Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

Huh? I didn't know you are a master of spin too.

Ghost, you have failed to bring supporting evidence or solid engineering theory to back-up your claims even after a barrage of evidence countering your arguments. You have floundered in posts dragging out the conversations to no avail. Therfore I have seen enough to surmise that Honda's MGUH is 99% likely to be clutchless until anyone else can convince me otherwise.

I wish you could see your reflection, Ghost.

So you're saying unless I bring you a photo or indeed an in the metal MGU-H from a current F1 power unit, your Garrett electric road car turbo must be correct? That's a little self important of you.

The fact of the matter is you're guessing just as much as I am. The difference being you think they won't bother, I assume they will look for gains anywhere at this point

The one who has floundered is you that consistently sidesteps every question I've asked. You're whole argument is literally "this road car Garrett turbo I found online doesn't have a clutch, so clearly, F1 doesnt".... Seriously??

I've not once claimed I have conclusive evidence, I rather harmlessly suggested in theory there could be a benefit if they get it right. But now, I almost feel like you've got a bet going to put Garrett in every single reply, and on that ... please for the love of God, don't send me to the Garrett website again.

I answered your questions in the science articles linked. I cant win with you unless a photo of an F1 MGUH is sliced inbhalf emerges on the internet. Or maybe Yamamoto himself answers if there is a clutch.

Anyway. I am satifsified in myself that there is no clutch.

garrett would have leverage experience and investments in F1 to use a similar system for the production car applications. I doubt the technology would be far off.

2015 Garrett and Ferrari
https://www.garrettmotion.com/news/medi ... formula-1/

2019 technology to be applied to road cars in 2021

https://www.designnews.com/automotive-0 ... 2715061742

Just some Interesting notes from the articles:

Tip speeds approaching 600m/s. You can estimate a range of turbine RPMs from this.

E-turbos can be 15% larger than conventional turbos.

Late arrival of 48Volts production cars caused late introduction of E-turbos.

Honda is interesting because we dont know how much of their turbocharger is IHI..
The same for Mercedes and (mitsubishi? Borgwarner?)

Borg warner

https://youtu.be/8OwswYe69_E

Good lord... These articles bear no relevance to F1 so I do t know how you can be so convinced without conceding the possibility lol. The links are all non starters because of that.

you're also obviously ignoring this so I've put it in red for you. I agree with you for a road car, a clutch would be a pointless addition and a reliability risk, it would have zero benefit. BUT, F1 has a set of regulations that restrict certain operations for the turbo/MGU-H, this clearly is not relevant for the road car world, they can design without limit until their hearts are content.
If they have found a way to sidestep this restriction, if necessary, and the unit only needs to last 7 race weekends, not a lifetime in a road car, then why is it absolutely not possible?

I can see what you are doing with these examples and links but it's ultimately flawed and can't be used as a definitive. If we were debating combustion tech (injector, chamber etc) and you linked me something used in road cars today as evidence it's what they are using, it would be the same disagreement. How is it confirmation?

[GhostF1]

Well no, and until we get to carve one of these engines open, you won't get conclusive evidence. This weight penalty and reliability excuse is curious. I can't see the weight penalty being as horrendous as what's being implied and they've had horrid MGU-H reliability in the past and only now getting it right.

All I'm saying is it's not outside the realms of possibility and the only oppositional explanations that have been put forward are either "this Garrett turbo doesn't have a clutch, so there" or "nah too heavy/unreliable". Both assumptions and both just as opinionated as the clutched idea.

Sadly I don't have a 2020 Honda F1 Power Unit in my study to dissect for everyone's benefit so lets just move on. There will always be two sides of the fence.

The weight and reliability penalties are there, like it or not, they are facts. If you don't concede this, then we can stop discussing here about this kind of engineering challenges.

What I'm honestly falling to understand is the benefit of the clutch/gearing in laptime and/or efficiency of the PU. Can you develop it more? Can you show some estimations of the gains to suggest it's worth the penalties implied in such a design proposal?

