Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Marty_Y]

Tsunoda's Honda engine just died.

[dans79]

Tsunoda's Honda engine just died.

Do we know if it's the one he got after imola?

[Marty_Y]

Tsunoda's Honda engine just died.

Do we know if it's the one he got after imola?

Not sure sorry.

Honda say it was a fuel pressure issue for Tsunoda.

[zibby43]

In Mark Hughes’ race report comments, he mentioned that the RBR’s Honda was deploying ERS further down the straight than the Mercedes.

[Alexf1]

That could still be so but less than it was initially. I read that after Bahrain qualifying Honda has turned down the engine or ERS system for reliability reasons which FIA approved. Pace advantage was alreeds less in Bahrain race and completely gone after Bahrain.

Hope they can find a way to turn it back up as of engine 2 (with a "reliability" fix)

[henry]

In Mark Hughes’ race report comments, he mentioned that the RBR’s Honda was deploying ERS further down the straight than the Mercedes.

Deploying further down the straight isn’t necessarily a good thing. If the objective is shortest time to traverse the straight then deploying more ERS at the beginning of the straight can be the way to go. That means using e-supercharge for longer and plain MGU-K less at the end of the straight.

[Craigy]

In Mark Hughes’ race report comments, he mentioned that the RBR’s Honda was deploying ERS further down the straight than the Mercedes.

Deploying further down the straight isn’t necessarily a good thing. If the objective is shortest time to traverse the straight then deploying more ERS at the beginning of the straight can be the way to go. That means using e-supercharge for longer and plain MGU-K less at the end of the straight.

This is one of the interesting little nuances of modern F1.
By some logic, deploying it all at the start of a straight is "best" because you will potentially maintain any speed you have for the rest of the straight. That was true in the past formulae and is often but not always true today.

On some track layouts it's a little more complex than that.
If you have a straight of length X and a electrical power budget of Y for the straight, it may actually work out better to:
1. Initially get to the required top speed (which is a lower speed than fully depleting the power budget all at the start of the straight)
2. Bleed off the epower to maintain a lower top speed for longer (to limit drag -- effectively, use the epower for longer at a lower top speed, because the drag cost will overall be lower)
3. Harvest at the end of the straight, in order to recoup for the start of the next one (this is very track layout dependent).

Ultimately, for race laps it's a question of the highest average speed around the lap, not the highest terminal speed on a given straight. Reverse all that if you're overtaking/defending. More variables.

I think longer straights, like in Spa, are probably closer to the (2) option. The track being super long (but the power budget being the same as on a short track) is one of the reasons.

[henry]

In Mark Hughes’ race report comments, he mentioned that the RBR’s Honda was deploying ERS further down the straight than the Mercedes.

Deploying further down the straight isn’t necessarily a good thing. If the objective is shortest time to traverse the straight then deploying more ERS at the beginning of the straight can be the way to go. That means using e-supercharge for longer and plain MGU-K less at the end of the straight.

This is one of the interesting little nuances of modern F1.
By some logic, deploying it all at the start of a straight is "best" because you will potentially maintain any speed you have for the rest of the straight. That was true in the past formulae and is often but not always true today.

On some track layouts it's a little more complex than that.
If you have a straight of length X and a electrical power budget of Y for the straight, it may actually work out better to:
1. Initially get to the required top speed (which is a lower speed than fully depleting the power budget all at the start of the straight)
2. Bleed off the epower to maintain a lower top speed for longer (to limit drag -- effectively, use the epower for longer at a lower top speed, because the drag cost will overall be lower)
3. Harvest at the end of the straight, in order to recoup for the start of the next one (this is very track layout dependent).

Ultimately, for race laps it's a question of the highest average speed around the lap, not the highest terminal speed on a given straight. Reverse all that if you're overtaking/defending. More variables.

I think longer straights, like in Spa, are probably closer to the (2) option. The track being super long (but the power budget being the same as on a short track) is one of the reasons.

I won’t say too much here since we’re veering off topic.

I agree with you that it is very nuanced and that what matters is lap time. Your suggestion makes sense but I think we would see the red lights flashing much earlier in the straight. The lights are to say that power has been reduced by the ERS system not the driver. If the driver rolls out of the throttle it would show on the telemetry. But I could be wrong here.

