Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Tommy Cookers]

The electrial problems are being caused by the PU vibrations. According to the Sky testing recap tonight.....

these crankshafts have dampers to reduce torsional vibration but will still be twisting through about +0.25 deg to -0.25 deg about 200 times per second
generating high stresses that would cause fatigue failure after maybe 200 hours
the mechanical effects due to the MGU-K (geared to the crankshaft) will be integrated into the crankshaft/damper system by design
but the MGU-K is presumably exposed to (some of) the crankshaft's torsional vibration
this vibration is presumably causing some kind of vibratory stress damage/fretting to the electrical insulation of conductors in the rotating parts

That's something I'd like to know more about mate !
Could you explain in a bit more detail the crankshaft damper system ?
I find that fascinating !

at this moment I assume modern race engines (even V6s) still have dampers as all road cars and performance road cars do
eg http://www.atiracing.com/products/dampe ... _dinan.htm
though they don't all use the conventional elastomer-mounted inertial mass type, other types are available
eg the Cosworth DFV seems to have been initially without a damper, but introduced it in 1971 as the rpm was raised
the Cosworth CA has 'a big viscous damper on the back of the crankshaft' (and 13 other dampers)
some other rival NA F1 engines used pendulum-type dampers on their crankshaft torsionals
and Cosworth says 'in F1 it is a case of using the best firing order and fixing the torsionals'
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/18858

the damping is lighter than suspension damping (a crankshaft has some natural damping from internal and external friction)
but is enough to reduce the angular deflection by at least half
eg the 60s Indy Ford crossplane V8 had +-0.21 deg damped at normal peak power 7300 rpm
but undamped +-0.36 deg (4th order) at 6100 rpm and over 0.5 deg (3rd order) at 8000 rpm
(btw if made of mild steel this crankshaft twisted to 0.21 deg wouldn't return to 0 deg unloaded, if cast iron it'd break before reaching 0.21 deg)
(btw 2 this engine was used (destroked from 4.2 to 3 litres) in 1967 F1 by McLaren
the destroking was done by machining much away much of the crankpins and metal spraying (Stellite) new metal in the right place
over-ported and over-valved even at 4.2 litres it was a disaster at 3 litres, slightly relieved by using smaller bellmouths and throttle bodies
the days of 'men in sheds' ! - maybe they should have V6'd it ? eg by leaving 2 pistons on the bench? )


due to its position we would expect the MGU-K to be exposed to some small fraction of the torsional vibration at engine frequency
but a bigger fraction of the torsional vibrations at higher frequencies eg 3rd order etc, these are anyway the greater amplitudes
and the MGU-K angular displacement is about 3.5x the crankshaft's as this is the gearing ratio

[J.A.W.]

So I hope this PU can be exploited to its full potential. The power is there, the efficiency is there and as usual, reliability is the big question mark because mainly of what I have mentioned before. This of course has caused friction between us and McLaren and it is a very, very difficult partnership. I don’t know what the future lies but I know we have put tremendous effort into this PU. Almost everything is new. This is what IMO we should have built for 2015. Things will break. The latest failure was a valve-train issue stemming from an electrical problem. This is a problem that is being addressed currently and I think should be resolved before Melbourne.

Wazari-san: I think a week back you mentioned that everyone at Honda was happy with what they saw and this weeks its been the exact opposite. Hasegawa-san has openly admitted that he is worried that the gap to rivals would have increased this year.

So while reliability troubles could be expected because of a new layout and modifications to the engine, lack of power is a shocker. There have been reports about the ERS system is not working well and not charging within a lap. Is this the real issue or do you believe there is a fundamental problem with the design itself because of which potential peak power cannot be extracted?

I read few posts which say that McLaren must go back to Mercedes. I think everyone who wants McLaren to win again must understand that if they were to use Mercedes engine, they could at best come second but not win a championship.

Honda has a long history of concentrating on laboratory power 1st, & real world chassis compatibility/driver
usability, ah, - down the scale, going back to the 1960's & both in in car & bike racing with results outcomes often being patchy-to-unreliable, through to - downright fails..

No wonder McLaren as fellow 'perfectionistas' - in their field, are frustrated, IMO...

