Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[PlatinumZealot]

So Honda scraped through by not increasing the turbo speed like everyone else. Regardless of what they say that must have been at the expense of quite a bit of performance and I think it indicates that they absolutely dread running the turbo faster due to resonances or instability issues.

Going back to the topic of potential bearing misalignment due to housing thermal deformation - in large industrial turbomachinery it is common to perform a catenary curve optimisation by intentionally misaligning the bearings so that they align under thermal and gravitational loads (rotors are so heavy that they distort the bearings significantly).
I haven't seen this applied to automotive turbochargers but maybe it is something worth exploring in F1 to alleviate thermal effects.

They can easily change the compressor wheel to a bigger one what was it am 8 percent increase in speed was required? They can use an 8 percent broader wheel. Yeah it will be a little heavier but less speed is safer at this point.

[Wazari]

So Honda scraped through by not increasing the turbo speed like everyone else. Regardless of what they say that must have been at the expense of quite a bit of performance and I think it indicates that they absolutely dread running the turbo faster due to resonances or instability issues.

Going back to the topic of potential bearing misalignment due to housing thermal deformation - in large industrial turbomachinery it is common to perform a catenary curve optimisation by intentionally misaligning the bearings so that they align under thermal and gravitational loads (rotors are so heavy that they distort the bearings significantly).
I haven't seen this applied to automotive turbochargers but maybe it is something worth exploring in F1 to alleviate thermal effects.

They can easily change the compressor wheel to a bigger one what was it am 8 percent increase in speed was required? They can use an 8 percent broader wheel. Yeah it will be a little heavier but less speed is safer at this point.

Running the turbine at higher RPM's has a domino effect on other components including increased temperatures, it's not just potential vibration issues. Also changing the compressor wheel is not an easy task if you are being serious. I didn't know how to take your emoji. Again increasing the compressor output would have a domino effect on everything else associated with it, not the least the MGU-H.

[1158]

I had been thinking maybe not a larger wheel but one designed for thinner air. I guess it would be pointless. You would only be able to use it once and I'm not sure you can change compressor wheels without incurring a penalty.

Was there new fuel for Mexico? Didn't hear anything about it, so I assume no.

[gruntguru]

So Honda scraped through by not increasing the turbo speed like everyone else. Regardless of what they say that must have been at the expense of quite a bit of performance and I think it indicates that they absolutely dread running the turbo faster due to resonances or instability issues.

Going back to the topic of potential bearing misalignment due to housing thermal deformation - in large industrial turbomachinery it is common to perform a catenary curve optimisation by intentionally misaligning the bearings so that they align under thermal and gravitational loads (rotors are so heavy that they distort the bearings significantly).
I haven't seen this applied to automotive turbochargers but maybe it is something worth exploring in F1 to alleviate thermal effects.

They can easily change the compressor wheel to a bigger one what was it am 8 percent increase in speed was required? They can use an 8 percent broader wheel. Yeah it will be a little heavier but less speed is safer at this point.

If they change the turbo they get a penalty - no?

[j.yank]

I am not sure that this belongs to this tread, but some how concerns the Honda engine performance, and its impact on their results. I downloaded OptimumLap software from here: http://www.optimumg.com/software/optimumlap/ , and played around several circuits. Yes, this software have disadvantage not to have in its database hybrid cars, and energy deployment is impossible to simulate, but if we design a car with the supposed power levels and chassis general parameters of today Formula 1, we can get some idea what are the factors that affect the performance. Here are my general conclusions:

- Surprisingly 100 hp difference doesn't give more than 0.3 sec per lap on circuit like Austin and even less on Suzuka if everything else is equal
- 48% against 35% efficiency of ICE gives not too much difference in qualifications, but has huge impact in the race because of the extra fuel on board - more than 2 sec. Actually this can be seen in the lap time differences between top teams and McLaren-Honda at the beginning and at the end of the race.
- Yes, 100 hp give difference of 10 km/h at the speed traps when everything else is equal. However, the drag coefficient has much bigger impact on the top speed.
- The chassis settings have much bigger impact to achieve the observed differences in the lap times between the top teams and McLaren Honda - on average 0.5 sec due to engine and 1 sec and more due to chassis.

Of course, the ERS deployment is missing in these calculations, but my impression is that after Baku McLaren-Honda don't have issues with the harvesting and deployment of energy rather than with the reliability of MGU-H. In other words, from higher importance now is to push the efficiency of ICE, not to try to increase the pick power.

