Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[godlameroso]

http://i.imgur.com/NJjF4ku.jpg

For your entertainment.

Looks like Honda went from ~958hp to ~970
Renault 980 - 994
Mercedes 990 - 1010
Ferrari 983 - 1006

I don't expect this to be very accurate, but if it is the differences don't seem that great, and if Honda's updates materialize they could become competitive as a 30hp improvement would put them at 1,000hp which would be a big achievement for this year, in my opinion.

I read the blog post (and others too) and I don't those numbers are accurate at all: they are based on the assumption that every manufacturer works around the flow meter pumping more than 100 kg/h.

They may be close to reality but that would be more due to sheer luck than by a good technical calculation.

I think they're burning 2 types of fuel, you're allowed 2 types per event, and are allowed to store 2 liters outside the main fuel tank. You have a low reactivity fuel for the main chamber (What you keep in the main fuel bladder). Then you have a higher reactivity fuel for the pre-chamber. 2 liters is enough as the pre-chamber is only a fraction of the volume of the main chamber. A little HRF goes into the pre-chamber, some LRF goes into the main chamber all precisely measured at a very specific cylinder timing, and boom lots of power at a very efficient level. Meanwhile what you smell is partly burned cetane improver of the HRF and some inadvertent oil burning.

[Tommy Cookers]

so they have 2 official fuel rate meters ?

both of the type that is officially infallible at measuring rates around 100 kg/hr ?
both officially approved via calibration checks on all the fuels used by all the cars ?

[diffuser]

So they do have 2 types of fuel ?

[henry]

so they have 2 official fuel rate meters ?

both of the type that is officially infallible at measuring rates around 100 kg/hr ?
both officially approved via calibration checks on all the fuels used by all the cars ?

Nope:

5.10.3
All cars must be fitted with a single fuel flow sensor, wholly within the fuel tank, which has been manufactured by the FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. This sensor may only be used as specified by the FIA.

And

6.1.2
When viewed in lateral projection, all the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the forward-most of the two vertical planes referred to in Article 5.3.7 and the line a- b-c in Drawing 2.
Furthermore, no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of point c) in Drawing 2. However, a maximum of 2 litres of fuel may be kept outside the survival cell, but only that which is necessary for the normal running of the engine.

And the Sporting regs say:

30.5

No car is permitted to consume more than 105kg of fuel, from the time at which the signal to start the race is given to the time each car crosses the Line after the end-of-race signal has been given. Other than in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the stewards of the meeting), any driver exceeding this limit will be excluded from the race results.

So the 2 litres may or may not be regulated.

It is sufficient for 54 seconds at 100 kg/hr and if a prechamber gets 3% about 30 minutes running in the duel fuel mode godlameroso touts.

[mclaren111]

Motorsport.com

Renault has admitted it made too big a change with its Formula 1 engine over last winter, and has paid the price with reliability struggles this year.

But after the manufacturer hit reliability headaches over the course of this year – which has included it needing to revert to using its 2016 MGU-K - Renault managing director Cyril Abiteboul has confessed that its ambitions were perhaps too big.

“I cannot look professional if I tell you that these were expected problems, because we don’t design a new engine expecting that it is not going to work,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com. “The reality, and that is still a frustrating thing, is that we are still not great at designing first time.

Looking at this I think Honda is doing great

[McL-H]

Motorsport.com

Renault has admitted it made too big a change with its Formula 1 engine over last winter, and has paid the price with reliability struggles this year.

But after the manufacturer hit reliability headaches over the course of this year – which has included it needing to revert to using its 2016 MGU-K - Renault managing director Cyril Abiteboul has confessed that its ambitions were perhaps too big.

“I cannot look professional if I tell you that these were expected problems, because we don’t design a new engine expecting that it is not going to work,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com. “The reality, and that is still a frustrating thing, is that we are still not great at designing first time.

Looking at this I think Honda is doing great

Yeah, Honda is amazing. 3 years now and almost competitive =D>

[godlameroso]

To be fair, they made a big improvement from 2015 to 2016, this year they were forced to basically start over, changing far more than Renault did. Meanwhile, Mercedes and Ferrari have simply been evolving their concepts since day one without having to make big architectural changes. So, I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be, with all due respect.

[PlatinumZealot]

They just go for the tightest achievable tolerance (not necessarily repeatable as long as the amount of scrapped parts is acceptable). If it can be measured on a CMM then it goes on the drawing.

That would be a massive waste of time. 1 micron parts don't pop out every 5 minutes.

This is in the context of a few important dimensions on a critical component. I'm not implying that anyone specifies 0.1 mm profile tolerances on the outside surface of a cam cover just because.

@PZ Really now, when has anyone cared about costs in F1? Do you seriously believe that F1 engine manufacturers are tighter than manufacturers of production aero engines? If your argument is constructed around the idea that tolerances are slacker because they care about prices then well.. you are wrong.

I said cost and TIME..Time is important in F1. But really and truly. Why don't you want to believe that there are other industries with higher precision and tighter tolerances than F1? In F1 there are many times we see a Jammed wheel nut or a water leak? One time a whole wheel hub exploded on a car.

