Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[etusch]

I think all of these are for clearing ferrari. I want to remind you Toyota's turbo trick. It was completely legal when you unmounted it from the engine. It was doing it's trick when it is installed the engine.
What can fia find by this way if it is working only in a specific situation and if it is completely legal in all other situation. They have to change their aproach of measuring fuel flow that teams can not do anything on it.

[Big Tea]

I think all of these are for clearing ferrari. I want to remind you Toyota's turbo trick. It was completely legal when you unmounted it from the engine. It was doing it's trick when it is installed the engine.
What can fia find by this way if it is working only in a specific situation and if it is completely legal in all other situation. They have to change their aproach of measuring fuel flow that teams can not do anything on it.

In case some members are too young to recall..

https://jalopnik.com/how-the-best-racin ... 1792828060

Brilliance at work

[subcritical71]

I think all of these are for clearing ferrari. I want to remind you Toyota's turbo trick. It was completely legal when you unmounted it from the engine. It was doing it's trick when it is installed the engine.
What can fia find by this way if it is working only in a specific situation and if it is completely legal in all other situation. They have to change their aproach of measuring fuel flow that teams can not do anything on it.

In case some members are too young to recall..

https://jalopnik.com/how-the-best-racin ... 1792828060

Brilliance at work

Didn't somebody also effectively turn their bumper into a after restrictor surge tank to reduce the effectiveness of the restricter orifice?

[Big Tea]

I think all of these are for clearing ferrari. I want to remind you Toyota's turbo trick. It was completely legal when you unmounted it from the engine. It was doing it's trick when it is installed the engine.
What can fia find by this way if it is working only in a specific situation and if it is completely legal in all other situation. They have to change their aproach of measuring fuel flow that teams can not do anything on it.

In case some members are too young to recall..

https://jalopnik.com/how-the-best-racin ... 1792828060

Brilliance at work

Didn't somebody also effectively turn their bumper into a after restrictor surge tank to reduce the effectiveness of the restricter orifice?

Its the ones we never find out about that I pine for.
PS what is the best ever undetected crime? ( )

[etusch]

In case some members are too young to recall..

https://jalopnik.com/how-the-best-racin ... 1792828060

Brilliance at work

Didn't somebody also effectively turn their bumper into a after restrictor surge tank to reduce the effectiveness of the restricter orifice?

Its the ones we never find out about that I pine for.
PS what is the best ever undetected crime? ( )

If I recall correclty if there was not a leak from inside of team we would never know it

[Revs84]

There was a lot of discussion recently on whether a turbo is ideally smaller or bigger than the optimal size for sea-level.

I can say that it's not only here that I've heard different theories so I'm personally quite curious now.

Just to give you some examples, during the Mexico GP weekend, one of the Sky commentators said that the reason for Renault's success on that track in the past years was due to a bigger turbo, which was able to make up for the lack of oxygen by forcing even more air into the ICE. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this but I'm sure about what I've heard.

On the other hand, in an article I read this morning, Gary Anderson is quoted to have said the following:

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... e/4601006/

So, who is right and who is wrong? Or is it at all possible that both cases can hold some truth?

[loner]

last year RBR took the Mexican pole but were 1.2 off in COTA and .7 off in Brazil, this year indeed Max took the pole in Mexico but was less of a tenth slower than pole sitter in COTA while took the pole again in Brazil.
i can see a steady trajectory here and RBR 2019 design lacks while RBR 2018 car was a beast.
why the fuss about the turbo size ?!! its not like Max was half a second infront of p2.

[Sieper]

There was a lot of discussion recently on whether a turbo is ideally smaller or bigger than the optimal size for sea-level.

I can say that it's not only here that I've heard different theories so I'm personally quite curious now.

Just to give you some examples, during the Mexico GP weekend, one of the Sky commentators said that the reason for Renault's success on that track in the past years was due to a bigger turbo, which was able to make up for the lack of oxygen by forcing even more air into the ICE. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this but I'm sure about what I've heard.

On the other hand, in an article I read this morning, Gary Anderson is quoted to have said the following:

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... e/4601006/

So, who is right and who is wrong? Or is it at all possible that both cases can hold some truth?

Personally, I feel Anderson (and Ho Pin Tung is I feel well informed, as opposed to others here) are likely "on the ball".

What makes me say this is the fact that Ho Pin also said that an efficient engine also allows for a bigger turbo. Mercedes has that efficient engine, they stated so themselves (50% thermal efficiency passed) and I believe it to be true. I think they still have the best engine now Ferraris' performance seems to have slumped somewhat. Yes RBR was quicker (with DRS and a tow) on the straights in Brasil, but Max was running less DF then both Mercs (when looking at rear wing angle, the only thing I am personally able to tell) so straight line speeds looks better for RBR due to that as well.

So likely merc does have that bigger turbo (which is good on most tracks) but not so much at height, mexico, Austria and brasil (lesser extent) which is also precisely matching with what we saw from Merc (compared to Honda).

[LM10]

There was a lot of discussion recently on whether a turbo is ideally smaller or bigger than the optimal size for sea-level.

I can say that it's not only here that I've heard different theories so I'm personally quite curious now.

Just to give you some examples, during the Mexico GP weekend, one of the Sky commentators said that the reason for Renault's success on that track in the past years was due to a bigger turbo, which was able to make up for the lack of oxygen by forcing even more air into the ICE. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this but I'm sure about what I've heard.

On the other hand, in an article I read this morning, Gary Anderson is quoted to have said the following:

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... e/4601006/

So, who is right and who is wrong? Or is it at all possible that both cases can hold some truth?

Personally, I feel Anderson (and Ho Pin Tung is I feel well informed, as opposed to others here) are likely "on the ball".

