Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[ENGINE TUNER]

Running them above optimal rev range is primarily a bad influence on fuel consumption. I expect these these engines to have a relatively flat torque line, so power wise there isn't much to be won by running them in correct range.

It's good to see the chassis is class A- if they can find 75-100 bhp they're in the top 6.

These engines use the same amount of fuel regardless the rpm over 10.5k rpm, so the only reason running above the optimal rev range would increase fuel consumption is because of the lower power being produced and so the longer throttle times and time down the straight.

There is plenty of power to be gained by running in the correct range, as well as lower overall fuel consumption, as well as increased harvesting, as well as a lower starting weight on the start grid from using less fuel over the course of the race, Which then leads to improved tire wear and maybe even smaller brakes or less brake cooling, etc, etc, etc. It constantly compounds itself.

I'm not sure they'd start with less fuel. Wouldn't they do less fuel saving and go faster, with the same fuel?
Also, if they are on a long straight and going into higher revs to get that last little bit of speed, surely they would be using more fuel at that point, not regardless of the RPM? More revolutions means more fuel injections, no?

More rpm means more fuel injections but it also means injections of less fuel per injection, it also means less boost, and less TERS recovery and less power per injection. They use the same amount of fuel regardless of RPM above 10.5k rpm point blank period.

The fuel max is 100kg/hr above 10.5k rpm regardless of rpm, load, speed, boost, temperature, elevation, hair color, toe length or whatever other variable you want to measure.

If they were making more power they wouldn't have to fuel save(Merc and Ferrari are barely doing any fuel saving) so they would underfuel to make them faster over the course of the race.

More fuel does not make you faster in this formula, only more power(with the same fuel) or more power with less fuel.

[godlameroso]

They fuel save because they have to run rich in order to stave off detonation. If they don't have to stave off detonation they can run a bit leaner, and reduce their fuel saving. However with the current engine it's not possible, among other things that's what Honda is trying to fix with their planned upgrade, although they don't know if they'll be able to have it ready for Barcelona.

[ENGINE TUNER]

They fuel save because they have to run rich in order to stave off detonation. If they don't have to stave off detonation they can run a bit leaner, and reduce their fuel saving. However with the current engine it's not possible, among other things that's what Honda is trying to fix with their planned upgrade, although they don't know if they'll be able to have it ready for Barcelona.

They are not really "running rich", they are running the same amount of fuel but with less boost and thus "richer" than their competition(while still pretty lean compared to stoich). When they can get better combustion control they will still dump the same amount of fuel into the engine, just adding more air into the engine by increasing boost making the mixture leaner.

Fuel rate remains the same, it is the amount of air that changes. As they increase in rpm they decrease the boost to maintain the optimal fuel mixture. As they are able to better control combustion they will maintain the same fuel rate while making the turbo force more air into ICE.

The best way to understand these engines to to always remember that fuel remains constant, it is the other aspects that are variable.

[godlameroso]

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote="ENGINE TUNER"][quote="Tommy Cookers"]
maximum permitted fuel rate is reached at 10500 rpm
but they don't necessarily take the full rate there, maybe it's only used at somewhat higher rpm ?[/quote]

Of course they do, it makes no sense not to. If they wanted to run lower fuel than allowed it would be much more advantageous to just run at the lower rpm that corresponds to the lower fuel rate according to the fuel rate formula in the regulations. It would be more efficient and allow them to run more boost which would also give more TERS harvesting.
There is absolutely no reason to run less than 100kg/hr fuel rate at or above 10.5k rpm[/quote]

well, to put it simply, I say .....
if they fuel 100 kg/hr at 10500 rpm and have there the efficiency-optimal mixture ......
in principle it follows that if/when going up to about 15% more rpm they will ......
(a) maintain the boost and so need to lean further the mixture by 15% - this costs crankshaft power and recovery power ..or
(b) reduce the (absolute) boost by about 15% to maintain the mixture (so having now a sub-optimal CR) - this costs crankshaft power...or
(c) some combination of the two options above

the penalties of (a), (b), or (c) are reduced if they design the ICE for fuelling at eg 95.4 kg/hr @ 10500 rpm and 100 kg/hr @ 11000 rpm

[ENGINE TUNER]

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

[kasio]

By competitive I mean on par with Renault both power and reliability wise.

well i guess we dont want to be on par with renault reliability wise. we are allready better we should get on par with Merc imho on that matter.