[harjan]

So you think 300 bhp less would give you a 0.9 sec lap deficit? It varies per track but on average in F1 they calculate with 0.15 sec per 10 bhp.

[Craigy]

So you think 300 bhp less would give you a 0.9 sec lap deficit? It varies per track but on average in F1 they calculate with 0.15 sec per 10 bhp.

With 900bhp less, the deficit would be 2.7s?


Hrmm.

[restless]

Obviously the curve time/hp is NOT linear
Still 0.3sec from 100hp seems unbelievable :O

[j.yank]

So you think 300 bhp less would give you a 0.9 sec lap deficit? It varies per track but on average in F1 they calculate with 0.15 sec per 10 bhp.

I don't think. I just share what I see as software simulations. In Austin 300 hp deficit gives 1.5 sec. In Suzuka this is only 1 sec, all other equal. The max power usage on some tracks is obviously less important. Many people calculate how much time on full throttle you have on given circuit but actually full throttle doesn't mean achieving max power all the time. It is influenced by torque, gear ratios, weight, length and number of straights, configuration of corners, etc. I guess that 0.15 sec per 10 bhp figure is mathematical extrapolation of given "pure" parameters like weight and time per lap that are not relevant on 100% in the real life.

[etusch]

So you think 300 bhp less would give you a 0.9 sec lap deficit? It varies per track but on average in F1 they calculate with 0.15 sec per 10 bhp.

With 900bhp less, the deficit would be 2.7s?


Hrmm.

There must be a ratio. For example 10 hp difference makes 0.001 sec affect on lap time but 20 hp difference makes 0.15 on lap time.
How much power can tolerable by car settings and how much by driver's talent ? Do anyone know something about that?

[MrPotatoHead]

So you think 300 bhp less would give you a 0.9 sec lap deficit? It varies per track but on average in F1 they calculate with 0.15 sec per 10 bhp.

With 900bhp less, the deficit would be 2.7s?


Hrmm.

Sounds legit

Handling the air at Mexico is a challenge for sure. On the one hand you have less drag on the car from the thinner air but on the other hand you lose power because of the thinner air all things being equal.
So you can either leave everything close to the same - and the ratio of power to downforce should be very close.
Or you can turn up the "boost" in order to gain back the power - but of course with this comes even more mechanical loading on the MGU-H assembly.
The biggest downside from the second strategy is that the cooling ability of the air is also reduced.
It's not coincidence that only Renault in clean air for most of the race one one of the only ones not to blow up.

I would say Honda actually made the right choice here in how they balanced the tricky air conditions - Both cars finished and both almost finished in the points. I just wish they were more reliable coming into the weekend so they didn't have to fight from the back of the grid.

Oh what fun it must be to play with the energy recovery setups on these cars.

[j.yank]

So you think 300 bhp less would give you a 0.9 sec lap deficit? It varies per track but on average in F1 they calculate with 0.15 sec per 10 bhp.

With 900bhp less, the deficit would be 2.7s?


Hrmm.

There must be a ratio. For example 10 hp difference makes 0.001 sec affect on lap time but 20 hp difference makes 0.15 on lap time.
How much power can tolerable by settings and how much by driver's talent ? Do anyone know something about that?

If you simulate last year cars the difference is bigger - about 2 sec for 300 hp and 1 sec for 100 hp in Austin. It seems that the bigger chassis somehow elevate the performance of the engines.

[PhillipM]

I think you need to put down the 'software' and do a bit of thinking there. 300bhp less, that means you're running with roughly 2/3rds of the power compared to the other cars, with very draggy aero, and you think that's going to equate to just 0.9s per lap?
You can lose 0.9s per lap just by lifting and coasting a little early from the aero drag....that should give you an idea of how much power is required to push them through the air...
You'd struggle to even keep the tyres in their operating window, never mind anything else.

[hemichromis]

Clearly there is a problem with those simulations. Unless Honda is 200hp+ down on Merc.

[j.yank]

I think you need to put down the 'software' and do a bit of thinking there. 300bhp less, that means you're running with roughly 2/3rds of the power compared to the other cars, with very draggy aero, and you think that's going to equate to just 0.9s per lap?
You can lose 0.9s per lap just by lifting and coasting a little early from the aero drag....that should give you an idea of how much power is required to push them through the air...
You'd struggle to even keep the tyres in their operating window, never mind anything else.

It depends how long you can actually deploy your max power per lap. The slow circuits are good example for this. Also, the increased speed means increased drag force and more power to overcome it. That's why the curve power/drag is not linear but exponential. I don't compare to any other cars - just changing the power output of one car with the same configuration.