Where did I say there would be no penalties? Please do not exaggerate one side to emphasise your own argument. It's petty. The penalty is being insinuated as being enormous.. I'm challenging that is being overstated in an effort to forward ones own agenda.

As for possible benefits. Please do us all the favour of going back and reading why this theory debate began. It's all there.

And I'm sorry you want what??? A laptime improvement!? Mate, please don't be so unreasonable in your request, no one can give you that, even if some people on this forum like to think they could. No one bar the directly involved engineers post track test could give you that

[PlatinumZealot]

Good lord... These articles bear no relevance to F1 so I do t know how you can be so convinced without conceding the possibility lol. The links are all non starters because of that.

you're also obviously ignoring this so I've put it in red for you. I agree with you for a road car, a clutch would be a pointless addition and a reliability risk, it would have zero benefit. BUT, F1 has a set of regulations that restrict certain operations for the turbo/MGU-H, this clearly is not relevant for the road car world, they can design without limit until their hearts are content.
If they have found a way to sidestep this restriction, if necessary, and the unit only needs to last 7 race weekends, not a lifetime in a road car, then why is it absolutely not possible?

I can see what you are doing with these examples and links but it's ultimately flawed and can't be used as a definitive. If we were debating combustion tech (injector, chamber etc) and you linked me something used in road cars today as evidence it's what they are using, it would be the same disagreement. How is it confirmation?

Yes, the Lord is good indeed.

Why do you deny such a beautifully elegant solution? You should be smiling.

If as an engineer you cannot see how this is 99% confirmation I can't help you then.

Smaller
Lighter
Simpler manufacture
Less parts
Less control elements
Less heat
Faster response time
Less impact on application
Higher shaft natural frequencies

[PlatinumZealot]

Here is your crazy argument for why you believe a clutch is used. Spining a near 100mm turbocharger above 125,000 rpms! see your quote below.

Matching compressor maps to required air flow even with margin for error we already established that these turbochargers do not need to spin that fast. Even in Mexico city.

I also have a quote from Garret stating 600m/s tip speed in F1. Earlier in the thread we used a Garrett G42 as a possible compressor. 91mm exducer.

https://www.garrettmotion.com/racing-an ... 0-compact/

Again the Garrett video quoted "approaching" 600m/s. This tip speed works to around 127krpms. Looking on the G42 graph we see a max rpm of 118k rpm. This is close enough in the ball park to say yes these sizes of turbochargers are used in F1. A bigger size would mean lower rpms. No problem. better for us!

Calculate how much air the engine needs and you will see the turbocharger doesn't need go to those rpms. It's not efficient to do so. Its even off the map!

And good luck desinging a 125k rpm clutch!

Imagine that one.. Mguk has to be spun up "speed match" the turbine before engaging the clutch. Its a waste of energy and If you try engaging when MGUH is at zero rpm it would disasterous consequences!

Had another random idea.

A while ago we were debating whether or not Honda had a clutch between the MGU-H and turbo (brought on by their class of the field performances at high altitude tracks) this is allowed by the regulations, we had decent reasons for both sides (complexity was one, even Renault said they wouldn't due to complexity), I still believe it's likely Honda do, even more so now with the onset of this anti-lag discussion. My main reason for believing in this clutch idea was the theoretical gain in compressor speed it allows. The turbo is not speed restricted but the MGU-H is restricted to 125,000rpm by the regulations, these two have to be geared 1:1 as well so it poses a hard limit on the turbo speed therefore maximum boost potential. So there was an argument Honda could decouple the MGU-H from the turbo at maximum power on straights to allow for an increase in turbine speed to compensate for the altitude deficit, it would also make sense as it seemed evident they may have gotten the mapping a little off sometimes, hence Max's mentioning of turbo lag out of some corners on occasion last year, that was the theory.

