Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Kalun]

here is what they did...

https://t.co/5W5j96CHdW

Ted said Honda have managed to lower the combustion temperature which allows the turbo to be worked harder. I thought higher combustion temperatures are what the engine manufacturers are seeking?

If you are able to down the combustion temperature you could raise the CR = more power.

We have the example of WI system
http://articles.sae.org/14176/

Reduce combustion temperature will help to reduce pinging or knocking thus improve efficiency of combustion. Most likely, honda is increasing the compression ratio with this upgrade. They need to reduce the combustion temperature and with the help of Esso new fuel, you can extract more energy per drop of fuel. Reduction of combustion temperature can be done either from intake temperature (intercooler size), intake port profile, internal cooling recirculation system or piston profile in relation with the cooling effect from spraying motor oil onto the pistons.
Honda haven't the increase compression ratio to diesel level yet (13:1 maybe) but this is the first step to CVCC because CVCC will help to increase the compression ratio, improve combustion efficiency. Drawback of high compression ratio will be lower rev limit just like the one in Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari.

[Brian Coat]

Although Peak kW is clamped but the degree of freedom for ERS-K is very wide. Those who can extract the most torque from 0 rpm from an electric motor will be the best manufacturer. The electric motor tech is evolving rather quickly. Honda doesn't have an experience in electric vehicle and racing type Electric motor system although Mclaren do have make Formula E electric motor.
Mercedes previously has a share in Tesla and also develop an electric supercar. Ferrari have Mahle who has an experience in DC/AC motor. Renault has experience from their electric motor devision and Formula E.
Unless Honda can contact a company, non other than "Panasonic or Denso" from Japan.

For ERS-K, there are 2 phase and 3 phase motor. AC and DC type motor. Obviously AC motor is more efficient. There are also brushless motor. I'm not sure which area did Honda go unless they go with Mclaren P1 type of electric motor. The most efficient electric motor should be able to convert electric to mechanical energy with minimal loss and high efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
Since the rules about Electric motor/ERS motor is minimal, the innovation that can be brought forward is astonishing and invisible at the same time. There is something that Mercedes did with their Electric motor and software programming that make them unstoppable. It is more visible when comparing Mercedes and Williams as both of them have different ECU programming. They have been developing ERS before this current formula came in.

Last time, I was hoping Samsung would sponsor Mclaren Honda because Samsung can help in ERS development.

So to summarise, your expectations of where their opportunies lie are motor refinement and software development.

The latter is a whole-car-integrated sort of task so you can see how Mercedes and Ferrari might have an inherent advantage.

[Tommy Cookers]

"Honda will bring a more torquey ERS-K to help with the corner exit. "
Obviously the peak kW is clamped and the ideal is to achieve this exactly as and when required.
Where do we believe the opportunities lie?

Although Peak kW is clamped but the degree of freedom for ERS-K is very wide. Those who can extract the most torque from 0 rpm from an electric motor will be the best manufacturer.

The most efficient electric motor should be able to convert electric to mechanical energy with minimal loss and high efficiency.

(Kalun's) statement 'extract the most torque from 0 rpm will be the best manfacturer' is wrong in so many ways

the MGUK torque in motor or generator action is limited by the rules to 200 Nm (crankshaft equivalent)
so the nominal 120 kW is simply not allowed below 5730 crankshaft rpm

the rules assume an 'end-to-end' efficiency of 95% ie including mechanical and electrical drive losses outside the MG
(ie 95% efficient conversion of 'crankshaft power' to DC power or vice-versa)
and anything gained by a higher end-to-end efficiency is allowed ie the power and torque limits can potentially be slightly exceeded

most believe the MGs are synchronous 'AC' machines, though reluctance machines are not implausible
Autogyro once posted a plot from an EV maker's (synchronous) application showing 99.5% ('in-machine' not end-to-end ?) best efficiency

the rules might be taken to allow unlimited power of MU-K action if/when fed from outside the DC/ES loop ie directly from GU-H action ?
(the 120 kW limit being defined as DC power)
....as we only now can see that the ICE rules always allowed TJI type systems

[Craigy]

(Kalun's) statement 'extract the most torque from 0 rpm will be the best manfacturer' is wrong in so many ways

Quite.

Q: How often does an MGU-K spend at zero rpm in a running F1 car?
A: never. It is geared to the IC crankshaft. At the lowest speed the IC runs at (idle), the MGU-K will still be doing a few thousand RPM.

There are other flaws with that post, obviously...

[PABLOEING]

http://en.f1i.com/news/69359-honda-yet- ... cg.twitter

[Andres125sx]

That point made me think....


Mercedes PU is the best, but they´ve also struggled at many starts. People usually say that´s due to the clutch but, may be possible that their electric motor/setup is optimized for higher revs what makes them struggle at the starts?

Ok I guess that´s what every team do since they´re starting from still only at the start and pitstops but, may be possible Mercedes went a step further? Is there any way to optimize an electric setup for high revs or this is nosense?

