Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Craigy]

They could offset the MGUH to lower the shaft, but then you have to gear the MGUH to the shaft which is, by all accounts, difficult to get right in the first place.

So here's what I'm wondering:
What clearance do you think there is between the top of the crank throws in the bottom end, and the lowest part of the turbine shaft that the compressor and turbine sit on?

I'm wondering if the long shaft running from one end of the engine to the other might be inside the top part of the block, near to or below the bottoms of the cylinders.

The seals in such an arrangement would be horrible to engineer because the shaft rotates so quickly (limit is 125K rpm, assuming full speed permitted in the regs).
It'd also be a nightmare to package the MGU-H inside the vee of the engine. Not impossible.

The benefit is compactness, of course.
If the block was to distort (even by a little), then the shaft running the length of the engine would bind and smash up its bearings/seals.

[godlameroso]

That's interesting.

[Craigy]

That's interesting.

Last year that shaft would have been well above the top of the block because it had to be high enough for the compressor to fit in the vee, so the shaft would have been one radius of the compressor away from the top of the block at a minimum.

At a (total) guess, this was perhaps 6cm-7cm higher, assuming the compressor was around 12cm diameter (obviously adjust this to suit your guess of compressor diameter from 2016).

With the new engine having the shaft that low down, there's a new limit for the size of the compressor disk, but it's circa 40cm: basically to the bottom of the block.

Does anyone need a compressor that big?
Perhaps not - but it would rotate slower, and that means less hassle with whirl on that very long shaft running north-south.
It would makes the bearing smaller/easier to build in that respect.
Slower may actually mean less waste in terms of heat from the mechanism.
It would mean more rotational inertia, so slower spin-up, but also obviously slower spin-down (which may make MGU-H harvesting more efficient).

Has anyone on here got info on the size of the compressor disks being used by the F1 teams in this era of F1?

Edited to add: I think the actual compressor disk and turbine are both about 10-15cm diameter. Just wondering if anyone has hard info.

[PlatinumZealot]

This is the one thing that cannot be simulated on a shaker rig. The G-forces and overhung parts of the car stretching and compressing the engine!

I think with a few suitably placed hydraulic rams you can simulate the torsional/bending forces the engine will see from the chassis, gearbox and suspension, and I'm pretty sure Honda have at least one 7 post rig to do precisely that.

The G-forces throwing fluids around (oil tank issue) is another thing.

This thing can simulate G-forces... (1:45)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuiHDpoSf9I

Great post!

[HPD]

This can help. From Muramasa (forums autosport)

Day 3 & 4 of Testing 1
Hasegawa quotes dotted
-------------------------------------------

===================
http://f1sokuho.mopi...=106509&tt=1170
2017年3月2日

Of course what's ideal is that you go without trouble. But this season Honda is going very aggressive in development. Therefore we are prepared for something like this (encountering reliability issues) to some degree.
(what is the aggressive development, in detail?) I'm still undecided as to how much we should disclose about it, but the biggest point is about lowering the turbo. We modified the layout and lowered the CoG.
Lowered cog by moving turbo out of V bank for this year's unit (info in the article)
It (turbo) has got lowered significantly. That's the biggest change. I think we've done well.
(asked if it's got lowered on the order of centimers) Yes
*nuance is that turbo got lowered in centimeter scale rather than in millimeter, so it could be 2cm, 5cm, 10cm 15 or whatever. Obviously from the context it's not just few centimeters but much more. (From the pic of engine cover off in the garage plus taking last year's PU into consideration I guess it's at least 10cm btw)

===================
http://f1sokuho.mopi...=106551&tt=1170
2017年3月3日

(on the power loss / mechanical issue occurred in Day 2 morning) That is of course a headache. But even though we are not able to understand the root cause yet, we've identified the location already. So for the next week's testing we are going to apply measures for improving reliability like reinforcing the component in question etc.
Of course you can't say anything conclusive because fuel load varies team by team, but even then it's better to be faster than slower, isnt it.
Ferrari is looking very good, but esp Renault is fast. On the other hand about our performance, I guess everyone who's watching it must be thinking we are lackluster as well.
Compared with last year's testing, positioning and lap count for this year are similar, so situation is not much different. But to be frank it is unacceptable if we're doing just the same as last year again. Reliability is important, but it's pointless if you're not fast. If a player who hasn't made a single hit yet declared "I will hit a home run", no one would listen to him. First of all you have to have a hit. [baseball analogy]
It's way too early to say disappointed with performance or anything of that sort. That we are not satisfied with the result of this testing is a matter of course, but we will work harder and increase the performance more and more, no doubt.

[Jef Patat]

The links are not working, could you review them?

[RS200E]

I'm not so sure there are any corners at Catalunya where breaking is applied for a few (3) seconds.

I am sure that the braking zones are substantially longer than 2 or 3 m which I think is the travel of that robotic arm.

You said 3 seconds so I was replying to that. Please don't contradict.

[Thunder]

The links are not working, could you review them?

http://f1sokuho.mopita.com/pc/free/inde ... 09&tt=1170

http://f1sokuho.mopita.com/pc/free/inde ... 51&tt=1170

[HPD]

Thanks @Thunders

Mclaren Honda + PETROBRAS (?

The fact is that the marketing area of ​​the team with which Ayrton Senna was a three-time world champion, 1988, 1990 and 1991, negotiates with Petrobras management a sponsorship and development contract for fuel and lubricating oil.