[g70]

Honda's History in Formula 1 is not as beautiful as you would have us believe.
I remember they built an F1 in the 1960s (I think after 1965 because the drivers were Surtees and Ginther formers Ferrari). The projects were rather bizarre and even a car was built in magnesium. If I remember correctly Surtess refused to drive it because it was too dangerous (magnesium is flammable material) and an accident caught fire and driver's died . I forget who him was. After 4 or 5 years of participation they retired. They won very few games (2 ?, 3?). In the 1980s they took part as an engine supplier (Williams, McLaren, Lotus?) They had remarkable success especially by McLaren. Perhaps this created the legend. In 2000s they returned and the results are before our eyes: It was always unsuccessful both as a manufacturer and as an engine supplier.
Are my opinions based on my memories.
However I hope that McLaren, historical brand of F1, competitive return (not too much though...... I hope that Ferrari is better)

[3jawchuck]

Honda's History in Formula 1 is not as beautiful as you would have us believe.
I remember they built an F1 in the 1960s (I think after 1965 because the drivers were Surtees and Ginther formers Ferrari). The projects were rather bizarre and even a car was built in magnesium. If I remember correctly Surtess refused to drive it because it was too dangerous (magnesium is flammable material) and an accident caught fire and driver's died . I forget who him was. After 4 or 5 years of participation they retired. They won very few games (2 ?, 3?). In the 1980s they took part as an engine supplier (Williams, McLaren, Lotus?) They had remarkable success especially by McLaren. Perhaps this created the legend. In 2000s they returned and the results are before our eyes: It was always unsuccessful both as a manufacturer and as an engine supplier.

The car was the RA302 and the driver Jo Schlesser, this tragedy led to them leaving F1 for 30 years as a chassis manufacturer. Regarding this tragedy, this was a period of F1 history that was known as highly dangerous and many drivers, great and small, died. Regarding performance, if I remember correctly, Hondas back in the 60s tended to be innovative but unreliable, only winning a couple of races.

I agree with most of your sentiment though, Honda has had less than a stellar history as a manufacturer team, but their foray into engine supply was indeed great. This did indeed fuel the hype surrounding the McLaren Honda project in the new era, but it seems that they can't handle this new hybrid, engine restricted formula with their corporate philosophy.

[Tommy Cookers]

iirc etc
Honda offered to supply engines to Lotus c1963, but were rejected
their 1.5 litre 64-5 F1 car eventually came good
(transverse V12 central power takeoff engine based on existing freelance project (done for Maserati) with I guess Honda head design)
in 66 dominant in 1 litre F2 as engine supplier to Brabham
67 etc their F1 3 litre central power takeoff V12 car was powerful but too heavy and bulky
the notorious (Jo Schlesser's death) later car was a lightweight aircooled ! V8

resumed dominance in 1980 2 litre F2 V6 engine supply to Ralt
this led to destroked 1.5 litre F1 turbo developments

just found this
http://www.allf1.info/engines/honda.php

[Imido_30]

From Autosport.com: http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... al-f1-test

Honda has spent much of the winter working on advanced combustion technology in its bid to close the gap to the leading manufacturers, but the combustion process it has created is so unstable the engine will not hold together. Apparently, one unit even ejected a piston during one of Stoffel Vandoorne's runs in the car!

The early indications suggest Honda has reverse engineered its 2017 engine, delivering an initial specification that is down on power compared to the 2016 unit, and an updated version tried at the second test that was even worse.

[godlameroso]

So is it a harmonics issue, engine not strong enough? Or too much power for the block to handle? The Buick v6 turbo engines had a fatal flaw, they only had space for 6 head studs, so if you ran too much boost the head studs would stretch as the head was lifted from the block.

Throwing pistons is usually caused by detonation, maybe it's just a matter of strengthening the block in order to better deal with any detonation.

