Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Wazari]

I think something is getting lost in translation and I apologize if I'm not making myself clear. At PZ, when you say does MGU-H share engine oil, I don't understand what you're asking. The MGU-H is in overly simplistic terms a motor. There is no oil inside?? The armature bearings are not lubricated by engine, if that's what you're asking. The MGU-H at the risk of overly simplifying things is sandwiched between the compressor and turbine. The bearings for those are lubricated by engine oil as well as the encased shaft bearings connecting the T/C components to the MGU-H. So initially, when there was cavitation caused by excessive sloshing, those bearings suffered heat damage and premature wear. When the oil tank was overfilled this caused another issue, that of which now oil going into the compressor via the intake system causing seals to fail and the bearings behind them.

[Wazari]

I took it as a fuel contaminated oil vapor was being pulled back through the turbo, and it washed away the different lubricant on the internal fluid bearing.

Yes that was the second issue. Well put

[honda_fun]

Japanese F1 journalist, Mineoki Yoneya informed us about Barcelona testing in his site.
The full lap-time chart of all teams in the day4 and the camparison of between long run of Pierre Gasly and laptime chart of last year-Spanish GP of which Lewis Hamilton, Carlos Saintz.
He commented that thinking of their different tyre-compound , laptime chart of Toro Rosso encouraged us of the pottential of Toro Rosso Honda.

[blueytoo]

Honda CVCC was developed in the late 1960s. Same basic concept. Mahle TJI is a significant step forward from those days. Much smaller pre-chamber volume, higher velocity jets, configured as an add-on to work with existing pent-roof combustion chamber designs.

Yes, but CVCC doesn't use injectors and TJI as per Mahle public documentation apparently doesn't comply with F1 engine rules because it has its own separate injector.

The MotorFan article on RA617H title says "using jet ignition with pre-chambers". This is the first time I've seen a public statement about the combustion technology in any current F1 engine. Mindful of what Wazari-san said about patents - its all about the description and not the picture. He'd have to comment on the 1975 "jet ignition with pre-chambers patent", which presumably has expired.

[henry]

i posted this in the general honda thread, so i suppose it should be in here:
They are allowed about 29 grams of fuel per second maximum (rate) and the power figure of 950hp, can someone calculate the energy content of the fuel ?

Works out at just over 51MJ/kg at 50% TE. Not too far off 44MJ/kg or so for pump fuel.

I don’t think the 950HP is a self sustain figure. I think you have to deduct whatever the ES is supplying, maybe 60 kw from fuel burned earlier, which would bring the number much closer to pump fuel. Even closer if the flow rate is 27.8 rather than a “cheat” 29. Something like 44.4.

Oops! Miscalc. I actually get 46.4 if I do it right. Or 53.6% efficiency on pump fuel.

[techman]

Also i don't think Mclaren will write them off forever. If they engine is better than renault i actually see mclaren reapproaching Honda.

i think honda are very happy with torro rosso. there target is redbull . so i think honda learnt a lesson. so no i dont think it will happen

[ArcticWolfie]

Breakthrough I believe refers to new combustion hardware/process. My understanding not ready yet...but will be mid-season. Come on 740 kW....please.............

they are aiming for 740kw with the engine currently on the dyno??

[loner]

Breakthrough I believe refers to new combustion hardware/process. My understanding not ready yet...but will be mid-season. Come on 740 kW....please.............

they are aiming for 740kw with the engine currently on the dyno??

relax y'll understand soon that with a certain user you need to follow i'll believe it when i see it rule

[63l8qrrfy6]

i posted this in the general honda thread, so i suppose it should be in here:
They are allowed about 29 grams of fuel per second maximum (rate) and the power figure of 950hp, can someone calculate the energy content of the fuel ?

Works out at just over 51MJ/kg at 50% TE. Not too far off 44MJ/kg or so for pump fuel.

I don’t think the 950HP is a self sustain figure. I think you have to deduct whatever the ES is supplying, maybe 60 kw from fuel burned earlier, which would bring the number much closer to pump fuel. Even closer if the flow rate is 27.8 rather than a “cheat” 29. Something like 44.4.

Oops! Miscalc. I actually get 46.4 if I do it right. Or 53.6% efficiency on pump fuel.

I took away the K power to see what the figures looked like and that only gave 42.4MJ/kg which let me to believe they quote TE for some sort of unsustainable mode.I assumed the 27.8 g/s, not sure where 29 g/s comes from.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I took it as a fuel contaminated oil vapor was being pulled back through the turbo, and it washed away the different lubricant on the internal fluid bearing.

Yes that was the second issue. Well put

uhm how exactly do you get fuel in the oil vapor ? that doesn't even sound legal to begin with.

[Zynerji]

I took it as a fuel contaminated oil vapor was being pulled back through the turbo, and it washed away the different lubricant on the internal fluid bearing.

Yes that was the second issue. Well put

uhm how exactly do you get fuel in the oil vapor ? that doesn't even sound legal to begin with.

Ring blow-by under high compression contaminated the oil, then returned the contaminated oil to the oil tank. The tank starved (cavitated) creating a vapor that was sucked into the intake of the turbo by feeding it into the fluid bearing. The fuel in the vapor worked as a cleaner, washing off the internal turbo lubricant, thus causing catastrophic failure.

Well, that's my take anyways.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Yes that was the second issue. Well put

uhm how exactly do you get fuel in the oil vapor ? that doesn't even sound legal to begin with.

Blow by under high compression returned the contaminated fuel to the oil tank. The tank starved (cavitated) creating a vapor that was sucked into the intake of the turbo. The fuel in the vapor worked as a cleaner, washing of the internal turbo lubricant, thus causing catastrophic failure.

Well, that's my take anyways.

There's hardly any measurable fuel in the blowby of a DI ultra lean engine.
Oil tanks don't cavitate, pumps do when the inlet pressure is too low. The reason for overfilling the tank is to increase the hydrostatic head at the pump inlet and hopefully avoid cavitation.
Lastly, even if you had this mixture sucked into the turbo intake - how does it get to the bearings ? The flow past the ring seals is negligible.

[Zynerji]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

[GhostF1]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

Is there a particular reason your shoving other members on to the witness stand lol?

Do you know what the chemical make up is of the actual lubricants they are using? What the fuel is? The internal structure of the ICE, the actual design of the intake system and oil tank and their relationship? You're asking questions and then telling them they are wrong so this will be an endless circle of half informed misery.

We, as the interested public, know what the issue was, from Honda. MGU-H shaft hearing failure. Getting the ultra intricate details as to why and how this occurred is likely never going to happen. Since when has a manufacturer sat down and spent a lot of time describing down to the hair what has happened to the general audience, especially when the internal design is pretty much classified anyway.