How do you figure that?

Renault have had 6 cars in 2 GPs.
All 6 Renault powered cars finished in China.
4 finished in Melbourne, but one that did not finish was due to a brake issue.

Ricciardo did not finish in Melbourne. The reason for his retirement was given as Power Unit, but he only replaced the Control Electronics for China. SO his power unit is quite OK.

Meanwhile Vandoorne replaced his turbocharger and MGUH for Melbourne.

Hardly seems like Honda are superior to Renault on reliability.

palmer in australia.

[godlameroso]

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

Ever tuned a piggy back computer? If we talk about these f1 engines they won't be pouring fuel at part throttle.

[mwillems]

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

Even so, does this mean they could run less fuel? They are so far from being fuel efficient or powerful that I just can't see them getting to that level for a while.

Allied to that, we don't even know if the engine or chassis are even strong enough to handle a substantial increase in power yet. If they do get that power, will the fundamental issues with the engine and the drivetrain return? I just feel that anything that suggests that one or two changes will make the whole package work, is a little premature. But maybe I'm way off base.

The fuel flow does make sense though, thanks for explaining. It's 105kg per hour not 100, but that's splitting hairs.

[mwillems]

Semantics. Rich or lean are relative terms of course, and don't necessarily correspond with a stoichiometric mixture. In a road car you can still be too lean despite running a 1.2 equivalence ratio, while rich can be as high as 1.4. We don't know what kind of AFR is possible with these engines some estimates have eq ratio around .8 or as low as .6 under certain conditions.

I only partly agree about fuel consumption, you have an upper limit, you can also go below that limit. Often, fuel is trimmed from max in order to shape the power curve in conjunction with intake pressure and exhaust back pressure.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

Ever tuned a piggy back computer? If we talk about these f1 engines they won't be pouring fuel at part throttle.

Do the engine manufacturers have differing optimal fuel flow rates do you think? Or do they take it as close to the bone as they can? You'd think that they would get as much bang for their buck in terms of fuel, and so the fuel flow rate wouldn't change, but the energy harvested from the explosion is the key difference?

If engine manufacturers did use lower fuel flow rates than the max, is that because they have limited it? I wonder if the gain from running at a 105ph from say 95-98 ph, is such that the improvement in power is less than the time gained from running less fuel. Or is that nonsense? Despite asking that (Potentially stupid) question, I still maintain Honda will be nowehere near that point for some time.

[godlameroso]

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the bolded portion above.

It is not semantics, instantaneous fuel flow rate/usage remains constant, that is the best way to evaluate these engines.

Ever tuned a piggy back computer? If we talk about these f1 engines they won't be pouring fuel at part throttle.

Do the engine manufacturers have differing optimal fuel flow rates do you think? Or do they take it as close to the bone as they can? You'd think that they would get as much bang for their buck in terms of fuel, and so the fuel flow rate wouldn't change, but the energy harvested from the explosion is the key difference?

If engine manufacturers did use lower fuel flow rates than the max, is that because they have limited it? I wonder if the gain from running at a 105ph from say 95-98 ph, is such that the improvement in power is less than the time gained from running less fuel. Or is that nonsense? Despite asking that (Potentially stupid) question, I still maintain Honda will be nowehere near that point for some time.

Hard to say exactly, if you want to get the most heat energy recovery, maybe. There's also concerns about drivability, even with the large tires a certain amount of throttle finesse is needed. Wazari said that the 2016 car had an 11cm throttle pedal travel, which is roughly the same as an average clutch pedal.

[kasio]

By competitive I mean on par with Renault both power and reliability wise.

well i guess we dont want to be on par with renault reliability wise. we are allready better we should get on par with Merc imho on that matter.

How do you figure that?