What makes me say this is the fact that Ho Pin also said that an efficient engine also allows for a bigger turbo. Mercedes has that efficient engine, they stated so themselves (50% thermal efficiency passed) and I believe it to be true. I think they still have the best engine now Ferraris' performance seems to have slumped somewhat. Yes RBR was quicker (with DRS and a tow) on the straights in Brasil, but Max was running less DF then both Mercs (when looking at rear wing angle, the only thing I am personally able to tell) so straight line speeds looks better for RBR due to that as well.

So likely merc does have that bigger turbo (which is good on most tracks) but not so much at height, mexico, Austria and brasil (lesser extent) which is also precisely matching with what we saw from Merc (compared to Honda).

It does not make sense that you’re arguing with Mercedes’ bigger wing to underline your claim about the Mercedes PU still being the most powerful one, but ignore Ferrari’s wing and claim they lost power. Ferrari had an even bigger wing (visual at first sight) than Mercedes and at the same time was faster on the straights. What now?

[hape]

There was a lot of discussion recently on whether a turbo is ideally smaller or bigger than the optimal size for sea-level.

I can say that it's not only here that I've heard different theories so I'm personally quite curious now.

Just to give you some examples, during the Mexico GP weekend, one of the Sky commentators said that the reason for Renault's success on that track in the past years was due to a bigger turbo, which was able to make up for the lack of oxygen by forcing even more air into the ICE. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this but I'm sure about what I've heard.

On the other hand, in an article I read this morning, Gary Anderson is quoted to have said the following:

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... e/4601006/

So, who is right and who is wrong? Or is it at all possible that both cases can hold some truth?

Personally, I feel Anderson (and Ho Pin Tung is I feel well informed, as opposed to others here) are likely "on the ball".

What makes me say this is the fact that Ho Pin also said that an efficient engine also allows for a bigger turbo. Mercedes has that efficient engine, they stated so themselves (50% thermal efficiency passed) and I believe it to be true. I think they still have the best engine now Ferraris' performance seems to have slumped somewhat. Yes RBR was quicker (with DRS and a tow) on the straights in Brasil, but Max was running less DF then both Mercs (when looking at rear wing angle, the only thing I am personally able to tell) so straight line speeds looks better for RBR due to that as well.

So likely merc does have that bigger turbo (which is good on most tracks) but not so much at height, mexico, Austria and brasil (lesser extent) which is also precisely matching with what we saw from Merc (compared to Honda).

It does not make sense that you’re arguing with Mercedes’ bigger wing to underline your claim about the Mercedes PU still being the most powerful one, but ignore Ferrari’s wing and claim they lost power. Ferrari had an even bigger wing (visual at first sight) than Mercedes and at the same time was faster on the straights. What now?

At least in Brazil I think Ferrari had more power at hand than Mercedes.
Bottas on fresh medium tyres, slipstream and DRS was unable to overtake Leclerc on 15 lap old hard tyres. That’s remarkable and reminds me of Monza the fight between Leclerc and Hamilton. I wonder why nobody talked about that (not in this thread of course)...
On the other hand it seems Honda really gained some decent power as both Redbulls and Toro Rosso’s did a splendid job in Brazil. Let’s see next weekend finale on “normal” altitude if we can get more cleverly this.

[sosic2121]

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

IMO this doesn't make sense. Actually I believe that turbine can produce more power due to lower back pressure.

[lio007]

There is a report on speedweek.com (in german) about the Exxon-Honda-RBR-partnership, nice read btw:
https://m.speedweek.com/formel1/news/15 ... Mobil.html

There is one sentence i doubt to some extent: it's stated that the oil circulates 9 times in the 1.6l engine at a temperature of 950°.
Really, 950°??? I'd never expect it that high.

Edit: thought a bit about the temp, logic says it must be an error in the article. Cooling would be a nightmare with temps that high. Maybe the 0 is wrong, 95° sounds more reasonable.

[Big Tea]

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

IMO this doesn't make sense. Actually I believe that turbine can produce more power due to lower back pressure.

Could it be that a smaller turbo has a lower inertial mass and takes 'less effort' from the depleted gas to spin it ?

[Maplesoup]

"Normally every engine performs a little less well at heights. The turbo can compensate for this to a certain extent, but it has to work extra hard for it. By the way, that turbo may not make more than 125,000 rpm [revolutions per minute]. near this rotational speed, the MGU-H intervenes to generate electrical energy, which goes directly to the MGU-K, "Anderson continues. "But at the height of Mexico and Brazil there is less air mass in the engine and so you also get fewer exhaust gasses to drive the turbo. But if Honda indeed has a slightly smaller turbo, then with fewer exhaust gasses they can still get the optimum number of rpm on high-altitude circuits.

IMO this doesn't make sense. Actually I believe that turbine can produce more power due to lower back pressure.

Could it be that a smaller turbo has a lower inertial mass and takes 'less effort' from the depleted gas to spin it ?

Yea i suppose you could also argue that if there the air is less dense there will be less air entering the engine, as such will be less air exiting the engine to power the turbo.

So perhaps having a smaller turbo will allow them to keep the turbo spinning at a higher rpm for longer with less exhaust gas, allowing them to harvest more via the MGU-H?

So a smaller turbo could push more air into the turbo, if it would in theory be easier to keep spinning at a higher rpm than a larger turbo.

Take all that with a pinch of salt, I'm just thinking logically, i'm not an expert on turbo design and function haha

[gruntguru]

The goal would be to supply the engine with the same amount of air regardless of altitude. This would require the same MAP and therefore a higher pressure ratio for the compressor and a higher VOLUME flow (measured at the compressor inlet) > higher turbo speed > higher pressure ratio for the turbine. Note - exhaust back pressure need not increase.