Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[dren]

Should be possible to do a like for like test of the 2018 vs 2019 MGUH and MGUK on a NSX. I see no issues there. 6.5% increase in harvesting is a considerable amount.

They could litterally strap on a Honda F1 turbocharger on the back of the NSX 3.5 liter V6 to sort of simulate the turbo dynamics. Getting 850 horsepower from 3 liters and 11k rpm shouldn't be so hard for them. Then again it a fanciful story that may not be true! haha

Surely the exhaust energy wasted out of the NSX engine is different to that of the F1 PU?

[Craigy]

Is 1.3 megajoules good compared to Ferrari and Merc? That would mean they can put max 3.3 Mj to the mguk, right. I assume both Ferrari and Mercedes already do the full 4 Mj.

A couple of points.

Firstly the MGU-H output can go directly to the MGU-K. The 4 MJ limit is from the ES to the MGU-K so you can’t add 1.3 to 2 to establish what is going down the regulated path.

Secondly the 1.3 MJ figure would be about 20kW output from the MGU-H, I think that the MGU-H output for Ferrari/Mercedes is more like 60kW, maybe up to 80. The translator has said “won” when I think they meant “gained”. So Honda are making perhaps 20kW more now than when they started.

*wakes from F1t slumber* ... It's been a while.

Re: Henry's points; Agreed.

Just to reiterate, 4MJ per lap through the MGU-K is not actually a limit written in the regulations.
It's only the ES->MGU-K energy route that is limited to 4MJ in the regulations.
If you go ES->MGU-H->MGU-K as the route, that's not limited in regulations.
Consequently the MGU-K can deploy more than 4MJ on a lap, by addition of the two routes.

[godlameroso]

Is 1.3 megajoules good compared to Ferrari and Merc? That would mean they can put max 3.3 Mj to the mguk, right. I assume both Ferrari and Mercedes already do the full 4 Mj.

A couple of points.

Firstly the MGU-H output can go directly to the MGU-K. The 4 MJ limit is from the ES to the MGU-K so you can’t add 1.3 to 2 to establish what is going down the regulated path.

Secondly the 1.3 MJ figure would be about 20kW output from the MGU-H, I think that the MGU-H output for Ferrari/Mercedes is more like 60kW, maybe up to 80. The translator has said “won” when I think they meant “gained”. So Honda are making perhaps 20kW more now than when they started.

*wakes from F1t slumber* ... It's been a while.

Re: Henry's points; Agreed.

Just to reiterate, 4MJ per lap through the MGU-K is not actually a limit written in the regulations.
It's only the ES->MGU-K energy route that is limited to 4MJ in the regulations.
If you go ES->MGU-H->MGU-K as the route, that's not limited in regulations.
Consequently the MGU-K can deploy more than 4MJ on a lap, by addition of the two routes.

3 routes. Engine ancillary, the engine, the ES and the MGU-H can all send power to the K. The more you get from the other sources the lower the load from the ES. So if you can transfer 40kW from the MGU-H 10kW from an engine ancillary, that means only 70kW needs to come from the ES, and if you could knock another 10kW, it would essentially double your deployment. You'd be able to deploy 60kW from the ES to the MGU-K for 66.6 seconds and the rest of the power would come from fuel, through the MGU-H, the engine itself, or an engine ancillary.

Another reason why fuel efficiency, and improving the combustion process is important.

[Bandit1216]

Oké

But basically only energy they used to waste out of the exhaust, which they now use to power the rear wheels is contributing to the better efficiency, right. Wouldn't using aux to power mgu-k be perpentium mobilé?

[henry]

The ancilliaries are listed in 5:13. They all consume power rather than generating it.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
5.13.1 All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

[godlameroso]

The ancilliaries are listed in 5:13. They all consume power rather than generating it.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
5.13.1 All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

Where does it say ancillaries can't deliver power to the mgu-k?

[hurril]

The ancilliaries are listed in 5:13. They all consume power rather than generating it.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
5.13.1 All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

Where does it say ancillaries can't deliver power to the mgu-k?

Power isn't the issue. Energy is.

[godlameroso]

The ancilliaries are listed in 5:13. They all consume power rather than generating it.

Where does it say ancillaries can't deliver power to the mgu-k?

Power isn't the issue. Energy is.

Energy comes from fuel, and there is no limit to drive the mgu-k from the engine/engine powered ancillaries. Maybe creating a storage device for non electrical or chemical energy is not practical but it is allowed. In any case the MGU-K can send energy to the MGU-H which in turn can be sent anywhere in unlimited amounts.

[hurril]

Where does it say ancillaries can't deliver power to the mgu-k?

Power isn't the issue. Energy is.

Energy comes from fuel, and there is no limit to drive the mgu-k from the engine/engine powered ancillaries. Maybe creating a storage device for non electrical or chemical energy is not practical but it is allowed. In any case the MGU-K can send energy to the MGU-H which in turn can be sent anywhere in unlimited amounts.

Right. But there is a power limit for the MGU-k though and energy limits for the ancillaries. You're also not allowed to have more accumulators of any kind the way you suggest. There's no free lunch to be had here, not counting the "expensive lunch" to be had by re-routing via the MGU-h.

