Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[godlameroso]

The ideal deployment strategy is full deployment from la source, to about 100m after the marshal hut on the right, about 250m after the DRS activation zone. Then max regen through the last 300 meters of Kemmel, all through les combes and all the way to turn 10. Then 20kw deployment all the way to just before Paul Frere corner, then max deployment again until max regen for bus stop.

Care to say whether this is a qualy or race strategy and what full or max deployment is?

What do you mean by 20kw deployment?

Race.

20/120kW, you don't lose much through sector 2 with less power, maybe from 11 to 13.

[ArcticWolfie]

I still can't get used to engines you can't push 100% at any given moment...

Pfff deployment strategies...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_QUn5ymRU0

But they are pushing 100% and more. At the beginning of straights they are deploying lots more power than an ICE with no deployment could manage. They borrow energy from some parts of the track and deploy it when it has most effect on lap time.

I've no idea what you're talking about... the ICE or other things?

My point was; they need hybrid systems to extract more power from the V6 ICE than the old V10 engines which produced over 900bhp (without hybrid systems..) and a shitload of torque.

[godlameroso]

The v10's would be lucky to make more than 260ft lbs peak. These v6's probably peak at around 500ft lbs. Furthermore the powerband is much broader, and flexible, not to mention efficient.

The ERS, has multiple modes of regen, not just under braking. The electronic controllers have strategies to harvest as much as possible during part throttle, and EOS.

[Tommy Cookers]

the crankshaft torque does not propel the car - the torque around the axle does

the 18000 rpm 967 hp NA engine will provide the same axle torque as a current 10500 rpm 967 hp engine does
because the NA engine is geared correspondingly lower

[dren]

Just to clarify: I mentioned Honda's intial lack of budget and manpower, not facilities. McLaren's budget (I'm basing this on manpower) is also nowhere close to Mercedes or Ferrari. HRD has stepped its manpower and spending tremendously since the end of the 2015 season.

Also there is a difference between RBR-Renault relationship and McLaren Honda. RBR is clearly the customer to Renault. Renault is not contributing to RBR financially the way Honda is to McLaren. So to compare the two relationships IMO is like comparing apples to oranges. Sorry for being off topic.

Also I believe that this "Spec 4" will be slightly heavier than the current spec PU by about 4 Kilos. I also know the potential peak power from the "Spec 4" ICE is a substantial increase from the current ICE.

@wazari you have revealed quite a lot . now please tell us the date when this "spec4" is being rolled out. are they testing this spec in current test.

He has, several times in fact. He doesn't believe it can be ready this year, although it doesn't mean the current spec can't be updated. What interests me is why spec 4 would be heavier.

It probably has more mass.

[63l8qrrfy6]

the crankshaft torque does not propel the car - the torque around the axle does

the 18000 rpm 967 hp NA engine will provide the same axle torque as a current 10500 rpm 967 hp engine does
because the NA engine is geared correspondingly lower

HA! you beat me with the edit.

Was planning on being nasty about your original post.

[MrPotatoHead]

the crankshaft torque does not propel the car - the torque around the axle does

the 18000 rpm 967 hp NA engine will provide the same axle torque as a current 10500 rpm 967 hp engine does
because the NA engine is geared correspondingly lower

What is this Black Magic you speak of!

[etusch]

A very good point. There is much talk on the preceding pages about "peak" power, including from the esteemed Wazari. What this means nobody seems bothered to explain. I take it to mean the maximum ICE power, with the wastegate open, plus the 120kw of MGU-H. Whilst this might be an exciting number I doubt it is the most important.

If we look at Spa for instance. In qualifying I expect they will be at WOT for around 80 seconds. "Peak" power mode can be deployed for 33 seconds (4mj @ 120kw) so that leaves 57 seconds at ICE plus MGU-H. Which wouldn't be very practical.

In my mind, and I suspect yours, the most important number is "sustained" power, ICE + MGU-H. It would take 70 kw MGU-H to get WOT with full MGU-K for the whole 80 seconds. But they probably wouldn't do that but instead run some "peak" power at the beginning of straights and allow some less powerful running at the end.

But as well as qualifying we have the race, and here "sustained" power is even more important.

It is noticeable that Honda are rumoured to be bringing a new turbocharger to Spa. Perhaps they have tuned it to match the improved ICE and get a few more MGU-H kw for better performance in both qualifying and the race. "Peak" power may be unchanged but performance, the area under the curve of which you speak, will be improved.

I also believe that if honda has 60 kw power deficit some part of it because of electric power ratio they can use per lap.

[godlameroso]

the crankshaft torque does not propel the car - the torque around the axle does

the 18000 rpm 967 hp NA engine will provide the same axle torque as a current 10500 rpm 967 hp engine does
because the NA engine is geared correspondingly lower

Maybe, maybe not.


Naturally aspirated engine with 4.11 final drive measured at the wheels.


Turbocharged engine with 3.67 final drive measured at the wheels.

