Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[loner]

Saw this Japanese report at jp.motorsport.com on the autosport forum, posted by user Hasika. He, and the machine translated version of the report, says that Spec 4 is still under development, maybe available soon, but not yet reaching the desired power target.

this is not make sense Hasegawa saying he maybe debut spec 4 in Suzuka in other hand saying it didn't reach the power target both sentences can't be together we are talking about 7 days not months
reading this article i think Fabrega nailed it 2 days ago spec 4 will be introduced in Suzuka and only for ALO i assume.

Albert Fabrega ES
Honda is working to advance its latest evolution d engine for the Japanese GP. There would only be one unit available.

i always wonder who is Fabrega's source

[bigblue]

Maybe it meant that it was hoped to be ready earlier, but may now make it for Japan (or the next race) ?

[loner]

Maybe it meant that it was hoped to be ready earlier, but may now make it for Japan (or the next race) ?

i reread his statement and you have a good point he was talking about why it was behind schedule generally perhaps he means (SPA) not about Suzuka itself.

[63l8qrrfy6]

tightening torque (friction) is a poor determiner of clamping load
torque-to-yield is a good determiner of clamping load

I would argue that both methods are poor.
In a torque only joint the friction is unknown while for a torque and angle joint the flange stiffness is unknown.
Of course there are empirically derived nut factors for estimating friction just as there are numerical methods for calculating flange stiffness but neither are particularly accurate. Rule of thumb is 25% scatter with torque only and 15% for torque and angle.

In contrast hydraulic tensioning can achieve as low as 3% scatter and is often used for highly loaded joints such as rods, heads, crank attachments and main bearing caps. This method virtually eliminates variability due to friction, flange stiffness and torsion relaxation.

There are claims that when a bolt is torqued to yield the clamp load becomes less sensitive to strain as the stress-strain curve starts flattening in the plastic region. It sounds reasonable but I don't know how well it translates into practice.

[drunkf1fan]

Saw this Japanese report at jp.motorsport.com on the autosport forum, posted by user Hasika. He, and the machine translated version of the report, says that Spec 4 is still under development, maybe available soon, but not yet reaching the desired power target.

this is not make sense Hasegawa saying he maybe debut spec 4 in Suzuka in other hand saying it didn't reach the power target both sentences can't be together we are talking about 7 days not months
reading this article i think Fabrega nailed it 2 days ago spec 4 will be introduced in Suzuka and only for ALO i assume.

Albert Fabrega ES
Honda is working to advance its latest evolution d engine for the Japanese GP. There would only be one unit available.

i always wonder who is Fabrega's source

Every single Honda engine to date(in this era) has failed to meet the performance expectations they had both in theory then on dyno compared to what they achieve on track.... did that stop them bringing all the previous updates?

Just because it's not achieving what they hoped and/or were claiming, doesn't mean they won't go forward with it because ultimately it's all they have.

What I'd take it to mean, about continuing development is this. They hoped for a specific target, like lets make up a number, lets say the current spec has 750bhp on the ICE and they hoped Spec 4 brought 815bhp, they believed that if Spec 4 hit 815bhp then that is good enough and meets their requirements as the base design to commit to moving forwards. IE they believe if it achieves that much it's the right concept to stick with then start finding the small 1-5bhp increments from that design. Then they get this to it's basically finally working stage, start testing them on the dyno, a fully complete engine as would be delivered for Suzuka and find out it's only achieving 780bhp. It's 35bhp short, and now 1-5bhp increments over time would be 45bhp behind where they want. So now they aren't sure this is the concept they want to commit to and start aiming for the expensive and work intensive small increments. So they feel they need to keep developing Spec 4 until it hits the baseline they want before committing to it. But there is no reason not to be using the 780bhp engine over the 750bhp engine in the meantime.

[MrPotatoHead]

tightening torque (friction) is a poor determiner of clamping load
torque-to-yield is a good determiner of clamping load

I would argue that both methods are poor.
In a torque only joint the friction is unknown while for a torque and angle joint the flange stiffness is unknown.
Of course there are empirically derived nut factors for estimating friction just as there are numerical methods for calculating flange stiffness but neither are particularly accurate. Rule of thumb is 25% scatter with torque only and 15% for torque and angle.

In contrast hydraulic tensioning can achieve as low as 3% scatter and is often used for highly loaded joints such as rods, heads, crank attachments and main bearing caps. This method virtually eliminates variability due to friction, flange stiffness and torsion relaxation.

There are claims that when a bolt is torqued to yield the clamp load becomes less sensitive to strain as the stress-strain curve starts flattening in the plastic region. It sounds reasonable but I don't know how well it translates into practice.

There's a reason ZERO race engines are built using torque to yield bolts on anything.
Also any professional engine builder will use a bolt stretch gauge to measure correct preload on the fastener. Especially Rod Bolts.

[MrPotatoHead]

Are we still under the consensus that the "Spec 4.0" engine is an engine with new pistons and cylinder heads to introduce the pre chamber ignition? Or is that not the belief anymore?

[godlameroso]

I think even this spec has been a stratified combustion process, and why so much work goes to mapping the power unit.

[HPD]

The complete Q & A will be in the thread of Toro Rosso.

Franz Tost:

Q: McLaren definitely wanted to part with Honda for obvious reasons. Where do you see the beauty of your deal?

