Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Goosey]

An internal source. Not speculation.

[RedNEO]

It's funny, not as much on this site but elsewhere on the net, to see people savage Honda for the single cylinder model as if they're smarter and could've done it better from the start: they are not and they could not have. Anyone who works in a field where R&D is done and the final assembly/product has multiple repeated structures/elements in it understands that you almost always do proof-of-concept on 'subset models' for the benefits of turnaround time, ease of analysis, and cost as you do iterative development. In most cases, a lot can be gleaned from these 'subset models' but in some cases, they do not translate to scale assembly, which is what Honda has found in this instance. Honda has learned and has moved on. Were they silly for attempting to develop this way in the first place? No, and anyone who thinks they are does not know as much as they think they do.

Yeah buts It's not about Honda v people on forums though. It's about Honda v Mercedes Ferrari and Renault and seeing how they operate compared to the best.

And overall in the last three years it's been solidly mediocre.

[fellowhoodlums]

Just thinking about the engine changes.

Honda has been implementing a lot of countermeasures in response to the vibration issues and MGU-H failures.

Is it possible that this Hungary spec engine will have these countermeasures reversed for Spa? This is perhaps the improvements they knew they would get so quickly after Hungary. ie exploiting the engine more fully.

Anyone got an idea what these countermeasures would be?

[63l8qrrfy6]

Single cylinder development is the correct way to test combustion concepts - the real mistake was failing to predict behaviour in a multi cylinder configuration.

The physics are all well understood and I am struggling to understand where honda have gone wrong.

Saying that single cylinder work is a dead end is a bit like saying wind tunnel and CFD are useless. Sure some teams sometimes mess up their CFD models or use a rubbish wind tunnel (see caterham) and predicted improvents do not translate into on-track gains but the error is not in the method.

[PlatinumZealot]

Single cylinder development is the correct way to test combustion concepts - the real mistake was failing to predict behaviour in a multi cylinder configuration.

The physics are all well understood and I am struggling to understand where honda have gone wrong.

Saying that single cylinder work is a dead end is a bit like saying wind tunnel and CFD are useless. Sure some teams sometimes mess up their CFD models or use a rubbish wind tunnel (see caterham) and predicted improvents do not translate into on-track gains but the error is not in the method.

Surree...

Put it into perspective. Ferrari and Renault got it horribly wrong from the start as well, and they had three years to develop.

[gofast182]

It's funny, not as much on this site but elsewhere on the net, to see people savage Honda for the single cylinder model as if they're smarter and could've done it better from the start: they are not and they could not have. Anyone who works in a field where R&D is done and the final assembly/product has multiple repeated structures/elements in it understands that you almost always do proof-of-concept on 'subset models' for the benefits of turnaround time, ease of analysis, and cost as you do iterative development. In most cases, a lot can be gleaned from these 'subset models' but in some cases, they do not translate to scale assembly, which is what Honda has found in this instance. Honda has learned and has moved on. Were they silly for attempting to develop this way in the first place? No, and anyone who thinks they are does not know as much as they think they do.

Yeah buts It's not about Honda v people on forums though. It's about Honda v Mercedes Ferrari and Renault and seeing how they operate compared to the best.

And overall in the last three years it's been solidly mediocre.

My comment was about the pundits but yes, I certainly understand that. As it relates to competition, consider that they introduced a new engine concept this year and they've corrected paths on how they prove out developments. On balance, they had more scope to improve in the first place but the impressive development pace thus far (and what we understand to be coming) stands on merit. We'll know soon where that effort puts them in relation to their rivals.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Single cylinder development is the correct way to test combustion concepts - the real mistake was failing to predict behaviour in a multi cylinder configuration.

The physics are all well understood and I am struggling to understand where honda have gone wrong.

Saying that single cylinder work is a dead end is a bit like saying wind tunnel and CFD are useless. Sure some teams sometimes mess up their CFD models or use a rubbish wind tunnel (see caterham) and predicted improvents do not translate into on-track gains but the error is not in the method.

Surree...

Put it into perspective. Ferrari and Renault got it horribly wrong from the start as well, and they had three years to develop.

They did not get it horribly wrong - they were just not as good as Merc.

Just because they did not think of TJI/ prechamber does not mean they can't understand how it works. These things had been used in natural gas engines for a decade before being adopted in F1.

[PhillipM]

They've been used in Honda car engines decades before now as well.

