?

Can a perforated plate slightly above the piston head be useful along with a slotted edge to generate hot air jets along the cylinder wall/piston junction to keep the flame away from the metal surfaces?

1. I think I would assume so.
2. Various methods. CC design or lack of CC as we conventionally know it , piston groves, diagonal piston ports, slots, etc.
3. Where is this plate located? I don't think I understand your concept.

[kasio]

[[...]Its knowledge beyond your imagination thats why it seems fiction to You.

Thanks. Please PM me as soon as they break the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is a bitch, btw).

Cannot be that You think they have broken 2nd law of thermodynamics on those 2sux diesels? well If they could then F1 also can!
besides You only need about 48.5% and not even 50% to break 1000HP.
Edit.
I will add that calorific value of fuel You and I are using for calculations are results of Bomb calorimeters. Which burn fuel at normal temperature and normal pressure. Apparently these values change with pressure and temperature... which is what i mean... They will work on areas where we cannot imagine they would... just to achieve their target! You dont cannot possibly know all physics they may apply to achieve the goal! So I am justified to call that fiction!

[FW17]

3. Where is this plate located? I don't think I understand your concept.

The perforated plate is located above the crown with a spacer. The perforations would allow hot air to come through while the flame stays above the perforations. (Don't know why a flame does not pass through a perforated plate or slows)

[Abarth]

[...]


Cannot be that You think they have broken 2nd law of thermodynamics on those 2sux diesels? well If they could then F1 also can!
besides You only need about 48.5% and not even 50% to break 1000HP.

Gosh...that remark was sarcastic. Of course no one on this planet breaks that law.

And... 48.5% bte to break 1000 HP?
Please show us your calculation, and how high the energy content (MJ/kg) of "your" fuel is.