Why does engine 2 produce nearly 100 ft lbs more torque than engine 1 when measured at the wheels, despite similar peak power?

[63l8qrrfy6]

the crankshaft torque does not propel the car - the torque around the axle does

the 18000 rpm 967 hp NA engine will provide the same axle torque as a current 10500 rpm 967 hp engine does
because the NA engine is geared correspondingly lower

Maybe, maybe not.

http://i.imgur.com/H4g7Qxw.jpg
Naturally aspirated engine with 4.11 final drive measured at the wheels.

http://www.svtperformance.com/wp-conten ... o-Test.jpg
Turbocharged engine with 3.67 final drive measured at the wheels.

Why does engine 2 produce nearly 100 ft lbs more torque than engine 1 when measured at the wheels, despite similar peak power?

He is correct provided that the turbo engine is geared 1.7x higher, which I think is what he meant.

Also I was inches from buying a mk3 RS xD

[wuzak]

the crankshaft torque does not propel the car - the torque around the axle does

the 18000 rpm 967 hp NA engine will provide the same axle torque as a current 10500 rpm 967 hp engine does
because the NA engine is geared correspondingly lower

At that particular point the wheel thrust would be the same.

However, either side of that point I believe the V6Ts would have more power and, thus, greater thrust.

Basically above 10,500rpm the V6T has an almost flat power band. The V10s and V8s were peaky in comparison.

[GhostF1]

@wazari you have revealed quite a lot . now please tell us the date when this "spec4" is being rolled out. are they testing this spec in current test.

He has, several times in fact. He doesn't believe it can be ready this year, although it doesn't mean the current spec can't be updated. What interests me is why spec 4 would be heavier.

It probably has more mass.

This relates to Andy Cowell saying their 2017 PU was actually heavier due to their need to facilitate higher mileage this season, so they needed to be made more reliable so they had to sacrifice overall weight to increase integrity. I believe Honda was the only manufacturer that came forward claiming a weight reduction for this year so it's possible to suggest this lighter engine is one of the factors of this vibration issue that's plaguing them. So this Spec 4 engine will actually be heavier, and follows the trend Mercedes are following.

Thought. With this weight increase, do we think we'd return back to 2016 weight levels? Or heavier? I recall that the Honda was on the lighter end of the spectrum of the PU's on the field, so with this weight increase for the next spec on an engine that was already made lighter and with the other manufacturers who went heavier over the year before, It may still have an advantage or at the worst, no major disadvantage.

[G'dayBruce]

He has, several times in fact. He doesn't believe it can be ready this year, although it doesn't mean the current spec can't be updated. What interests me is why spec 4 would be heavier.

It probably has more mass.

This relates to Andy Cowell saying their 2017 PU was actually heavier due to their need to facilitate higher mileage this season, so they needed to be made more reliable so they had to sacrifice overall weight to increase integrity. I believe Honda was the only manufacturer that came forward claiming a weight reduction for this year so it's possible to suggest this lighter engine is one of the factors of this vibration issue that's plaguing them. So this Spec 4 engine will actually be heavier, and follows the trend Mercedes are following.

Thought. With this weight increase, do we think we'd return back to 2016 weight levels? Or heavier? I recall that the Honda was on the lighter end of the spectrum of the PU's on the field, so with this weight increase for the next spec on an engine that was already made lighter and with the other manufacturers who went heavier over the year before, It may still have an advantage or at the worst, no major disadvantage.

Some of the additional weight may also be to accommodate the rumored pre chamber ignition requirements, either through componentry, or strengthening, heat and vibration control measures. If so, it'll likely be up top and detrimental to the cog too.

[GhostF1]

It probably has more mass.

This relates to Andy Cowell saying their 2017 PU was actually heavier due to their need to facilitate higher mileage this season, so they needed to be made more reliable so they had to sacrifice overall weight to increase integrity. I believe Honda was the only manufacturer that came forward claiming a weight reduction for this year so it's possible to suggest this lighter engine is one of the factors of this vibration issue that's plaguing them. So this Spec 4 engine will actually be heavier, and follows the trend Mercedes are following.

Thought. With this weight increase, do we think we'd return back to 2016 weight levels? Or heavier? I recall that the Honda was on the lighter end of the spectrum of the PU's on the field, so with this weight increase for the next spec on an engine that was already made lighter and with the other manufacturers who went heavier over the year before, It may still have an advantage or at the worst, no major disadvantage.

Some of the additional weight may also be to accommodate the rumored pre chamber ignition requirements, either through componentry, or strengthening, heat and vibration control measures. If so, it'll likely be up top and detrimental to the cog too.

Definitely true, but same principle applies, even with the detriment, its possible it's still an improvement ove rlast year when the whole compressor/turbine was lumped on top of the engine. (I love the photo of this years PU atop this thread and how dramatic the movement of the turbo was compared to looking at the RA616)

[j.yank]

Could Honda pick power be the same as Mercedes or Ferrari but because of worst efficiency they should carry more fuel, which means drying the energy storage quicker thus leaving less time per lap at pick power?