Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[etusch]

Honda: "We never had a contract with AVL".

Interesting. Source?

Btw.. get an Avatar dude.. I need to Identify your posts easier.

Translated article:

"Honda recently dissolved partner contract with AVL in Austria boasting the world's most advanced simulation technology" (Germany outbuilding), which jumped in from early in the beginning of the year, is a big shock to Japanese motor sports fans . However, the Honda side denied this report 100%.

"It is not a fact that we canceled our partner contract with AVL because we have not signed a partner agreement with AVL in the first place" (a certain Honda F1 official)

So, why did such news flow? A Honda official thinks as follows.

"It is true that Honda was talking to work together with AVL, but there is a gap between what Honda is seeking and what they can do and we have not concluded. You must have misunderstood it. "

By the way, AVL is the world's largest company in this industry, which is developing not only F1 but also power train of commercial cars and simulation testing, Honda also has a connection with AVL from the past, The relationship is ongoing.

I have found out the outbuild news is not true. However, it is true that Honda suffered from oscillation (resonance) in 2017 and 2018. Were you able to solve the problem for 2019?

"I do not know it until I actually mounted it on the car and run the circuit, but at least there is no fact that the problem is becoming serious as we have not been able to sign a contract with AVL." (A certain Honda official)

According to the stakeholder, Honda's 2019 power unit is on schedule and is now in a state of waiting for an answer from Red Bull. Red Bull and Toro Rosso have not yet revealed the release date of the new car.

https://forums.autosport.com/topic/2099 ... try8622516


I also read this turkish motorsport.com.

[PlatinumZealot]

The motorsport world have created a propaganda that if you are not European you cannot develop a good engine.. Which is not the truth.

[GhostF1]

The motorsport world have created a propaganda that if you are not European you cannot develop a good engine.. Which is not the truth.

Which is ironic because some of the best 4 cylinders ever created have all been Japanese, even some of the 6's.

[etusch]

The motorsport world have created a propaganda that if you are not European you cannot develop a good engine.. Which is not the truth.

Yes, I remember that someone was suggesting to ferrari to move facilities to England during Renault McLaren fighting years to be succesful again(it was F1 racing writer). Some of them think more high. "You can be succesful only if your team located UK."

[Bill]

History shows that when European compete against their Japanese counterparts they lobby hard for technology to be simplified e.g. Common ecu in moto gp . Toyota full car wind tunnel being banned before they can use it for their f1 team , Honda in the 80 their innovative oval piston banned , the failure to adopt hybrid early for fear it will give Honda and Toyota an advantage.The majority of team supplies are from Japan and USA so the whole U.K. thing is overrated

[etusch]

History shows that when European compete against their Japanese counterparts they lobby hard for technology to be simplified e.g. Common ecu in moto gp . Toyota full car wind tunnel being banned before they can use it for their f1 team , Honda in the 80 their innovative oval piston banned , the failure to adopt hybrid early for fear it will give Honda and Toyota an advantage.The majority of team supplies are from Japan and USA so the whole U.K. thing is overrated

When motogp standart ecu thing mentioned; I wonder about how Honda do with F1 standart ECU? They are not talking about that. They were better with their own ECU at motogp. Maybe they would be better at f1
too if it were not standart ECU. For example; maybe it would be easier to solve vibrations

[turbof1]

Friendly reminder this is the Honda F1 Power Unit topic: Hardware and Software, not a competence assessment topic.

[godlameroso]

Suppose you make an ICE gain of 25KW, but it can give you 11KW net to the MGU-H if you 'sacrifice' the extra ICE power, would it be worth making that sacrifice? In other words, say your ICE power is ~590KW, and the gain can bring 25KW 615KW+120KW ERS, however it limits your ability to recover from the MGU-H. On the other hand, by sacrificing that gain, to where ICE power is <590KW, MGU-H recovery increases by 11KW, on a 60KW MGU-H it would bring it's performance in line with the others.


In such a scenario, development on the turbine efficiency would make the most sense, as it would allow you to compromise, in other words, make a smaller sacrifice of that 25KW boost yet still keep the MGU-H gains. With enough development the ICE could be very close to 615KW+120KW ERS, while maintaining adequate MGU-H performance.

The fuel, and lubricants can also help improve efficiency, and overall power unit development. My fear is that Honda is still going to be a year behind the others. They need to improve twice as fast as the others to catch up let alone keep pace.

[gruntguru]

Suppose you make an ICE gain of 25KW, but it can give you 11KW net to the MGU-H if you 'sacrifice' the extra ICE power, would it be worth making that sacrifice?