Renault have had 6 cars in 2 GPs.
All 6 Renault powered cars finished in China.
4 finished in Melbourne, but one that did not finish was due to a brake issue.

Ricciardo did not finish in Melbourne. The reason for his retirement was given as Power Unit, but he only replaced the Control Electronics for China. SO his power unit is quite OK.

Meanwhile Vandoorne replaced his turbocharger and MGUH for Melbourne.

Hardly seems like Honda are superior to Renault on reliability.

how are you counting? if you count like that then: 2017 CHINESE GRAND PRIX:
Red Bull Racing TAG Heuer:
Car 03:         Water pump
                    Water pipe
                    Gearbox layshaft sensor
Car 33:         Ignition coils
                    Injection rails
                    Spark plugs
                    PSUF1 (new)
                    K-shaft
                    Parameters associated with replacement of injection and ignition components

Renault:
Car 27:         Driver’s drink pump
                    Turbine pressure sensor
                    Parameters associated with turbine pressure sensor replacement
Car 30:         RHS front brake blanking panel
                    RHS front brake blanking ring
                    Front brake friction material (used)
                    MGU-K shaft
                    RHS front blanking disc
                    RHS front drum anchornut
                    LHS front brake caliper carbon cover
                    Zeroing of brake wear LVDTs

Toro Rosso :
Car 26:         RHS floor tyre curl
Car 55:         BBW unit
                    Parameters associated with BBW unit replacement

and mclaren:
McLaren Honda:
Car 14:         LHS drive shaft / upright assembly
                    Waste gate manifold

[hurril]

how are you counting? if you count like that then: 2017 CHINESE GRAND PRIX:
Red Bull Racing TAG Heuer:
Car 03:         Water pump
                    Water pipe
                    Gearbox layshaft sensor
Car 33:         Ignition coils
                    Injection rails
                    Spark plugs
                    PSUF1 (new)
                    K-shaft
                    Parameters associated with replacement of injection and ignition components

Renault:
Car 27:         Driver’s drink pump
                    Turbine pressure sensor
                    Parameters associated with turbine pressure sensor replacement
Car 30:         RHS front brake blanking panel
                    RHS front brake blanking ring
                    Front brake friction material (used)
                    MGU-K shaft
                    RHS front blanking disc
                    RHS front drum anchornut
                    LHS front brake caliper carbon cover
                    Zeroing of brake wear LVDTs

Toro Rosso :
Car 26:         RHS floor tyre curl
Car 55:         BBW unit
                    Parameters associated with BBW unit replacement

and mclaren:
McLaren Honda:
Car 14:         LHS drive shaft / upright assembly
                    Waste gate manifold

Where can I see this sort of information?

[PhillipM]

Ever tuned a piggy back computer? If we talk about these f1 engines they won't be pouring fuel at part throttle.

They do, just they use the motors to regenerate it for use where they're not traction limited to part throttle.

[mwillems]

Ever tuned a piggy back computer? If we talk about these f1 engines they won't be pouring fuel at part throttle.

Do the engine manufacturers have differing optimal fuel flow rates do you think? Or do they take it as close to the bone as they can? You'd think that they would get as much bang for their buck in terms of fuel, and so the fuel flow rate wouldn't change, but the energy harvested from the explosion is the key difference?

If engine manufacturers did use lower fuel flow rates than the max, is that because they have limited it? I wonder if the gain from running at a 105ph from say 95-98 ph, is such that the improvement in power is less than the time gained from running less fuel. Or is that nonsense? Despite asking that (Potentially stupid) question, I still maintain Honda will be nowehere near that point for some time.

Hard to say exactly, if you want to get the most heat energy recovery, maybe. There's also concerns about drivability, even with the large tires a certain amount of throttle finesse is needed. Wazari said that the 2016 car had an 11cm throttle pedal travel, which is roughly the same as an average clutch pedal.

True, this is science way more than engineering. I think drivability can be tamed somewhat with mappings, though?
On another note, if in a few races time, Mclaren bolt in a new engine with more power and more efficiency, could the drivetrain even handle it.