Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[bauc]

Nope, it just showed a fundamental mistake in design that should not have happened to experienced and mega manufacturer like Honda. It showed that Honda was truly lost and went backwards instead in development.

What was the fundamental mistake in design? Please enlighten us to the details. It is what the discussion is currently speculating.

"Based on initial investigations, we think the issue is related to the shape of the 2017 oil tank, but it requires further investigation before we can confirm this," said Hasegawa.

Should the issue with the tank be confirmed, a redesign could cause some headaches.

Any design changes could have implications to the packaging of the rest of the power unit and chassis installation, with space likely to be at a premium in this area of the MCL32.

“Many items we could not test on the dyno, so it is normal that we
need to check some functions in the car. The oil tank is one of the
biggest items, so we have a rig for the oil tank but we cannot
recreate the same types of G-forces and conditions as in the car.

“Of course, by design we have to consider the actual car situation
in theory, but sometimes it is not always the same situation so that
is why we had some issues with the oil tank first.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12828 ... d-problems
https://wtf1.com/post/honda-has-reveale ... this-year/

Also it was explained in one of Peter Windsor videos where his guest was Craig Scarborough that the main issue with the oil tank was that when the car is taking a high speed turn (which are many at Barcelona) the oil splashes to one side of the tank leaving the engine without a supply for a really short period of time, however that shortage of supply then creates different problems within the PU and it eventually stops, like we've seen it does so many times at the first 4 days of this years winter testing.

I hope you are enlighten now.

Have you have been hiding in a hole for the past 10 months? This is pretty well documented

Cheers!

[dren]

That doesn't read like a fundamental mistake in design. It reads like they designed the tank shape based on theory because they couldn't replicate it on their test bench. They experienced something they didn't design for, so had to make a change. Then again, an engineer could have dropped the ball. It was a quick fix, so they must have been able to redesign it based on the experienced dynamic loading.

I'm starting to think Honda made a fundamental design flaw with the PU because it doesn't produce the most power when the pedal is fully pressed. Scarbs seems to think it has something to do with the internals of the ICE when gas is fed into it.

[rogazilla]

I must have different understanding of 'fundamental design'.

In my opinion, oil tank was designed and they probably updated the baffle or something and it is no longer a problem. That is NOT fundamental design flaw.

What would be a fundamental design flaw would be the location of the oil tank is completely wrong and/or they have to change it from moon shape to a square shape and something like that to be a 'Fundamental' Design problem.

Changing the PU layout like they did from 2016 to 2017 is a Fundamental Design change. But if they just add thickness or add more blade to turbo or things like that are what I consider an update but not fundamental design problem.

Updating the tolerance and things like that are NOT fundamental design flaw to me.

[etusch]

I remember when oil issue appeared I had read at formula 1 sites that "it's a big issue which will cause redesign whole lower side of car and shows Honda still haven't got F1 fundamentals" but it was not caused what they had talked about and nobody questioned this guy's F1 knowledge.

[bauc]

I must have different understanding of 'fundamental design'.

In my opinion, oil tank was designed and they probably updated the baffle or something and it is no longer a problem. That is NOT fundamental design flaw.

What would be a fundamental design flaw would be the location of the oil tank is completely wrong and/or they have to change it from moon shape to a square shape and something like that to be a 'Fundamental' Design problem.

Changing the PU layout like they did from 2016 to 2017 is a Fundamental Design change. But if they just add thickness or add more blade to turbo or things like that are what I consider an update but not fundamental design problem.

Updating the tolerance and things like that are NOT fundamental design flaw to me.

You are right, we must have different understanding of 'fundamental design'

As to me fundamental means the very basis of a concept, so in this case to design and produce a oil tank for F1 car which can not ''work'' properly when exposed to 4 or 5G force is a fundamental flaw, as F1 cars are meant to withstand this volume of force by the nature of the sport itself.

However I'm not panning to ruin the discussion here over the meaning of one word, the facts are well documented on this case.

[belldanndy]

So are the pictures posted in http://f1news.autoroad.cz/novinky/90154 ... ogalerie-1 new, or did we see those somewhere before. I don't really speak Czech, nor am I good enough at engines to tell for sure. Did someone see them before? Sorry, I don't really know how to get them out of the gallery where they are embedded as some kind of gif.

Nice pics!! Any expert here can walkthrough all the elements on the PU? I really don't have any idea, thanks!!

[harjan]

I would not use the term miscalculations. I honestly think Honda is working wonders under the circumstances. These engines are insanely complex plus they are prototypes and with any engineering design you usually adjust your calculations as you go along until you reach the final design. That is just normal engineering. But joining this formula so late Honda was forced to wash their dirty clothes infront of millions of eyes.. It can't have been easy.

Although true to some extent; if I remember correctly Mercedes came out swinging in 2014 winter testing. Ferrari was reliable but underpowered and Renault was unreliable during winter testing but they will won 3 races that season.

And yes, these manufacturers had more time to prepare but Honda had the huge advantage that they could learn from others.

