Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[FW17]

Split turbo advantages are not performance but with packaging and thermal shielding to a small extent.

[DiogoBrand]

There are performances advantages, with less heatsoaking to the compressor and the shortest way both from compressor/intercooler/intake and turbine/exhaust.

[gruntguru]

There may also be a slight efficiency advantage in the parallel, radial diffuser used by Mercedes, compared to the common "rolled up" diffusers which are easier to package due to the smaller OD compressor housing.

The front end of the engine is the best clear space for locating the thin pancake shaped compressor.

[tuj]

My point is, F1 designs quickly converge on solutions. For example, even if it was still legal, you'd be a fool to build a Front Engine car. Took Enzo a couple years to get that one right. How about wings, would you run your car without wings today? Or without a diffuser? Would you scrap the sidepods and put the cooling up front?

No of course no designer would do any of those things. Because it has been proven that the other way is better / faster.

We have not *yet* converged on a V6-hybrid design, but I bet it won't be long. Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock? Given that displacement and cylinder number is fixed, it quickly becomes obvious that there is an ideal ratio or narrow range that the design falls into. Who would build an under-square engine? Doesn't make sense.

Maybe Honda has a better solution. Time will tell.

[jure]

My point is, F1 designs quickly converge on solutions. For example, even if it was still legal, you'd be a fool to build a Front Engine car. Took Enzo a couple years to get that one right. How about wings, would you run your car without wings today? Or without a diffuser? Would you scrap the sidepods and put the cooling up front?

No of course no designer would do any of those things. Because it has been proven that the other way is better / faster.

We have not *yet* converged on a V6-hybrid design, but I bet it won't be long. Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock? Given that displacement and cylinder number is fixed, it quickly becomes obvious that there is an ideal ratio or narrow range that the design falls into. Who would build an under-square engine? Doesn't make sense.

Maybe Honda has a better solution. Time will tell.

One can not copy combustion chamber design, so it's not like a wing. I think convergence depends heavily on engineer migration, because there is no other way to find out what competitor is doing.
I think Mercedes is investing heavily into combustion development and will not be caught quite so soon. Of course, others will come close because it's harder and harder to extract more power from ice, but I highly doubt anyone will actually catch Mercedes.

[FW17]

Also there are not many staff moving around.

Merc staff are in UK and probably in Germany, they probably will not be willing to move to Paris, Maranello or Sakura. Same issues as a chassis manufacturer.

[taperoo2k]

Also there are not many staff moving around.

Merc staff are in UK and probably in Germany, they probably will not be willing to move to Paris, Maranello or Sakura. Same issues as a chassis manufacturer.

Honda seem to have expanded it's UK PU base to have an R&D element to it. So might not be that hard to hire engineers from
the UK, if they decide to do so and the engineers want a challenge -
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/loca ... -1-6714723

[diffuser]

There may also be a slight efficiency advantage in the parallel, radial diffuser used by Mercedes, compared to the common "rolled up" diffusers which are easier to package due to the smaller OD compressor housing.

The front end of the engine is the best clear space for locating the thin pancake shaped compressor.

I really have NO facts to base this on but I do feel that in general people tend to think that the most obvious visual difference in a design is the reason why a whole solution is better. While if you really think about it... we have 4 manufactures and 3 different ways of aligning the turbine MGU-H and compressor( I say 3 but I forget if the Renault/Ferrari are the same). So when 75% of the manufactures who have Engineers that are far better than me choose another direction......I feel that they must have given it alot of thought and come to the conclusion there isn't much of a difference or there are other advantages we haven't thought of yet that off set those negatives.

It's kind of like "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum"

[1lifeliveit]

There may also be a slight efficiency advantage in the parallel, radial diffuser used by Mercedes, compared to the common "rolled up" diffusers which are easier to package due to the smaller OD compressor housing.

The front end of the engine is the best clear space for locating the thin pancake shaped compressor.

