Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Nonserviam85]

...The gain however can be significant so I believe the others are doing it even better...

The real question is: is the gain significant, or is it a dead end and just a red herring?
Why would Honda publish that info?

Remember we are talking about F1 where every millisecond counts, even if they can send 2.1MJ per lap to the ES, it is still a gain.

[Nonserviam85]

None of this is road relevant.

In a road car, you wouldn't pulse an MG with another MG before sending energy to an ES; you'd send it straight to the ES.

True, because up to now we only have one MG (an MGU-K equivalent). It can become road relevant if the technology is advanced, the cost decrease to install an MGU-H to road cars to further increase efficiency.

[Singabule]

None of this is road relevant.

In a road car, you wouldn't pulse an MG with another MG before sending energy to an ES; you'd send it straight to the ES.

Im with craigy, imagine 4kg flywheel of 100000 rpm help ES for stop and go, instead using 50kg of ES, you can use 25kg of it, weight saving. The problem is parasitical loss and bearing problem, as F1 teams face right now. Imagine the hybrid system of MGUH, battery, MGUK, flywheel KERS integrated with MGUH, and pre-chamber ICE create orchestra. I can imagine low noise, high efficiency PU all around in all road condition. Plus the idea to use this PU regulation in all form of racing, hence no development cost is sunk. Todt is genious

[Singabule]

None of this is road relevant.

In a road car, you wouldn't pulse an MG with another MG before sending energy to an ES; you'd send it straight to the ES.

True, because up to now we only have one MG (an MGU-K equivalent). It can become road relevant if the technology is advanced, the cost decrease to install an MGU-H to road cars to further increase efficiency.

Indeed. How about Hasegawa in road car mass production technology transfer? There are 2 things that could improve PU technology, war and racing. Like good old days

[stevesingo]

The employment of MGU-H of the type used in F1 in road vehicles is not likely IMO. 99% of road vehicles spend 99% of the time at part throttle. In such a case the amount of heat to be recovered is small.

When we think that an ICE running cira 600Kw is only recovering 60-70kW at WOT or about 10%, imagine what a 100kW could recover; 10-11kW at WOT, 1% of the time. An average family car needs about 25kW to make 100kph/60mph. 10% of that is 250w. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Probably not IMO.

Hybrid goods vehicles, which spend a lot of time at high loads, might be a more attractive proposition. Supplementing KERS which will recover under braking and help on acceleration and on hills.

[hurril]

The employment of MGU-H of the type used in F1 in road vehicles is not likely IMO. 99% of road vehicles spend 99% of the time at part throttle. In such a case the amount of heat to be recovered is small.

When we think that an ICE running cira 600Kw is only recovering 60-70kW at WOT or about 10%, imagine what a 100kW could recover; 10-11kW at WOT, 1% of the time. An average family car needs about 25kW to make 100kph/60mph. 10% of that is 250w. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Probably not IMO.

Hybrid goods vehicles, which spend a lot of time at high loads, might be a more attractive proposition. Supplementing KERS which will recover under braking and help on acceleration and on hills.

This argument is also one against using a turbo in the first place. Are turbos road relevant?

[godlameroso]

Yes in a twisted sense. Under full boost at WOT the downsized turbo engine burns just as much fuel as the bigger engine it replaces, if not more. The gain is further shrunk as most boosted cars run lower compression, so off boost the performance is worse.

The only place a turbo can make a smaller displacement engine more efficient is cruising at a constant speed with some boost pressure. Stop and go driving, they may burn less fuel simply from being a smaller engine.

The combustion tech being developed here can translate though. As high compression boosted engines that can run super lean would make a big difference in road cars. But the hybrid stuff will only ever be a novelty item until they improve the batteries. Don't get me wrong it's very efficient to use an electric motor for stop and go traffic, but the battery packs are too expensive and too heavy.

[Singabule]

Yes in a twisted sense. Under full boost at WOT the downsized turbo engine burns just as much fuel as the bigger engine it replaces, if not more. The gain is further shrunk as most boosted cars run lower compression, so off boost the performance is worse.

The only place a turbo can make a smaller displacement engine more efficient is cruising at a constant speed with some boost pressure. Stop and go driving, they may burn less fuel simply from being a smaller engine.

The combustion tech being developed here can translate though. As high compression boosted engines that can run super lean would make a big difference in road cars. But the hybrid stuff will only ever be a novelty item until they improve the batteries. Don't get me wrong it's very efficient to use an electric motor for stop and go traffic, but the battery packs are too expensive and too heavy.

With regards of lean combustion of pre-chamber technology, it is important to use supercharging. You dont want your 3L engine produce 150 hp in WOT. Since it is spinning anyway, why not integrate your KERS in turbo, apply coupling, done.

[godlameroso]

I understand it requires forced induction, I just figured since most new cars coming out are forced induction (at least Hondas are) it would make sense. As previously stated it would save a lot on control electronics/costs to have only a motor on the turbo to reduce lag. A small battery pack and a 20kw motor attached to the transmission to help with stop and go traffic. This plus combustion tech, I could see in a road car that costs ~$45k+

Having flexibility regarding boost pressure means flexibility regarding ICE operation, in other words the engine can run more diesel like at low loads, more race car at higher loads.