[RS200E]

Honda's History in Formula 1 is not as beautiful as you would have us believe.
I remember they built an F1 in the 1960s (I think after 1965 because the drivers were Surtees and Ginther formers Ferrari). The projects were rather bizarre and even a car was built in magnesium. If I remember correctly Surtess refused to drive it because it was too dangerous (magnesium is flammable material) and an accident caught fire and driver's died . I forget who him was. After 4 or 5 years of participation they retired. They won very few games (2 ?, 3?). In the 1980s they took part as an engine supplier (Williams, McLaren, Lotus?) They had remarkable success especially by McLaren. Perhaps this created the legend. In 2000s they returned and the results are before our eyes: It was always unsuccessful both as a manufacturer and as an engine supplier.
Are my opinions based on my memories.
However I hope that McLaren, historical brand of F1, competitive return (not too much though...... I hope that Ferrari is better)

Honda's History in Formula 1 is not as beautiful as you would have us believe.
I remember they built an F1 in the 1960s (I think after 1965 because the drivers were Surtees and Ginther formers Ferrari). The projects were rather bizarre and even a car was built in magnesium. If I remember correctly Surtess refused to drive it because it was too dangerous (magnesium is flammable material) and an accident caught fire and driver's died . I forget who him was. After 4 or 5 years of participation they retired. They won very few games (2 ?, 3?). In the 1980s they took part as an engine supplier (Williams, McLaren, Lotus?) They had remarkable success especially by McLaren. Perhaps this created the legend. In 2000s they returned and the results are before our eyes: It was always unsuccessful both as a manufacturer and as an engine supplier.

The car was the RA302 and the driver Jo Schlesser, this tragedy led to them leaving F1 for 30 years as a chassis manufacturer. Regarding this tragedy, this was a period of F1 history that was known as highly dangerous and many drivers, great and small, died. Regarding performance, if I remember correctly, Hondas back in the 60s tended to be innovative but unreliable, only winning a couple of races.

I agree with most of your sentiment though, Honda has had less than a stellar history as a manufacturer team, but their foray into engine supply was indeed great. This did indeed fuel the hype surrounding the McLaren Honda project in the new era, but it seems that they can't handle this new hybrid, engine restricted formula with their corporate philosophy.

iirc etc
Honda offered to supply engines to Lotus c1963, but were rejected
their 1.5 litre 64-5 F1 car eventually came good
(transverse V12 central power takeoff engine based on existing freelance project (done for Maserati) with I guess Honda head design)
in 66 dominant in 1 litre F2 as engine supplier to Brabham
67 etc their F1 3 litre central power takeoff V12 car was powerful but too heavy and bulky
the notorious (Jo Schlesser's death) later car was a lightweight aircooled ! V8

resumed dominance in 1980 2 litre F2 V6 engine supply to Ralt
this led to destroked 1.5 litre F1 turbo developments

Fastforward to 2004 and Honda became quite handy, finishing 3rd in the WDC and 2nd in the WDC against a dominant Ferrari. The 2004 engine was reportedly the most powerful and I remember it sounded amazing! So loud almost too loud.

Honda can do it. And I'm not even one of those always positive people.

[ollandos]

the engine need rebuild and checks ...
1.stiffness parts
2.optimize the pre champer solution and checks the sizes
3.check the valves for size and timing (even can be only there the problem ) for me sounds like something like that ...i dont have a view of engines or data but its high possible they mess something there and they thing wrong its maping issue...my opinion on the dark its they have small valves and cant put out all gas out of cylinder ...and that change the cylinder ratio -=vibrations and broke

a lot of work infront ...min honda need 2-6 months ..for 1st race ..main object is to save the engine and make the race if its possible..save maps and less fuel on tank low revs can help ...

[ESPImperium]

If its down to harmonics and resonance, is it the engine designers fault for wanting the wrong material for the block, or is it a foundry issue for using the wrong material or wrong process.

What is clear to me is that the 7 years they were not in F1 they lost the technology in the EBD days, and also didn't gain any data in the electronics side to manage it.

[alexa]

I read few posts which say that McLaren must go back to Mercedes. I think everyone who wants McLaren to win again must understand that if they were to use Mercedes engine, they could at best come second but not win a championship.

so i guess with that logic Redbull will never win a championship because of the Renault team?

McLaren have allways been hiding behind engine when their car was bad, If they got the best engine they cant do that, we can see that in 2014, yes okay somebody will say that Mercedes dont let them win, but why then they didnt finish every race in 3rd and 4th place in 2014?