[63l8qrrfy6]

That would be a massive waste of time. 1 micron parts don't pop out every 5 minutes.

This is in the context of a few important dimensions on a critical component. I'm not implying that anyone specifies 0.1 mm profile tolerances on the outside surface of a cam cover just because.

@PZ Really now, when has anyone cared about costs in F1? Do you seriously believe that F1 engine manufacturers are tighter than manufacturers of production aero engines? If your argument is constructed around the idea that tolerances are slacker because they care about prices then well.. you are wrong.

I said cost and TIME..Time is important in F1. But really and truly. Why don't you want to believe that there are other industries with higher precision and tighter tolerances than F1? In F1 there are many times we see a Jammed wheel nut or a water leak? One time a whole wheel hub exploded on a car.

The first reason is that F1 engine parts are small and tighter tolerances are easier to achieve compared to that turbofan, as I have explained before.

Secondly, a critical part only has a few critical dimensions and geometric characteristics that need to be carefully controlled - it won't make a massive difference if those are over-specified. Everything else can still be done to sensible tolerances.

How many of those failures are known to be tolerance-related ?

I don't know about other industries, I am just comparing that aero engine to a F1 engine.

[GoranF1]

Not 1...not 2... but 3 more updates that Alonso wont feel the difference.
https://twitter.com/RACERmag/status/897150413606076416

[diffuser]

so they have 2 official fuel rate meters ?

both of the type that is officially infallible at measuring rates around 100 kg/hr ?
both officially approved via calibration checks on all the fuels used by all the cars ?

Nope:

5.10.3
All cars must be fitted with a single fuel flow sensor, wholly within the fuel tank, which has been manufactured by the FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. This sensor may only be used as specified by the FIA.

And

6.1.2
When viewed in lateral projection, all the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the forward-most of the two vertical planes referred to in Article 5.3.7 and the line a- b-c in Drawing 2.
Furthermore, no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of point c) in Drawing 2. However, a maximum of 2 litres of fuel may be kept outside the survival cell, but only that which is necessary for the normal running of the engine.

And the Sporting regs say:

30.5

No car is permitted to consume more than 105kg of fuel, from the time at which the signal to start the race is given to the time each car crosses the Line after the end-of-race signal has been given. Other than in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the stewards of the meeting), any driver exceeding this limit will be excluded from the race results.

So the 2 litres may or may not be regulated.

It is sufficient for 54 seconds at 100 kg/hr and if a prechamber gets 3% about 30 minutes running in the duel fuel mode godlameroso touts.

That's really good thanks ..

but isn't the fuel running from the tank and maybe back from the PU (they're might a return to the tank) be part of the 2 liters ? Wouldn't the fuel pump hold some fuel as well(it cloud be in out out the tank, don't know) ?

I wonder how many meters of fuel line is needed. Bet it holds a bit of fuel. That's likely what the 2 liters are about.

[godlameroso]

Fuel return is an archaic method of fuel pressure regulation, most new cars use returnless systems without a vacuum assisted FPR. As for the pump rails and lines, they'd hold around .5 liters max. I'm sure that value increases with acummulators. The fuel tank isn't very far away from the engine either, if they're heating the fuel, they'd probably want to keep the lines as short as possible to maintain more accurate control over fuel temps.

[godlameroso]

Not 1...not 2... but 3 more updates that Alonso wont feel the difference.

https://twitter.com/RACERmag/status/897150413606076416

Hasegawa mentions 2 but possibly 3 updates. The improvements are gradual, you'd feel 10hp more on a 70hp engine than you would in a 200hp, let alone 970hp one.

I would take penalties in places you can pass, Spa, Malaysia, COTA, and Brazil would be the best candidates to introduce updates.

Suzuka is possible to pass, but very difficult with only one DRS zone, and wider more aero sensitive cars. Monza may be difficult with a straight line disadvantage but could be a strategic decision.

Singapore is very difficult to pass but traditionally has safety cars and can be a chaotic race. Mexico is nearly impossible to pass on, and Abu Dhabi is the last race, so any updates will have already been introduced, although passing is possible.

[gruntguru]

Fuel return is an archaic method of fuel pressure regulation, most new cars use returnless systems without a vacuum assisted FPR. As for the pump rails and lines, they'd hold around .5 liters max. I'm sure that value increases with acummulators. The fuel tank isn't very far away from the engine either, if they're heating the fuel, they'd probably want to keep the lines as short as possible to maintain more accurate control over fuel temps.

Road cars running low fuel pressure (<5 bar) need a return-loop system when converted to forced induction. The fuel pressure needs to be maintained at a constant level above boost pressure to keep injector flow constant at all values of MAP and running a boost line from the engine to a pressure reg at the back of the car is laggy.

High pressure DI systems like F1 usually have electronically variable fuel pressure to increase the turn down ratio of the injectors.

[Powerslide]

just out of curiousity, is honda's general lack of interest in turbulent jet injection technology setting them back? what about all that oil burning voodoo stuff that ferrari and mercedes-amg used before banned, that surely must have caught honda out