[hurril]

Yes in a twisted sense. Under full boost at WOT the downsized turbo engine burns just as much fuel as the bigger engine it replaces, if not more. The gain is further shrunk as most boosted cars run lower compression, so off boost the performance is worse.

The only place a turbo can make a smaller displacement engine more efficient is cruising at a constant speed with some boost pressure. Stop and go driving, they may burn less fuel simply from being a smaller engine.

The combustion tech being developed here can translate though. As high compression boosted engines that can run super lean would make a big difference in road cars. But the hybrid stuff will only ever be a novelty item until they improve the batteries. Don't get me wrong it's very efficient to use an electric motor for stop and go traffic, but the battery packs are too expensive and too heavy.

I think you're contradicting yourself here. For instance: the Audi TFSI engines run turbos, high compression _and_ SI. You seem to be implying that those engines cannot, even in principle, run some kind of electrical or mechanical compounding. Calling turbos novelty items is most definitely stretching it.

Doing so is probably not financially viable because the gains in fuel consumption is probably negligible compared to those of a truck, for instance. Volvo trucks come with mechanical turbo compounding and I do not think that's just because they want to. Trucks also run most of the time at "part throttle."

[wuzak]

When we think that an ICE running cira 600Kw is only recovering 60-70kW at WOT or about 10%, imagine what a 100kW could recover; 10-11kW at WOT, 1% of the time. An average family car needs about 25kW to make 100kph/60mph. 10% of that is 250w. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Probably not IMO.

While probably not giving a benefit for KERS, generating small amounts of power from an mgu attached to the turbo should be sufficient to store to use for helping to spool the turbo, or maybe even reduce the load on accessories.

[wuzak]

...Unfortunately your translation shows I was wrong - they are indeed using the H as an energy store - storing and releasing 20 - 40 times per second.

Ridiculous. Sigh!

Okay, so now that the Honda method is clear and everyone can agree that Craigy's theory has substance, can we hypothesize that the other 3 are following a similar route and are doing it better, or alternatively that the other 3 have read the article and are laughing their collective asses off, what with Honda being the worst performing PU and all...

I really don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to understand if this is what they're all doing.

The other 3 are doing better at something, and it may well be that is the ERS, because they aren't using that method.

[godlameroso]

Yes in a twisted sense. Under full boost at WOT the downsized turbo engine burns just as much fuel as the bigger engine it replaces, if not more. The gain is further shrunk as most boosted cars run lower compression, so off boost the performance is worse.

The only place a turbo can make a smaller displacement engine more efficient is cruising at a constant speed with some boost pressure. Stop and go driving, they may burn less fuel simply from being a smaller engine.

The combustion tech being developed here can translate though. As high compression boosted engines that can run super lean would make a big difference in road cars. But the hybrid stuff will only ever be a novelty item until they improve the batteries. Don't get me wrong it's very efficient to use an electric motor for stop and go traffic, but the battery packs are too expensive and too heavy.

I think you're contradicting yourself here. For instance: the Audi TFSI engines run turbos, high compression _and_ SI. You seem to be implying that those engines cannot, even in principle, run some kind of electrical or mechanical compounding. Calling turbos novelty items is most definitely stretching it.

Doing so is probably not financially viable because the gains in fuel consumption is probably negligible compared to those of a truck, for instance. Volvo trucks come with mechanical turbo compounding and I do not think that's just because they want to. Trucks also run most of the time at "part throttle."

I'm calling electric cars novelty items not turbos also running 10:1 isn't high compression, last boosted s2k I built was on the stock 11:1. I was thinking 13 or 14:1.

[PlatinumZealot]

...Unfortunately your translation shows I was wrong - they are indeed using the H as an energy store - storing and releasing 20 - 40 times per second.

Ridiculous. Sigh!

Okay, so now that the Honda method is clear and everyone can agree that Craigy's theory has substance, can we hypothesize that the other 3 are following a similar route and are doing it better, or alternatively that the other 3 have read the article and are laughing their collective asses off, what with Honda being the worst performing PU and all...

I really don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to understand if this is what they're all doing.

I think not. The teams know what the others are doing. Remember this high power electrical cables give off radio signals, the turbines make noise, and the MGUK is quite noisy as well. I bet teams have a decent picture of what the others are doing energy management wise. One of the major things they can't spy on from the track is the combustion process and the physical hardware, that is where Honda and Renault need to catch up.

[MicroCIP]

A greeting to all of the blog. I am a non-professional enthusiast of F1 and in particular of these new PU.
I followed and greatly appreciated the last posts related to the H and K components and their mysterious operation.
I've been following the F1technical website for over a year ... (Honda - McL - Renault and Ferrari and now also ToroRosso) but my biggest interest is the PU Honda!

Questions: if the units MG (K and H) had a double induced - or double core - ie one to produce energy and another as an engine, your hypotheses on the dynamics of operation K> ES> H and K> H> ES would be different?

We always talk about kW: does K have a voltage much lower than H? And then they have different rotational speeds (H and attached parts can reach sonic speed!).

What role do supercondensors play in energy recovery?
Are they part of the "flywheel" ie can they be used as a buffer between K and H, or do they work only as a function of ES?
How does the regulation consider them?

Excuse me all ... my translation!