I think in general Honda's approach to F1 was a bit old fashioned (at first). Trial and error vs scientific a la Mercedes. The way Mercedes communicate you just hear that they control every inch of their process, whereas at Honda there's a lot of hope / disappointment / surprise. So I don't think Honda's biggest disadvantage was entering late, but it was not being in F1 for quite some time and for that reason having to learn how modern F1 operates.

In all honesty- Honda should have anticipated how hard it would be, they should have anticipated how their relationship with McLaren would suffer from this. A smart organisation as Honda creates their own circumstances.

[PlatinumZealot]

All these polititians can talk about is the oil tank that took one day and a bottle of glue to fix....

Oh please! guys.. Sure McLaren divorced Honda for that reason... Right....

Nope, it just showed a fundamental mistake in design that should not have happened to experienced and mega manufacturer like Honda. It showed that Honda was truly lost and went backwards instead in development.

Slosh dynamics are not easy even in today's software. Nasa spent years founding that area of study... It is not soething that is easily understood in small irregularly shaped containers with multiple flows and other effects like swirling, foaming evaporation etc happening inside of it. It just as case of Honda design engineering underestimating the effects by a tiny amount. It does not necessarily have to be a G-force issue either. A few milimetters here and ther is not a deal breaker if you understand how difficult slosh dynamics are. I dont think it is a fundamental mistake as you describe. Not sure why you would think that.

I "noped out" of a engineering project before once i saw that the problem could only be solved with slosh dynamics. Was way over my head.

Sure Honda had an easy fix for the issue.. Maybe Wazari can tell us what was done exactly. But we have to remember that these designs are on the edge. Sometimes you never know until you run the thing.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Turbine engine bearings use oil mist lubrication so I am curious is Honda is using such methods in the MGUH. This could be something that Honda aircraft could be helping to develop?

Highly unlikely, they can't afford to use bleed air like aero engines do. Plus, oil jet is still more common than mist and tends to be the preferred solution for aircraft turbofans.

[roon]

So are the pictures posted in http://f1news.autoroad.cz/novinky/90154 ... ogalerie-1 new, or did we see those somewhere before. I don't really speak Czech, nor am I good enough at engines to tell for sure. Did someone see them before? Sorry, I don't really know how to get them out of the gallery where they are embedded as some kind of gif.

Three of them were posted before, the rest are new to me. I'll extract them for you.


























I spy two actuators on the compressor. One for wastegate, one for guide vanes. There's two metallic ancillary tubes connecting to the intake trumpet, one for wastegate, the other for...?

[Wazari]

All these polititians can talk about is the oil tank that took one day and a bottle of glue to fix....

Oh please! guys.. Sure McLaren divorced Honda for that reason... Right....

Nope, it just showed a fundamental mistake in design that should not have happened to experienced and mega manufacturer like Honda. It showed that Honda was truly lost and went backwards instead in development.

Slosh dynamics are not easy even in today's software. Nasa spent years founding that area of study... It is not soething that is easily understood in small irregularly shaped containers with multiple flows and other effects like swirling, foaming evaporation etc happening inside of it. It just as case of Honda design engineering underestimating the effects by a tiny amount. It does not necessarily have to be a G-force issue either. A few milimetters here and ther is not a deal breaker if you understand how difficult slosh dynamics are. I dont think it is a fundamental mistake as you describe. Not sure why you would think that.

I "noped out" of a engineering project before once i saw that the problem could only be solved with slosh dynamics. Was way over my head.

Sure Honda had an easy fix for the issue.. Maybe Wazari can tell us what was done exactly. But we have to remember that these designs are on the edge. Sometimes you never know until you run the thing.

The fix for the oil tank issue, this was my nephew's domain, was to move the PU slightly and redesign the baffles inside the tank. As mentioned, "slosh dynamics" is difficult to mimic. I really didn't want to get into this issue as it seems to be another McLaren vs. Honda debate and I regularly get accused of being a Honda "fanboy" with nothing by a "pro Honda propaganda" agenda. Well I've tried to be objective but of course I'm a Honda "fanboy". If you don't enjoy the place your working then why are you working there?

Yes, Honda did design this crescent shaped oil tank to fit the space requirements of the chassis. The reason Hasegawa-san coyly said it was a "car issue" is the final mounting angle of the tank in the chassis slightly differed from the specs originally drawn with which the oil tank was designed with. It was discovered that cavitating was occurring under heavy braking and left hand turns.

[gruntguru]

I spy two actuators on the compressor. One for wastegate, one for guide vanes. There's two metallic ancillary tubes connecting to the intake trumpet, one for wastegate, the other for...?

Variable intake runner actuator?

[wuzak]

I spy two actuators on the compressor. One for wastegate, one for guide vanes.

Variable geometry turbos are not allowed, so I assume that means no to adjustable guide vanes.

[trinidefender]

I spy two actuators on the compressor. One for wastegate, one for guide vanes. There's two metallic ancillary tubes connecting to the intake trumpet, one for wastegate, the other for...?

Variable intake runner actuator?

Unless I missed something, variable guide vanes are still prohibited by the regulations

[gruntguru]

Variable intake runner length is permitted though.