They where down on power even then because they where using Mobile fuel ,and not petronas , so they had around 30HP less then Mercedes had.

[63l8qrrfy6]

these crankshafts have dampers to reduce torsional vibration but will still be twisting through about +0.25 deg to -0.25 deg about 200 times per second
generating high stresses that would cause fatigue failure after maybe 200 hours
the mechanical effects due to the MGU-K (geared to the crankshaft) will be integrated into the crankshaft/damper system by design
but the MGU-K is presumably exposed to (some of) the crankshaft's torsional vibration
this vibration is presumably causing some kind of vibratory stress damage/fretting to the electrical insulation of conductors in the rotating parts

That's something I'd like to know more about mate !
Could you explain in a bit more detail the crankshaft damper system ?
I find that fascinating !

at this moment I assume modern race engines (even V6s) still have dampers as all road cars and performance road cars do
eg http://www.atiracing.com/products/dampe ... _dinan.htm
though they don't all use the conventional elastomer-mounted inertial mass type, other types are available
eg the Cosworth DFV seems to have been initially without a damper, but introduced it in 1971 as the rpm was raised
the Cosworth CA has 'a big viscous damper on the back of the crankshaft' (and 13 other dampers)
some other rival NA F1 engines used pendulum-type dampers on their crankshaft torsionals

the damping is lighter than suspension damping (a crankshaft has some natural damping from internal and external friction)
but is enough to reduce the angular deflection by at least half
eg the 60s Indy Ford crossplane V8 had +-0.21 deg damped at normal peak power 7300 rpm
but undamped +-0.36 deg (4th order) at 6100 rpm and over 0.5 deg (3rd order) at 8000 rpm
(btw if made of mild steel this crankshaft twisted to 0.21 deg wouldn't return to 0 deg unloaded, if cast iron it'd break before reaching 0.21 deg)
(btw 2 this engine was used (destroked from 4.2 to 3 litres) in 1967 F1 by McLaren
the destroking was done by machining much away much of the crankpins and metal spraying (Stellite) new metal in the right place
over-ported and over-valved even at 4.2 litres it was a disaster at 3 litres, slightly relieved by using smaller bellmouths and throttle bodies
the days of 'men in sheds' ! - maybe they should have V6'd it ? eg by leaving 2 pistons on the bench? )


due to its position we would expect the MGU-K to be exposed to some small fraction of the torsional vibration at engine frequency
but a bigger fraction of the torsional vibrations at higher frequencies eg 3rd order etc, these are anyway the greater amplitudes
and the MGU-K angular displacement is about 3.5x the crankshaft's as this is the gearing ratio

the MGU-K would have to be soft-coupled in order to be isolated from engine vibrations so most of that angular displacement will likely be taken up by the compliance in the drive.

Also - amplitudes tend to drop as the order increases (forced vibration, no resonance).

Here's an interesting thought - when do you think the gear loads are higher - when the K is driven/driving or when is it freewheeling ? In the former there is a mean load but the dynamic loads are potentially reduced , in the other case there is no mean load (other than some residual friction forces) but the dynamic loads can be higher.

[popovic94]

so i guess with that logic Redbull will never win a championship because of the Renault team?

McLaren have allways been hiding behind engine when their car was bad, If they got the best engine they cant do that, we can see that in 2014, yes okay somebody will say that Mercedes dont let them win, but why then they didnt finish every race in 3rd and 4th place in 2014?

They where down on power even then because they where using Mobile fuel ,and not petronas , so they had around 30HP less then Mercedes had.

Still more than any other engine on the grid

[63l8qrrfy6]

So is it a harmonics issue, engine not strong enough? Or too much power for the block to handle? The Buick v6 turbo engines had a fatal flaw, they only had space for 6 head studs, so if you ran too much boost the head studs would stretch as the head was lifted from the block.

Throwing pistons is usually caused by detonation, maybe it's just a matter of strengthening the block in order to better deal with any detonation.

pistons also come out as a result of pin bore or small end seizures. As their lube system issues are well-known, this sounds more plausible.

[godlameroso]

Wrist pin failure?