FT: The beauty is that we expect a successful cooperation with Honda, because otherwise we would not have done the deal. I am convinced that Honda will sort out all technical topics – and I am also convinced that the engine is already much better than many people think because McLaren is quite close to us – unfortunately – and sometimes even faster than us. So I am sure that this cooperation will be successful.

Q: McLaren’s racing director Eric Boullier said that he believes Honda will produce a successful power train in the future, but that he cannot wait that long. Can you?

FT: The question is about what time frame we are talking. I do expect that already next year Honda will come up with a competitive package.

Q: It has seemed in the last couple of races that Honda have caught up somewhat. Could it be that you will harvest the fruits of McLaren’s labour?

FT: If so, fine! (Laughs) Why not? We are open and flexible! And don’t forget, for Toro Rosso the co-operation with Honda means a 100 percent step forward. At Renault we are the third team and at Honda we are their only team, so we expect to get out a lot on the design side as well as from the cooperation. So once again: for us this deal means a big step forward.

Q: What about the gearbox situation? This was one of the reasons Sauber called off their planned Honda deal – because they didn’t want to get caught in a situation where McLaren no longer runs a Honda engine but would build the gearbox for a Honda customer?

FT: Ha, a clear plus on our side: we produce our own gearbox. Therefore it is totally easy for us. That is Toro Rosso – we are flexible!

[PlatinumZealot]

The Honda engine has a very distinctive rumbling sound when accelerating out of corners. Other engines sound much smoother. What could be causing this noise?

I remember reading some replies that suggested in was either Cylinder cutting or the sound of the firing order.

I personally love the sound, almost like traction control era

From the article:

But perfecting the software to allow the advantages of HCCI principal at appropriate revs and loads, but switching to conventional ignition outside of those limits has proved feasible. The characteristic ‘misfire’ sound of the Honda on part throttle is believed to be the audible giveaway of the changeover point between the two modes.

The effect can also be heard – but less aggressively - on the Ferrari. With the Mercedes however, there is no aural evidence. It’s believed the Mercedes engine has featured this technology from the start in 2014, that it was also incorporated into Honda’s first engine last year and that Ferrari adopted the technology last year. Renault would this be the last of the four manufacturers to introduce it. Although details are sketchy at this point, it’s clear that this new technology has been a major part of the F1 power war in the hybrid turbo formula.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opini ... wer-secret

No. stop. just top. Outdated article aaand look who wrote it. Mark Hughes is one of the better journalists out there, but he is not the guy for technical articles. Just no. I rather trust a scarbs or James Allen (who is veerrry careful when he reports tech features) for technical stuff.

[PlatinumZealot]

Anyway, Malaysia seems to be a good sorter of engine performance.

If this is to be believed:

Mercedes still have the edge on engine power,
Then Ferrari,
Then Renault is right on the heels of Ferrari, I am a bit surprised at this.
The Honda is about on par with the 2016 Ferrari

[PlatinumZealot]

tightening torque (friction) is a poor determiner of clamping load
torque-to-yield is a good determiner of clamping load

combined with a longer plastic range than the 'strongest' (highest UTS) materials can provide ? .....
a clamping load that is maintained throughout a high cyclic loading
even with a short bolt

still don't believe mild steel (eg stretch-to-yield as in Ford CVH)
a stronger material than MS but not heat treated to highest UTS ?

Yeah.. that is why I think stretch bolts are used in some cars.

For multiphase.. I know of stainless steels being called multiphase, namely duplex steels. I don't see the advantage in the cylinder head, but I could see them working well in the exhaust and turbocharger.

[63l8qrrfy6]

tightening torque (friction) is a poor determiner of clamping load
torque-to-yield is a good determiner of clamping load

combined with a longer plastic range than the 'strongest' (highest UTS) materials can provide ? .....
a clamping load that is maintained throughout a high cyclic loading
even with a short bolt

still don't believe mild steel (eg stretch-to-yield as in Ford CVH)
a stronger material than MS but not heat treated to highest UTS ?

Yeah.. that is why I think stretch bolts are used in some cars.

For multiphase.. I know of stainless steels being called multiphase, namely duplex steels. I don't see the advantage in the cylinder head, but I could see them working well in the exhaust and turbocharger.

Stretch bolts are used because the pretension load is less sensitive to bolt elongation in the plastic region. Also the achievable pretension is higher compared to a normal 'elastic' fastener which can only be loaded up to about 90% UTS.

The angle control aspect is what gives you better load control - irrespective of whether the bolt yields or not.

Finally, multiphase refers to MP35N, a nickel cobalt alloy, not a steel.

[godlameroso]

All bolts stretch with enough ugga duggas.

[HPD]

Anyway, Malaysia seems to be a good sorter of engine performance.

If this is to be believed:

Mercedes still have the edge on engine power,
Then Ferrari,
Then Renault is right on the heels of Ferrari, I am a bit surprised at this.
The Honda is about on par with the 2016 Ferrari

Can be.
Also interesting is the configuration of the slow zone of the circuit. Mclaren put more downforce for rain?
This compromises the final speed (in my opinion)

+ 1,9 KPH Ferrari
+ 4.4 KPH Mercedes
+ 5.2 KPH Red Bull