[RedNEO]

It's funny, not as much on this site but elsewhere on the net, to see people savage Honda for the single cylinder model as if they're smarter and could've done it better from the start: they are not and they could not have. Anyone who works in a field where R&D is done and the final assembly/product has multiple repeated structures/elements in it understands that you almost always do proof-of-concept on 'subset models' for the benefits of turnaround time, ease of analysis, and cost as you do iterative development. In most cases, a lot can be gleaned from these 'subset models' but in some cases, they do not translate to scale assembly, which is what Honda has found in this instance. Honda has learned and has moved on. Were they silly for attempting to develop this way in the first place? No, and anyone who thinks they are does not know as much as they think they do.

Yeah buts It's not about Honda v people on forums though. It's about Honda v Mercedes Ferrari and Renault and seeing how they operate compared to the best.

And overall in the last three years it's been solidly mediocre.

My comment was about the pundits but yes, I certainly understand that. As it relates to competition, consider that they introduced a new engine concept this year and they've corrected paths on how they prove out developments. On balance, they had more scope to improve in the first place but the impressive development pace thus far (and what we understand to be coming) stands on merit. We'll know soon where that effort puts them in relation to their rivals.

Ok but Honda have yet to bring a significant update that's actually closed the gap significantly. Something Ferrari and Renault have managed to do under the token system impressively. Over the last three years I've been waiting to see that update that produced that same big jump in performance like Ferrari and Renault to really show they were making headway.

And this year it was supposed to be at the end of testing then in Australia then spec 3, now spec 4 then it will be spec 5,6,7 etc. My point is Honda will never catch if they only have the ability to make incremental steps. They need a big jump followed by incremental steps otherwise they won't even catch Renault who continues to get closer to the big two.

[Bence]

If the words of Hasegawa can be interpreted as is, then it's simply frightening.

Honda should burn through countless complete development V6 units like no tomorrow, 30 hours in a 24 hour day. Strapped into dynamic dynos, static dynos, built in SF, LMP cars, aka MOVING dev-dynos, which are able to generate actual, comparable G-forces with F1 cars, they should monitor the combustion process with 50.000fps cameras screwed into the chamber, refining injector patterns, flame propagation, they should micro-print structurally absolutely perfect parts, cryogenically stabilize them... huh... build every imaginable sci-fi tech into that engine and car. Use even TT Brown propulsion units, who cares? If B-2s can increase their range with them...

But if the Hungarian test unit was an indicator of a proper Supekku Toree*, well, that was the smoothest Honda V6 I've ever heard in an F1 car.

*Edit: development of Sulee

[Del Boy]

The ICE combustion is only a part of spec 3-4 or 5. What Honda have consistently failed at during three years of development is harvesting from MGUH because the TC has been wrong.
In the first year they failed with the axial flow compressor concept and the token system prevented a proper fix. Year 2 incorrectly sized turbine and compressor. This year severe vibrations on the shaft that have prevented the MGUH from running at optimal rpm.
The trick with these Power Units is harvesting from the turbine and boosting the MGUK, over the majority of the lap. I have read here lots about electric supercharging which Mercedes are probably using during Q3 but the efficiency is from harvesting the MGUH and feeding the K. To achieve that you need the TC to be perfectly sized and the combustion to be efficient and produce high velocity exhaust gases.
I think this article makes it clear that single cylinder testing doesn't help with turbocharging development.

[gruntguru]

This formula has enabled huge gains in ICE efficiency in just a few years. There are two primary areas, combustion and turbine energy recovery. Of these, combustion is by far the greater and the gains in this area have been ground-breaking whereas developments in turbine recovery have been incremental improvements in existing technology.

The main challenge for a new player entering the arena would be catching up on the combustion side and that means lots of single cylinder R&D.

Unfortunately, only some of the turbine R&D can be done in parallel - the fine tuning and optimisation requires a complete knowledge of the exhaust characteristics of the final design and a 6 cylinder test rig incorporating that design.

[ZakB]

As expected, Illmor is working with Honda.

McLaren faces engine dilemma as Honda gets Ilmor boost
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... st-943641/

[nzjrs]

As expected, Illmor is working with Honda.

McLaren faces engine dilemma as Honda gets Ilmor boost
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mcla ... st-943641/

Honestly, the whole Illmor fascination seems trite. The media likes to push this cult-of-personality narrative, the expert may change (Simon -> Illmor) but the story stays the same. IMO Honda had a process problem to get their develop/model/test/verify cycle sorted, which handicapped them this year. All is well now.

This on the other hand, is interesting

There still remains a chance, however, that Toro Rosso could yet free up a supply by making a switch to Honda for 2018 – with the Italian team’s discussions with the Japanese manufacturer understood to not be totally over.

[GoranF1]

Our so called source, Wazari said Honda has some outside help but not Illmor.