[godlameroso]

Regulations only allow air and fuel to be mixed.

[SameSame]

Consumption

Fuel consumption at this track is not critical because 88 kg of fuel is sufficient to complete the race distance. The value is relatively low: but it is not too surprising considering that the low downforce settings means that drag is reduced. The smaller wings save more than 10 percent of fuel compared to a higher downforce configuration.

ERS

Monza does not allow a large energy recovery on the brakes with the MGU-K because cars are braking only for 11.3 seconds per lap. But there is a greater chance to recover energy from exhaust gases due to the high mileage at full throttle.

On this track it is possible to recover braking with 735 kJ through the MGU-K and 3203 kJ in acceleration with the MGU-H - for a total of 3938 kJ per lap. The value is second only to Baku where teams could recover 4954 kJ per lap.

A performance contribution of 57 percent from the ERS at full strength corresponds to 2.8 seconds for every lap – and 19 km/h top speed.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/itali ... ew-813671/

Will Honda be able to finish the race without fuel saving too? I can't imagine the weight penalty is so high at Monza that they would under fuel for other performance advantages?

Also interesting to see how much the MGU-H can recover alone on such a short lap (albeit at full throttle for a lengthy time). It would be interesting to see how much teams could recover under braking if they took the 120kW limit off.

[DarkAlman]

Just curious, do the F1 rules limit what goes on the test benches at Sakura?

In other words do the test engines have to be derivatives of the race engine? Or can they have completely radical redesigns?

I assume they also have mockups and simple piston/double piston designs for concept testing?

[gianluca.mateo]

Consumption

Fuel consumption at this track is not critical because 88 kg of fuel is sufficient to complete the race distance. The value is relatively low: but it is not too surprising considering that the low downforce settings means that drag is reduced. The smaller wings save more than 10 percent of fuel compared to a higher downforce configuration.

ERS

Monza does not allow a large energy recovery on the brakes with the MGU-K because cars are braking only for 11.3 seconds per lap. But there is a greater chance to recover energy from exhaust gases due to the high mileage at full throttle.

On this track it is possible to recover braking with 735 kJ through the MGU-K and 3203 kJ in acceleration with the MGU-H - for a total of 3938 kJ per lap. The value is second only to Baku where teams could recover 4954 kJ per lap.

A performance contribution of 57 percent from the ERS at full strength corresponds to 2.8 seconds for every lap – and 19 km/h top speed.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/itali ... ew-813671/

Will Honda be able to finish the race without fuel saving too? I can't imagine the weight penalty is so high at Monza that they would under fuel for other performance advantages?

Also interesting to see how much the MGU-H can recover alone on such a short lap (albeit at full throttle for a lengthy time). It would be interesting to see how much teams could recover under braking if they took the 120kW limit off.

I cannot imagine the Honda engine using 15% more fuel, so I'd guess they are also ok on consumption.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[loner]

well if JB said Honda is probably has the best deployment , i think the last 3 tokens will be for ICE perhaps implementing the TJI , CVCC or whatever they will do to lesser the consumption ...

[daren_p]

well if JB said Honda is probably has the best deployment , i think the last 3 tokens will be for ICE perhaps implementing the TJI , CVCC or whatever they will do to lesser the consumption ...

I'm sure compared to last year, the deployment seems massively better & his other point of reference was a first years Merc PU. For sure Merc has moved on since then, I would think if he drove a current Merc, he might change his tune. ERS being in the same ballpark as all the other manufactures seems reasonable but it would be hard to believe they have the best, especially when they lack development time & real world running vs the other manufacturers. Though their current development curve does appear to be sharper then the other manufacturers in general.

[Juzh]

Mercedes PU is the best, but they´ve also struggled at many starts. People usually say that´s due to the clutch but, may be possible that their electric motor/setup is optimized for higher revs what makes them struggle at the starts?

Just look at this horrendous start from hamilton here. /s

https://youtu.be/ChTPzkW9VQo?t=5s

[loner]

well if JB said Honda is probably has the best deployment , i think the last 3 tokens will be for ICE perhaps implementing the TJI , CVCC or whatever they will do to lesser the consumption ...

I'm sure compared to last year, the deployment seems massively better & his other point of reference was a first years Merc PU. For sure Merc has moved on since then, I would think if he drove a current Merc, he might change his tune. ERS being in the same ballpark as all the other manufactures seems reasonable but it would be hard to believe they have the best, especially when they lack development time & real world running vs the other manufacturers. Though their current development curve does appear to be sharper then the other manufacturers in general.

he is not a noob you know ofcourse he knows exactly the deficit of honda's ICE and speak accordingly

[Andres125sx]

Mercedes PU is the best, but they´ve also struggled at many starts. People usually say that´s due to the clutch but, may be possible that their electric motor/setup is optimized for higher revs what makes them struggle at the starts?

Just look at this horrendous start from hamilton here. /s

https://youtu.be/ChTPzkW9VQo?t=5s

Yeah Mercedes starts are better than Manor, Renault and Sauber... you proved me wrong!