Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Craigy]

If Mclaren was smart, they'd bring him back into the fold on a permanent retainer with one eye on developing their own engine by 2024.

In 2024, Illien will be 75 years old.

Why so many people insist about mclaren engine? I dont know if they know something very important that mclaren dont know

I'm guessing, but I suppose it's because McLaren are seen by some as the English Ferrari (given the roadcar company, etc). It's fairly far from the truth in my opinion, but I sort of see the logic.

[roon]

In 2024, Illien will be 75 years old.

Why so many people insist about mclaren engine? I dont know if they know something very important that mclaren dont know

I'm guessing, but I suppose it's because McLaren are seen by some as the English Ferrari (given the roadcar company, etc). It's fairly far from the truth in my opinion, but I sort of see the logic.

Might be cheaper if they just started selling caffeinated beverages on the side. Which begs the question, what is more profitable: selling overpriced engines a la Ferrari, or selling overpriced fizzy drinks a la Red Bull?

[mwillems]

If Mclaren was smart, they'd bring him back into the fold on a permanent retainer with one eye on developing their own engine by 2024.

If they had a spare half a billion pounds, too. Engine development costs at this level are absolutely insane.

Stupid question time: why is this the case? What drives the cost here? I will go ahead and speculate that it might have something to do with the iterative nature of R&D which can be massively upscaled in this context. Then you get to exotic material and cutting-edge design costs & low quantity boutique manufacturing & associated high-cost expertise.

What is to stop some mad geniuses from forming a smaller company to produce one of these PUs at a reduced cost?

Can the few, no matter how bright, ever compete against enterprise? Is scale in this context insurmountable; intractable?

IMO it is impossible. The engines now cover such an array of sciences and technologies, that to have the best staff in field for those technologies themselves already presents significant costs. The budget for the staff alone per year would be many many millions. Then there is the materials costs, the facilities (State of the art Dynos, supercomputers etc), the R&D, the premiums for attaining goals, production or purchasing at such a high speed. Now take those costs for the current engine, and add the costs for the next engine, started 3 years in advance. You cannot spare a penny in this field, or you risk falling behind.

To get a bunch of people together, who are advanced enough in their field to push the boundaries of F1, who have access to all the equipment and staff they need, all in a small company.... I'm not so sure it could happen. If it did, I'm not even sure if F1 would allow them to turn a significant profit with the limit on engine costs. Not unless they partnered with a big name manufacturer who supplied the infrastructure in return for their badge on the engine. But then they would have to prove their concept first, and build an engine, without the infrastructure and support. So it's chicken and egg.

Here's a question, what would it take to turn Riccardo into an F1 engine manufacturer? That would surely be the way forward if Mclaren chose that route.

But then imagine if Mclaren had a bad couple of years, with no big brand supplier to supplement their income, they would possibly fold under the financial pressure. Unfortunately, for everything Mclaren have achieved, they are not a big enough company. I think they have a very long way to go be anywhere near Ferrari and make their own block, who have the backing of Fiat and the much bigger and more profitable Ferrari brand.

Anyhow, that's just my opinion and you're welcome to shoot me down!

[PlatinumZealot]

"The turbocharger consists of a single stage impulse turbine connected to a centrifugal impeller via a shaft.

The turbine is driven by the engine exhaust gas, which enters via the gas inlet casing. The gas expands through a nozzle ring where the pressure energy of the gas is converted to kinetic energy. This high velocity gas is directed onto the turbine blades where it drives the turbine wheel, and thus the compressor at high speeds (10 -15000 rpm). The exhaust gas then passes through the outlet casing to the exhaust uptakes.

Uhm. In bold, that copy and paste you made, just proven that your water wheel is not a turbocharger. See why you were talking nonsense before?

[godlameroso]

regarding the supposed unimpeachable applicability here of the so-called laws of thermodynamics, consider that .....

16000 'Turbocompound' aircraft engines gained at takeoff from recovery turbines 18 hp mechanically added to every 100 hp 'piston' crankshaft power
without any drop in the mean exhaust pressure across the turbines and apparently without any temperature drop across the turbines
(the exhaust plume post-turbine was white hot from atmospheric combustion of fuel carried across in the exhaust by the very rich mixture used)
and free of cost in terms of extra fuel consumption

all this free recovered power came from the exhaust 'pulses' of high velocity/high pressure in the exhaust stream

this was a few years after the UK Govt bought a race-winning Norton motorcycle to investigate its volumetric efficiency that 'science' said was impossible

No pressure drop, no temperature drop, so... only a change in velocity?

Although you did mention *mean* exhaust pressure, so could it be that the peak and trough of the pressure fluctuations are changing pre- & post-turbine without affecting the average (much)? Such that pre-turbine the manifold sees both lower and higher pressure than what is measure post-turbine.

Apologies to the PhDs for the physics 101 discourse...