I really have NO facts to base this on but I do feel that in general people tend to think that the most obvious visual difference in a design is the reason why a whole solution is better. While if you really think about it... we have 4 manufactures and 3 different ways of aligning the turbine MGU-H and compressor( I say 3 but I forget if the Renault/Ferrari are the same). So when 75% of the manufactures who have Engineers that are far better than me choose another direction......I feel that they must have given it alot of thought and come to the conclusion there isn't much of a difference or there are other advantages we haven't thought of yet that off set those negatives.

It's kind of like "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum"

Spot on. It comes down to how much confidence you have in your own design. And that's what sets innovators apart from "also-rans". Just because a certain design is working better at this point in time, doesn't necessarily mean that it is the "best" design.
I am and have been a McLaren fan for a long time because they are not afraid to push boundaries. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes wrong. It doesn't matter. The fact that they are willing to try new solutions even at the expense of their reputation sets them apart.

[Craigy]

Also there are not many staff moving around.

Merc staff are in UK and probably in Germany, they probably will not be willing to move to Paris, Maranello or Sakura. Same issues as a chassis manufacturer.

Honda seem to have expanded it's UK PU base to have an R&D element to it. So might not be that hard to hire engineers from
the UK, if they decide to do so and the engineers want a challenge -
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/loca ... -1-6714723

I live in MK, about 5 minutes from that site.
It's too small for a full development site. 35 engineers is about a tenth of what's needed overall. As a consequence, I believe this will be a small satellite development location from Sakura.

[wuzak]

Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock?

There was no difference in the bore of the V8s, because it was set by regulations (98mm maximum). And it follows that the stroke would be identical, or near enough to, because no manufacturer would give away any capacity.

The current engines have the bore specified as 80mm +/-0.1mm and the capacity is 1,600cc +0mm/-10mm.

[gruntguru]

Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock?

There was no difference in the bore of the V8s, because it was set by regulations (98mm maximum). And it follows that the stroke would be identical, or near enough to, because no manufacturer would give away any capacity.

The current engines have the bore specified as 80mm +/-0.1mm and the capacity is 1,600cc +0mm/-10mm.

Cool that they specified a minimum capacity. Would that be a first for GP racing? Clearly they anticipated that a smaller displacement might be more efficient and therefore more powerful.

[Pierce89]

Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock?

There was no difference in the bore of the V8s, because it was set by regulations (98mm maximum). And it follows that the stroke would be identical, or near enough to, because no manufacturer would give away any capacity.

The current engines have the bore specified as 80mm +/-0.1mm and the capacity is 1,600cc +0mm/-10mm.

Actually the Honda was a little longer stroke than the other V8s according to the many articles Honda released. It didn't use the maximum bore

[wuzak]

Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock?

There was no difference in the bore of the V8s, because it was set by regulations (98mm maximum). And it follows that the stroke would be identical, or near enough to, because no manufacturer would give away any capacity.

The current engines have the bore specified as 80mm +/-0.1mm and the capacity is 1,600cc +0mm/-10mm.

Actually the Honda was a little longer stroke than the other V8s according to the many articles Honda released. It didn't use the maximum bore

Maybe that's why it didn't do any good?

[wuzak]

Again, for example, how much variation do you think there was in the bore and stroke of the V8's in the paddock?

There was no difference in the bore of the V8s, because it was set by regulations (98mm maximum). And it follows that the stroke would be identical, or near enough to, because no manufacturer would give away any capacity.

The current engines have the bore specified as 80mm +/-0.1mm and the capacity is 1,600cc +0mm/-10mm.

Cool that they specified a minimum capacity. Would that be a first for GP racing? Clearly they anticipated that a smaller displacement might be more efficient and therefore more powerful.

Slightly disappointed that it is there. But it is likely there in case someone did indeed figure they could build a smaller, lighter engine with the same performance.

Notice that the bore is similarly constrained, so no-one can contemplate a longer stroke engine.