[henry]

The ancilliaries are listed in 5:13. They all consume power rather than generating it.

5.13 Engine ancillaries :
5.13.1 All coolant pumps, oil pumps, scavenge pumps, oil/air separators, hydraulic pumps and fuel pumps delivering more than 10bar must be mechanically driven directly from the engine and/or MGU-K with a fixed speed ratio.

Where does it say ancillaries can't deliver power to the mgu-k?

Logic says that even if there was an ancilliary that could deliver power to the MGU-K that ancilliary would consume crankshaft power from the ICE which would suffer losses as it gets routed through the ancilliary and MGU-K back to the crank.

Also the energy stored outside the ERS is limited to 300kJ with 20kJ recoverable at >2kW. Interestingly the regs doesn’t provide a reset period on the 20kJ, it may be per lap or it might be per race. Who knows. Either way it’s not a huge advantage.

[godlameroso]

Power isn't the issue. Energy is.

Energy comes from fuel, and there is no limit to drive the mgu-k from the engine/engine powered ancillaries. Maybe creating a storage device for non electrical or chemical energy is not practical but it is allowed. In any case the MGU-K can send energy to the MGU-H which in turn can be sent anywhere in unlimited amounts.

Right. But there is a power limit for the MGU-k though and energy limits for the ancillaries. You're also not allowed to have more accumulators of any kind the way you suggest. There's no free lunch to be had here, not counting the "expensive lunch" to be had by re-routing via the MGU-h.

That's why you improve combustion efficiency, so you can get away with the expensive lunches.

[godlameroso]

The ancilliaries are listed in 5:13. They all consume power rather than generating it.

Where does it say ancillaries can't deliver power to the mgu-k?

Logic says that even if there was an ancilliary that could deliver power to the MGU-K that ancilliary would consume crankshaft power from the ICE which would suffer losses as it gets routed through the ancilliary and MGU-K back to the crank.

Also the energy stored outside the ERS is limited to 300kJ with 20kJ recoverable at >2kW. Interestingly the regs doesn’t provide a reset period on the 20kJ, it may be per lap or it might be per race. Who knows. Either way it’s not a huge advantage.

It doesn't need to be huge to be worthwhile, it just has to deliver an improvement.

[PlatinumZealot]

Should be possible to do a like for like test of the 2018 vs 2019 MGUH and MGUK on a NSX. I see no issues there. 6.5% increase in harvesting is a considerable amount.

They could litterally strap on a Honda F1 turbocharger on the back of the NSX 3.5 liter V6 to sort of simulate the turbo dynamics. Getting 850 horsepower from 3 liters and 11k rpm shouldn't be so hard for them. Then again it a fanciful story that may not be true! haha

Surely the exhaust energy wasted out of the NSX engine is different to that of the F1 PU?

Yes and no. Still 6 cylinders V6. So the basic pulse pattern should be the same.Not sure about the pulse "timbre". The port size could be the same.. The cylinder is just bigger but it can easily be designed to push out the same amount of air as the 1.5 liter turbo engine. And it is a like for like comparison between 2018 and 2019 MGUH so there is scientific control.

[godlameroso]

Should be possible to do a like for like test of the 2018 vs 2019 MGUH and MGUK on a NSX. I see no issues there. 6.5% increase in harvesting is a considerable amount.

They could litterally strap on a Honda F1 turbocharger on the back of the NSX 3.5 liter V6 to sort of simulate the turbo dynamics. Getting 850 horsepower from 3 liters and 11k rpm shouldn't be so hard for them. Then again it a fanciful story that may not be true! haha

Surely the exhaust energy wasted out of the NSX engine is different to that of the F1 PU?

Yes and no. Still 6 cylinders V6. So the basic pulse pattern should be the same.Not sure about the pulse "timbre". The port size could be the same.. The cylinder is just bigger but it can easily be designed to push out the same amount of air as the 1.5 liter turbo engine. And it is a like for like comparison between 2018 and 2019 MGUH so there is scientific control.

NSX V6 has a 75 degree bank angle vs 90 for F1.

[dren]

Should be possible to do a like for like test of the 2018 vs 2019 MGUH and MGUK on a NSX. I see no issues there. 6.5% increase in harvesting is a considerable amount.

They could litterally strap on a Honda F1 turbocharger on the back of the NSX 3.5 liter V6 to sort of simulate the turbo dynamics. Getting 850 horsepower from 3 liters and 11k rpm shouldn't be so hard for them. Then again it a fanciful story that may not be true! haha

Surely the exhaust energy wasted out of the NSX engine is different to that of the F1 PU?

Yes and no. Still 6 cylinders V6. So the basic pulse pattern should be the same.Not sure about the pulse "timbre". The port size could be the same.. The cylinder is just bigger but it can easily be designed to push out the same amount of air as the 1.5 liter turbo engine. And it is a like for like comparison between 2018 and 2019 MGUH so there is scientific control.

If it's a comparison between the two packages on the same ICE, then I could see some benefit. It still seems like a lot of extra work when you could just have done it on the dyno.