Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[jonas_linder]

Imagine if there is a rough unicorn running around inside the engine (reference to flight of conchords)!

Come on guys, where are the facts? One article where someone speculates? Interpretations of what McClaren and Honda are saying?

In the end, it might be true, but right now it is just rumors!

What is this forum without speculation?

Nothing! But there is a big difference in speculating based on facts, such as the behavior of the car or pictures, and speculating based on rumors. There is a name for formulating a theory and then search for the facts that support that claim, theory induced blindness!

[Del Boy]

Imagine if there is a rough unicorn running around inside the engine (reference to flight of conchords)!

Come on guys, where are the facts? One article where someone speculates? Interpretations of what McClaren and Honda are saying?

In the end, it might be true, but right now it is just rumors!

I completely agree, most of the posts since Monday don't even use the correct terminology. In particular the oil pan is being called the oil tank and they are 2 different parts.

[Craigy]

That is a good idea.

You would have a frame around the engine to compress, strech, bend and twist it while it is coupled to the gearbox and or directly to the dyno. Anyway i believe that they do have something in place. It is just something new and interesting to me, such a dyno. A stress dyno if you may.

It's referred to as a HIL (hardware in the loop) simulation. It's where the chassis and engine simulation becomes one joined-up thing. McLaren have an 8-post rig in Woking, Honda have at least one in Sakura (but I'd be surprised if they only had one).

Where this stuff is validated for the F1 2017-18 seasons for McLaren-Honda, I don't know.

I think the chassis guys will be more into this sort of thing, but this post belongs in the engine thread as we're talking about chassis loads potentially causing an engine failure.

Here are some images of the McLaren 8-post rig to give you an idea of how it works: four pads under the wheels/tyres, and four links to the sprung part of the chassis, that pull the chassis downward, simulating downforce. If you imagine the two diagonal chassis links pulling down while the other two chassis links push upward, that's a twisting load on the chassis. At the same time, the four pads under the wheels can move up, down and also left, right and forward/backward (simulating a shock load like a kerb, for example).






AVL make a similar system, but instead of four pads with the wheels on them, they have four dynos, one for each corner, so they can simulate loads coming in from the brakes through the suspension into the chassis (when you stand on the brakes, the torque has to go somewhere: through the suspension links into the chassis/gearbox, and that causes the engine as the stressed member to see bending and torsional loads).

Suffice to say that simulation for this sort of problem exists, and we know that McLaren and Honda both have facilities to test it.

[FW17]

Nothing! But there is a big difference in speculating based on facts, such as the behavior of the car or pictures, and speculating based on rumors. There is a name for formulating a theory and then search for the facts that support that claim, theory induced blindness!

Pls respect the experience of the fans here. Most have been following races and tests for a long time. More importantly winter tests since testing was banned. Most can make out the patterns set by teams to know when a team is in trouble.

So if you want to troll, then this is the wrong site for you

[Tommy Cookers]

Imagine if the bores or the head are becoming warped because the piston bores are too close together, and there's not enough material between the bores for the stiffness required. Or if the combustion chambers are so close that they're bleeding into each other when the head warps. Do these magical blocks still use(super fancy)head gaskets?

don't the rules fix the bore centres at some intentionally conservatives dimension, to help prevent such problems ?

[Craigy]

Imagine if the bores or the head are becoming warped because the piston bores are too close together, and there's not enough material between the bores for the stiffness required. Or if the combustion chambers are so close that they're bleeding into each other when the head warps. Do these magical blocks still use(super fancy)head gaskets?

I wonder if Honda have done something creative with the shaft running north-south through the engine (assuming that the speculation they've gone for the architecture with the compressor at the front and turbine at the back, MHU-H in the middle is correct).
How low down is the MGU-H into the Vee, and what effect is that having on stiffness..?

[Craigy]

Imagine if the bores or the head are becoming warped because the piston bores are too close together, and there's not enough material between the bores for the stiffness required. Or if the combustion chambers are so close that they're bleeding into each other when the head warps. Do these magical blocks still use(super fancy)head gaskets?

don't the rules fix the bore centres at some intentionally conservatives dimension, to help prevent such problems ?

I thought this too, but on reading the regulations, I can't find a rule about that... can anyone elucidate?

[Craigy]

Imagine if the bores or the head are becoming warped because the piston bores are too close together, and there's not enough material between the bores for the stiffness required. Or if the combustion chambers are so close that they're bleeding into each other when the head warps. Do these magical blocks still use(super fancy)head gaskets?

don't the rules fix the bore centres at some intentionally conservatives dimension, to help prevent such problems ?

I thought this too, but on reading the regulations, I can't find a rule about that... can anyone elucidate?

Update: the bore spacing was originally a 3-token cost to change, and was going to be frozen in 2016, but then there was a decision not to freeze the development of the engines...

The fact that there was a cost to change it shows that it can't have been a fixed spec in the first place. I wonder how close they are..?

[Postmoe]

Nothing! But there is a big difference in speculating based on facts, such as the behavior of the car or pictures, and speculating based on rumors. There is a name for formulating a theory and then search for the facts that support that claim, theory induced blindness!

Pls respect the experience of the fans here. Most have been following races and tests for a long time. More importantly winter tests since testing was banned. Most can make out the patterns set by teams to know when a team is in trouble.

So if you want to troll, then this is the wrong site for you

Theory induced blindness IS fairly typical in technical environments. I don't see how can he troll pointing something like that.

[jonas_linder]

Nothing! But there is a big difference in speculating based on facts, such as the behavior of the car or pictures, and speculating based on rumors. There is a name for formulating a theory and then search for the facts that support that claim, theory induced blindness!