Mark Hughes observation could equally be due to lower drag on the Red Bull. There’s a whole thread on drag reducing bendy wings.

[PlatinumZealot]

120kw is the electrical limit. So the more efficient the MGU-K is, more power it delivers at the crank.

Yep, The technical regulations show where you can gain an advantage.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -03-05.pdf
5.2.2

Energy flows, power and ES state of charge limits are defined in the energy flow diagram
shown in Appendix 3 of these regulations ...
Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements
are being respected.

A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.

this means .....
the electrical limit (power from the DC line) is 126.3 kW .... so ....

if the efficiency from electrical input power to mechanical power delivered to the crankshaft is 95% .....
the mechanical power delivered to the crankshaft is 120 kW

if the efficiency is over 95% the legal mechanical power could slightly exceed 120 kW

Knowing F1, everyone will be pushing 126.3 kW on the electrical cables then.

I have a feeling the MGUKs are differentiated by duty cycle and wear. Just a guess. Honda commented the the Mercedes Mguk is "robust"

[PlatinumZealot]

In Mark Hughes’ race report comments, he mentioned that the RBR’s Honda was deploying ERS further down the straight than the Mercedes.

Hmm. These views may change if new rear wing flexibility tests affect Redbull. It could be that RedBull is able to save on deployment because of the reduced drag.

[zibby43]

In Mark Hughes’ race report comments, he mentioned that the RBR’s Honda was deploying ERS further down the straight than the Mercedes.

Hmm. These views may change if new rear wing flexibility tests affect Redbull. It could be that RedBull is able to save on deployment because of the reduced drag.

Was just thinking this same thing. Good point.

[aral]

Just a reminder....This is a thread about the Honda PU. If you wish to discuss the RBR rear wing, there is a seperate thread for this.

[zibby43]

The Honda PU is suffering from vibration issues. This is what was causing the electronics problems. The PU has had to be turned down slightly to prevent more failures. Something that can hopefully be addressed for '22, as some of the components brought forward to '21 were theoretically best-suited to be fully exploited next year.

Excerpt:

"Vibration problems led to the replacement of parts of electronic components , such as the battery and the control unit on Perez's cars and the two Alpha Tauri, and above all a less aggressive use of the hybrid part of the Japanese unit compared to the first round of the season."

https://www.formu1a.uno/le-vibrazioni-d ... -red-bull/

[Wouter]

The Honda PU is suffering from vibration issues. This is what was causing the electronics problems. The PU has had to be turned down slightly to prevent more failures. Something that can hopefully be addressed for '22, as some of the components brought forward to '21 were theoretically best-suited to be fully exploited next year.

Excerpt:

"Vibration problems led to the replacement of parts of electronic components , such as the battery and the control unit on Perez's cars and the two Alpha Tauri, and above all a less aggressive use of the hybrid part of the Japanese unit compared to the first round of the season."

https://www.formu1a.uno/le-vibrazioni-d ... -red-bull/

That's a nice overview with regard to the RB16B, but I don't see a source mentioned anywhere with regard to the Honda statements.
How did these journalists get the data about the Honda PU? Honda never releases this type of data and if they do release
it will be on the Honda Racing F1 site or during an interview with Asaki-san or Tanabe-san. That did not happen.

Can anyone tell me if this is a reliable site? Maybe someone from Italy?

[velizare]

The Honda PU is suffering from vibration issues. This is what was causing the electronics problems. The PU has had to be turned down slightly to prevent more failures. Something that can hopefully be addressed for '22, as some of the components brought forward to '21 were theoretically best-suited to be fully exploited next year.

Excerpt:

"Vibration problems led to the replacement of parts of electronic components , such as the battery and the control unit on Perez's cars and the two Alpha Tauri, and above all a less aggressive use of the hybrid part of the Japanese unit compared to the first round of the season."

https://www.formu1a.uno/le-vibrazioni-d ... -red-bull/

its hard to belive for me engine control, and other electronic units, like batteries, which can be protected against mechanical issues, are suffering from vibration, but the mechanical parts, like shafts, axles, mgu-k, which already had major failures due vibration in the past, can function without issues.