F1 is a platform that Petrobras has been interested in for almost two decades, like most of the world's major oil companies, as it is an exceptional laboratory for the development of fuel technology and lubricating oils for the engine, now the driving force, on account Of the hybrid era, and the transmission. And, of course, the exposure of the brand worldwide provided by F1.

With Mercedes, Williams' partner since 2014, Petrobras has not advanced in the project of researching its own gasoline and sending it to the Germans to test it on the test bench.

Recreating the department

As far as we know that the industry is bottled in the region given the increasing complexity of F1 gasoline will take some time before the Brazilian state power available to Honda shows a first fuel for the test, should go the business.
With regard to lubricating oil exiting the same, it will take, perhaps even as the subject gasoline basically means more performance than the reliability of the equipment, while lubricating oil is very compromising of driving and transmission resistance to Unit.

So if there is an agreement, it will not be this season that McLaren-Honda riders will be able to talk about Petrobras products. The technical difficulties of the Japanese are so great, so basic, that the last thing they would think of doing would be to check which gasoline could represent some more horsepower without compromising the durability of the driving unit.


It is possible that Petrobras management is following this McLaren and Honda drama closely. At least it would be prudent to do so before eventually hammering and signing the contract, whose annual minimum value would not be less than that held with Williams between 2014 and December.

http://globoesporte.globo.com/motor/for ... honda.html

[Blackout]

A comparison of the previous (2014) Merc and (2015 and 2016) Honda:
Merc has lower CoG and shorter exhaust (whatever form they have; log or spagetti) and some other advantages thanks to its smarter layout
At the end of the day the Merc is a smaller PU too (obviously the last point is not based on the pics)

[dren]

Yes, you can see where there is plenty of room to locate the turbine lower. By moving the compressor forward, and out of the V, it should allow for a longer, smaller diameter MGUH, which should lower the shared shaft location, unless it is geared and lowered as was suggested above.

[godlameroso]

Mercedes has a huge MGU-K relative to the Honda.

[PlatinumZealot]

That is a good idea.

You would have a frame around the engine to compress, strech, bend and twist it while it is coupled to the gearbox and or directly to the dyno. Anyway i believe that they do have something in place. It is just something new and interesting to me, such a dyno. A stress dyno if you may.

It's referred to as a HIL (hardware in the loop) simulation. It's where the chassis and engine simulation becomes one joined-up thing. McLaren have an 8-post rig in Woking, Honda have at least one in Sakura (but I'd be surprised if they only had one).

Where this stuff is validated for the F1 2017-18 seasons for McLaren-Honda, I don't know.

I think the chassis guys will be more into this sort of thing, but this post belongs in the engine thread as we're talking about chassis loads potentially causing an engine failure.

Here are some images of the McLaren 8-post rig to give you an idea of how it works: four pads under the wheels/tyres, and four links to the sprung part of the chassis, that pull the chassis downward, simulating downforce. If you imagine the two diagonal chassis links pulling down while the other two chassis links push upward, that's a twisting load on the chassis. At the same time, the four pads under the wheels can move up, down and also left, right and forward/backward (simulating a shock load like a kerb, for example).

http://thumbsnap.com/i/cRI14NE0.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/i/wS0eVhhi.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/i/Qc3PMEy9.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/i/5GjvC8Ps.jpg

AVL make a similar system, but instead of four pads with the wheels on them, they have four dynos, one for each corner, so they can simulate loads coming in from the brakes through the suspension into the chassis (when you stand on the brakes, the torque has to go somewhere: through the suspension links into the chassis/gearbox, and that causes the engine as the stressed member to see bending and torsional loads).

Suffice to say that simulation for this sort of problem exists, and we know that McLaren and Honda both have facilities to test it.

Thanks. I know of those rigs. There is actually a rig operator here on this forum. Forgot his username.

[FW17]

Whoever said the turbo was in the V of the engine is absolutely wrong. That thing was so far up above the cylinder head line that it should be considered above the engine.

[PlatinumZealot]

Nothing! But there is a big difference in speculating based on facts, such as the behavior of the car or pictures, and speculating based on rumors. There is a name for formulating a theory and then search for the facts that support that claim, theory induced blindness!

Pls respect the experience of the fans here. Most have been following races and tests for a long time. More importantly winter tests since testing was banned. Most can make out the patterns set by teams to know when a team is in trouble.

So if you want to troll, then this is the wrong site for you

You are totally correct, if I wanted to troll I would just comment on motorsport.com! However, I'm not interested in trolling at all. I'm interested in a good technical discussion based on facts and not rumors (rumors supported by facts are a totally different thing). Trust me (although I guess you do not), I really do respect the experience of fans on this forum, that is the reason why I lurked for a long time and finally decided to I sign up! In this case, I fail to see how any experience can conclude that the failure on the second day of the test was that the engine was too weakly constructed, this is simply a rumor. The only evidence is that they had to change the engine. The first rumor after the failure on the second day was that it again was the oil tank that was the reason for the failure, something that was not true, but gave rise to several pages of discussions.

What I'm asking for is some objectivity and that everyone base there claim on some kind of evidence and not just pure speculation. Just look at the recent discussion in the Ferrari SF70H thread, that is an awesome technical discussion!

And not that it matters for the discussion at all, but I'm not a mclaren fan, it just happens to be that a lot of interesting discussion is happening in this thread.

Too late. The forum has gone to the ways of Taki Inoue many years ago.