Pls respect the experience of the fans here. Most have been following races and tests for a long time. More importantly winter tests since testing was banned. Most can make out the patterns set by teams to know when a team is in trouble.

So if you want to troll, then this is the wrong site for you

You are totally correct, if I wanted to troll I would just comment on motorsport.com! However, I'm not interested in trolling at all. I'm interested in a good technical discussion based on facts and not rumors (rumors supported by facts are a totally different thing). Trust me (although I guess you do not), I really do respect the experience of fans on this forum, that is the reason why I lurked for a long time and finally decided to I sign up! In this case, I fail to see how any experience can conclude that the failure on the second day of the test was that the engine was too weakly constructed, this is simply a rumor. The only evidence is that they had to change the engine. The first rumor after the failure on the second day was that it again was the oil tank that was the reason for the failure, something that was not true, but gave rise to several pages of discussions.

What I'm asking for is some objectivity and that everyone base there claim on some kind of evidence and not just pure speculation. Just look at the recent discussion in the Ferrari SF70H thread, that is an awesome technical discussion!

And not that it matters for the discussion at all, but I'm not a mclaren fan, it just happens to be that a lot of interesting discussion is happening in this thread.

[FW17]

Nothing! But there is a big difference in speculating based on facts, such as the behavior of the car or pictures, and speculating based on rumors. There is a name for formulating a theory and then search for the facts that support that claim, theory induced blindness!

Pls respect the experience of the fans here. Most have been following races and tests for a long time. More importantly winter tests since testing was banned. Most can make out the patterns set by teams to know when a team is in trouble.

So if you want to troll, then this is the wrong site for you

You are totally correct, if I wanted to troll I would just comment on motorsport.com! However, I'm not interested in trolling at all. I'm interested in a good technical discussion based on facts and not rumors (rumors supported by facts are a totally different thing). Trust me (although I guess you do not), I really do respect the experience of fans on this forum, that is the reason why I lurked for a long time and finally decided to I sign up! In this case, I fail to see how any experience can conclude that the failure on the second day of the test was that the engine was too weakly constructed, this is simply a rumor. The only evidence is that they had to change the engine. The first rumor after the failure on the second day was that it again was the oil tank that was the reason for the failure, something that was not true, but gave rise to several pages of discussions.

What I'm asking for is some objectivity and that everyone base there claim on some kind of evidence and not just pure speculation. Just look at the recent discussion in the Ferrari SF70H thread, that is an awesome technical discussion!

And not that it matters for the discussion at all, but I'm not a mclaren fan, it just happens to be that a lot of interesting discussion is happening in this thread.

Without the specifics of the engine trouble, Are McLaren and Honda in trouble this year? Yes, with so far what we have seen it is a struggle to be the 4th best team for the first quarter of the season. Neither the engine or car has shown any potential.

With regards to structural issues with the engine, it not only a discussion here about if that is the specific issue with the engine. But more back ground into what goes on with regards to design and testing of current generation F1 engines, while also shedding light into what was done in the past. While there are some posts which point out to what Honda has done wrong, which is irrelevant, there is a lot of questions and information of engines in general which is informative in general.

In 2015, there where speculation on Renault's piston failure. Was it proved or not? Should we not discuss on speculations?

To you it may be imaginary, but to the guys here it is just a discussion on possibilities.

[BosF1]

Honoustly, FW17 and Jonas-linders, I don't think your opinions are that far apart. It is more a matter of semantics. When is one allowed to speculate? I think people on a forum can speculate about engine architecture based on a article that was written on... speculation!

Let's stop calling one another a troll and keep it on topic.

[godlameroso]

Imagine if there is a rough unicorn running around inside the engine (reference to flight of conchords)!

Come on guys, where are the facts? One article where someone speculates? Interpretations of what McClaren and Honda are saying?

In the end, it might be true, but right now it is just rumors!

I completely agree, most of the posts since Monday don't even use the correct terminology. In particular the oil pan is being called the oil tank and they are 2 different parts.

These aren't wet sump systems like on your road car. Oil is stored external from the block...

Why would they use wet sumps in F1? Do engineers want to raise the center of gravity and add to the chance of oil starvation?

[godlameroso]

Imagine if there is a rough unicorn running around inside the engine (reference to flight of conchords)!

Come on guys, where are the facts? One article where someone speculates? Interpretations of what McClaren and Honda are saying?

In the end, it might be true, but right now it is just rumors!

How do you fit the unicorn inside the engine? In pieces?

Real talk, the problem on day 2 seems to have been more cause for concern. Reports say Vandoorne lost power, even hearing things like dead cylinder(s), since no one at Honda is allowed to comment all we have are bread crumbs to work with.

Is it possible there was a manufacturing error, maybe, is it possible I'm wrong? Wouldn't be the first time. Am I worried about Honda? Perhaps. I still have plenty of faith they can turn it around.

[wuzak]

Imagine if the bores or the head are becoming warped because the piston bores are too close together, and there's not enough material between the bores for the stiffness required. Or if the combustion chambers are so close that they're bleeding into each other when the head warps. Do these magical blocks still use(super fancy)head gaskets?

I wonder if Honda have done something creative with the shaft running north-south through the engine (assuming that the speculation they've gone for the architecture with the compressor at the front and turbine at the back, MHU-H in the middle is correct).
How low down is the MGU-H into the Vee, and what effect is that having on stiffness..?

Can't do too much creative with the orientation of the shaft as it has to be parallel to the crankshaft and concentric with the turbine and compressor and is required to run at the same speed.

They could offset the MGUH to lower the shaft, but then you have to gear the MGUH to the shaft which is, by all accounts, difficult to get right in the first place.