Good guess/insight that's exactly how a blowdown turbine works. And the compounding to the crank used hydraulics. I imagine it would be too heavy and bulky for F1 uses even though the regulations allow it.

[gruntguru]

Any guesses as to what the temperature delta is pre- and post-turbine on these PUs? Generally: is this something that is ever expressed as a percentage? "A gas stream temperature drops approx x% through the turbine stage(s)."

Usually ~100c difference, but as high as 160c difference.

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

[gruntguru]

regarding the supposed unimpeachable applicability here of the so-called laws of thermodynamics, consider that .....

16000 'Turbocompound' aircraft engines gained at takeoff from recovery turbines 18 hp mechanically added to every 100 hp 'piston' crankshaft power
without any drop in the mean exhaust pressure across the turbines and apparently without any temperature drop across the turbines
(the exhaust plume post-turbine was white hot from atmospheric combustion of fuel carried across in the exhaust by the very rich mixture used)
and free of cost in terms of extra fuel consumption

all this free recovered power came from the exhaust 'pulses' of high velocity/high pressure in the exhaust stream

this was a few years after the UK Govt bought a race-winning Norton motorcycle to investigate its volumetric efficiency that 'science' said was impossible

No pressure drop, no temperature drop, so... only a change in velocity?

Although you did mention *mean* exhaust pressure, so could it be that the peak and trough of the pressure fluctuations are changing pre- & post-turbine without affecting the average (much)? Such that pre-turbine the manifold sees both lower and higher pressure than what is measure post-turbine.

Apologies to the PhDs for the physics 101 discourse...

Good guess/insight that's exactly how a blowdown turbine works. And the compounding to the crank used hydraulics. I imagine it would be too heavy and bulky for F1 uses even though the regulations allow it.

The turbine of your average turbocharger is capable of extracting a considerable portion of the blowdown kinetic energy and certainly does in an F1 engine. This is in addition to the large amount of heat energy (enthalpy) extracted. The 250*C temperature drop mentioned in the previous post equates to about 150 kW of power.

[godlameroso]

Any guesses as to what the temperature delta is pre- and post-turbine on these PUs? Generally: is this something that is ever expressed as a percentage? "A gas stream temperature drops approx x% through the turbine stage(s)."

Usually ~100c difference, but as high as 160c difference.

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

Wow! I expected these engines to have higher difference, that's a very high number

[wuzak]

Good guess/insight that's exactly how a blowdown turbine works. And the compounding to the crank used hydraulics. I imagine it would be too heavy and bulky for F1 uses even though the regulations allow it.

The current regulations do not allow a direct connection between turbocharger and crank. Only the electrical path defined by the MGUH and MGUK.

[roon]

Any guesses as to what the temperature delta is pre- and post-turbine on these PUs? Generally: is this something that is ever expressed as a percentage? "A gas stream temperature drops approx x% through the turbine stage(s)."

Usually ~100c difference, but as high as 160c difference.

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

[godlameroso]

They also allow engine ancillaries to drive the MGU-K, and energy transfer between the MGU-K and H are unlimited, which would set up your pathway. With MGU-K harvesting at a premium due to the longer periods at full throttle, teams have to rely more on the MGU-H, so if they could get the 2MJ per lap maximum from the K, it could be an advantage. However, I don't think Honda has issues with deployment any more, and again the system would be bulky and heavy and space is already at a premium.

On a semi related note, would McLaren accept a slightly heavier head, if it meant that they could squeeze more of the ultimate potential out of the power unit?

[godlameroso]

Usually ~100c difference, but as high as 160c difference.

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

https://s11.postimg.org/ncdyt9fpf/image.jpg

80% is turbine efficiency, in other words conversion of exhaust heat into work, either for the MGU-H or compressor, or both.

[roon]

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

https://s11.postimg.org/ncdyt9fpf/image.jpg

80% is turbine efficiency, in other words conversion of exhaust heat into work, either for the MGU-H or compressor, or both.

Ah, well, that mucks up the first draft then. I suppose combustion efficiency would be somewhere closer to 100% wouldn't it?

[godlameroso]

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

https://s11.postimg.org/ncdyt9fpf/image.jpg

80% is turbine efficiency, in other words conversion of exhaust heat into work, either for the MGU-H or compressor, or both.

Ah, well, that mucks up the first draft then. I suppose combustion efficiency would be somewhere closer to 100% wouldn't it?

80% of what's left over after working the crank

[roon]

80% is turbine efficiency, in other words conversion of exhaust heat into work, either for the MGU-H or compressor, or both.

Ah, well, that mucks up the first draft then. I suppose combustion efficiency would be somewhere closer to 100% wouldn't it?

80% of what's left over after working the crank

?

I mean to say: combustion efficiency being just conversion of chemical energy into heat within the chamber should be in the high 90 percent range. From there subdivide into work & waste.

To the latter point: I am now thinking I should apply such a methodology to my life. But then, will I still have time to post on F1T?