So now I am thinking.. why is this anti-lag sound/behaviour most prevalent during high power/quali laps since late last year and not really anything less than that (during sustained race modes, it is not present)? We are talking about it like it's primary use would be for energy recovery benefits and while it is possible, what I'm thinking, mainly because it's most obvious on fast laps, is what if this anti-lag is being used on high power modes as Honda have decoupled the MGU-H and are therefore free to run the turbo at as high an RPM as they want, no longer restricted to the 125,000rpm limit of the MGU-H. This anti-lag is a system which has become available to Honda with skip-fire use so are they using this to compensate for MGU-H motoring loss to sustain the turbo? Or is it to keep the turbine at a certain speed to recouple the H momentarily for power out of corners? Or would that even still be necessary if this is mapped correctly? Or a myriad of other things.

The work with Honda Jet, a lot of focus has been around the turbo from Honda, it's what they bring up all the time. I can't initially see why this is not a possibility for high power modes with the right engine and the right fuel allowing such high boost. Spec 4 and the special new fuel anyone?

[Pyrone89]

Can we please stop the bickering? Use DM for this.

Now are there any actual new developments to report?

[Wazari]

I have received several PM's asking me if the H unit was clutched??? No, it is not.

[GhostF1]

I have received several PM's asking me if the H unit was clutched??? No, it is not.

Scarily well timed you appear mate!
Alright, well I do believe your insights you've generously brought to this forum so, I guess that halts the entire discussion in its tracks! I'll withdraw from that one.

[GhostF1]

Can we please stop the bickering? Use DM for this.

Now are there any actual new developments to report?

They've kept relatively quiet on any developments to be honest. The only change I've noticed for this year is Yamamoto and Tanabe being a little more outwardly confident than usual.

[etusch]

I have received several PM's asking me if the H unit was clutched??? No, it is not.

Hi Wazari I would like to learn those bangs on braking but I think it is not true to reveal such a thing

[godlameroso]

Can we please stop the bickering? Use DM for this.

Now are there any actual new developments to report?

They've kept relatively quiet on any developments to be honest. The only change I've noticed for this year is Yamamoto and Tanabe being a little more outwardly confident than usual.

There aren't any new developments. Honda has a good direction, there's still a lot of potential in fuel. Honda has a Q3 mode, it can deploy more in the race. They are no longer behind, they finally have a very competitive power unit they can feel proud about, and it will only get better throughout the year.

[ispano6]

Tanabe mentioned that the PU performance gains aren't as big as some have made out to be, but what I suspect from reading in between the lines is that it's not the outright PU performance where the gains have been made. It's evident in the packaging, which is the 3rd pillar to this season's success following performance and reliability. It was interesting to read that Max Verstappen's feedback regarding the PU was particularly helpful, so we may see Max with an engine that suits his driving style.

[Pyrone89]

There are more than 3 pillars

1. Power
2. Reliability
3. Fuel efficiency
4. Drivability
5. Weight and CoG
6. Size (packaging advantages)

[ispano6]

There are more than 3 pillars

1. Power
2. Reliability
3. Fuel efficiency
4. Drivability
5. Weight and CoG
6. Size (packaging advantages)

1,3,4 fall under performance.
5 and 6 are packaging.

So we work with Red Bull technology closely for the installation packaging for the chassis, and we could spend more time than last year for the packaging with each team. That is a good thing

“Then the performance and reliability for the PU, always we work on both and make a compromise on usage mode and mileage for the race. There are many many items that we need to focus on but the three big items are performance, reliability and packaging for this year.”

[Pyrone89]

Basically semantics/a more detailed break down

[Wazari]

Hi Wazari I would like to learn those bangs on braking but I think it is not true to reveal such a thing

I love those "bangs" or what I refer to as "secondary controlled combustion". It is by design and is there for increased efficiency. It serves several intended functions to benefit the induction side.

In the meanwhile I'm stuck in Melbourne with no race; while understandable, extremely frustrating for those who traveled to get here.