No. Crankshaft power is the most valuable. Perhaps if it was the other way around 11kW Crank or 25 kW MGUH you would choose the MGUH (you would still end up with 23kW at the crankshaft in self sustaining mode via the unlimited H->K path)

[PlatinumZealot]

I echo guru. Crank horsepower is valuable. In layman terms think like this...

Energy conversions

1. Combustion to crank and exhaust, 2. exhaust to MGUH, 3. MUGH to KERS, 4. KERS to crank 5. Crank to wheels

Combustion to crank is the least steps and more efficient with the same amount of energy.

However the MGUH has the advantage of charging the battery. Biasing battery charging is an advantage on some tracks. And Biasing towards ICE power (I assume where battery demand is lower) is an advantage on other tracks.

Note that a strong ICE engine map usually takes more compressor energy and so less shaft energy for that the MGUH can take. If I am correct..

[gruntguru]

I think these guys are at a point where power gains aren't tied to a change in manifold pressure. Changing boost with fixed fuel flow rate simply changes the AFR. Any power change arising from that will be the result of either:
- a change in the efficiency of energy conversion from burning the fuel to pushing the piston down
- a change in pumping work in the piston engine
- a change in the turbine - compressor energy balance

These are all much smaller effects than what happens when you change the boost at constant AFR in a typical turbo engine.

[Nonserviam85]

Suppose you make an ICE gain of 25KW, but it can give you 11KW net to the MGU-H if you 'sacrifice' the extra ICE power, would it be worth making that sacrifice?

No. Crankshaft power is the most valuable. Perhaps if it was the other way around 11kW Crank or 25 kW MGUH you would choose the MGUH (you would still end up with 23kW at the crankshaft in self sustaining mode via the unlimited H->K path)

You are right in this sense but I believe the one million dollar question is:

Is it better to have 600kW+120kW for let's say 40 sec per lap or 610kW+120kW for 30 sec? I believe this type of dilemma is the main focus on PU development.

[dren]

Suppose you make an ICE gain of 25KW, but it can give you 11KW net to the MGU-H if you 'sacrifice' the extra ICE power, would it be worth making that sacrifice?

No. Crankshaft power is the most valuable. Perhaps if it was the other way around 11kW Crank or 25 kW MGUH you would choose the MGUH (you would still end up with 23kW at the crankshaft in self sustaining mode via the unlimited H->K path)

You are right at this sense but I believe the best one million dollar question is:

Is it better to have 600kW+120kW for let's say 40 sec per lap or 610kW+120kW for 30 sec? I believe this type of dilemma is the main focus on PU development.

That's my guess, too. Max crank power when required for a lap which would be track specific. Since K motoring is a large component in total crank power, you have to start with that and work backwards.

[godlameroso]

Electrical energy is a lot more efficient than combustion energy, although deployment power is limited by the MGU-K. The MGU-H is indirectly connected to the power train, power through electrical means will always be more efficient than mechanical means. Crank power is ultimately the priority as that is the prime mover as GG correctly points out.

You do have to sacrifice ICE power to gain MGU-H power, likewise you have to sacrifice ICE power to harvest from the MGU-K.

A bit of speculation:
The ICE power is max ~600KW under optimal circumstances, MGU-K power is 120KW max, MGU-H power is unlimited but likely a max of 80KW. The motive energy comes from the ES, which is filled by syphoning mechanical energy from the burned fuel.

Now the caveat is over a race distance, you cannot have 600 120 and 80 at all times, probably not even over a qualifying lap. Over a race distance the average output is likely 520 100 40 or lower at times. The gains from Honda will come from being able to increase these numbers independently without lowering the others. Because due to the nature of the regulations increasing one lowers the other.

The largest number comes from the ICE obviously so improving this allows you to improve the others at a lesser overall cost. Improving turbine efficiency gives more energy for the ES which increases the deployment limit at max power. MGU-K deployment can be extended by taking inefficient energy flow paths, so improving that inefficiency will bring gains.

[gruntguru]

Suppose you make an ICE gain of 25KW, but it can give you 11KW net to the MGU-H if you 'sacrifice' the extra ICE power, would it be worth making that sacrifice?

No. Crankshaft power is the most valuable. Perhaps if it was the other way around 11kW Crank or 25 kW MGUH you would choose the MGUH (you would still end up with 23kW at the crankshaft in self sustaining mode via the unlimited H->K path)

You are right in this sense but I believe the one million dollar question is:

Is it better to have 600kW+120kW for let's say 40 sec per lap or 610kW+120kW for 30 sec? I believe this type of dilemma is the main focus on PU development.

I would say the latter. However the crank vs exhaust energy tradeoff rarely favours the turbine to that extent. Also Honda have shown that saving crankshaft energy to the ES is virtually unlimited (limited only by the 120kW limit on the MGUK) using the "extra harvest" workaround, so it doesn't matter much whether you increase crank or turbine power.