Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Chene_Mostert]

"The turbocharger consists of a single stage impulse turbine connected to a centrifugal impeller via a shaft.

The turbine is driven by the engine exhaust gas, which enters via the gas inlet casing. The gas expands through a nozzle ring where the pressure energy of the gas is converted to kinetic energy. This high velocity gas is directed onto the turbine blades where it drives the turbine wheel, and thus the compressor at high speeds (10 -15000 rpm). The exhaust gas then passes through the outlet casing to the exhaust uptakes.

Uhm. In bold, that copy and paste you made, just proven that your water wheel is not a turbocharger. See why you were talking nonsense before?

Okay... I see you are very special. It's not so difficult to understand "on the same principle"....

[gruntguru]

Usually ~100c difference, but as high as 160c difference.

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

https://s11.postimg.org/ncdyt9fpf/image.jpg

80% is turbine "isentropic" efficiency which means 80% of the "best possible" turbine efficiency not 80% of all exhaust energy. If we cooled the 800*C exhaust to 20*C we would have extracted about 450 kW. An Isentropic (best possible) turbine would only develop about 190 kW. 80% of that is about 150 kW.

Heat balance charts for Wright Turbo-Compound.

[Sasha]

Big changes coming to HRD.(becoming un-Honda)

Look for a new boss(wouldn't be surprise he isn't Japanese) and more tech sharing with other companies.

With the rules now in F1 with no testing,Honda's Way of using racing as a teaching tool and a lab for new tech doesn't work anymore.

Also looks like the new heads will not be ready now until after the Summer break instead of late May/early June.
More full PU testing on dyno and shaker rig.

[godlameroso]

Big changes coming to HRD.(becoming un-Honda)

Look for a new boss(wouldn't be surprise he isn't Japanese) and more tech sharing with other companies.

With the rules now in F1 with no testing,Honda's Way of using racing as a teaching tool and a lab for new tech doesn't work anymore.

Also looks like the new heads will not be ready now until after the Summer break instead of late May/early June.
More full PU testing on dyno and shaker rig.

That's a shame so the performance won't increase until Singapore/Suzuka?

[roon]

About 250*C on these engines. (Assumes 800*C and 3.5 bar abs turbine inlet and 80% efficiency.)

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

https://s11.postimg.org/ncdyt9fpf/image.jpg

80% is turbine "isentropic" efficiency which means 80% of the "best possible" turbine efficiency not 80% of all exhaust energy. If we cooled the 800*C exhaust to 20*C we would have extracted about 450 kW. An Isentropic (best possible) turbine would only develop about 190 kW. 80% of that is about 150 kW.

Heat balance charts for Wright Turbo-Compound.
http://i.imgur.com/ABLB1Yz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YAISFDC.jpg

Something I'm unsure of how to articulate: is the combustion of the injected fuel occurring near theoretical limit i.e. is nearly 100% of the energy content of the fuel being released in the combustion chamber? I'm curious what figure to begin such an energy flow diagram with—the theoretical energy content of the fuel or is a slightly smaller figure used which represents imperfect energy conversion? From there the diagram would split into work and waste divisions.

In the Wright diagram, it looks like this is shown as 4.6% incomplete combustion. I'm curious why this is shown alongside the other divisions and not preceding them. Maybe it doesn't matter, or it's a semantic point. But I'm inclined to depict the process as starting not from energy content of the fuel but from energy released from combustion, as shown in the sketch with the crude 80/20 initial divide (which more likely is 95/5 or better).

[gruntguru]

800° EGT? 80% is for combustion efficiency (conversion of chemical energy to heat energy)?

How does this relate to claimed thermal efficiencies of ~50% for these PUs? I'd like to make a visualization of this at some point. Starting from fuel and following the energy conversion paths from there. Fuel>combustion>output shaft power & turbine shaft power, alongside friction & thermal losses.

Here's a rough, rough draft using figures and proportions off the top of my head, written in the finest amateur parlance. So probably not very accurate, but the proportions might at least be in the ballpark.

https://s11.postimg.org/ncdyt9fpf/image.jpg

80% is turbine "isentropic" efficiency which means 80% of the "best possible" turbine efficiency not 80% of all exhaust energy. If we cooled the 800*C exhaust to 20*C we would have extracted about 450 kW. An Isentropic (best possible) turbine would only develop about 190 kW. 80% of that is about 150 kW.

Heat balance charts for Wright Turbo-Compound.
http://i.imgur.com/ABLB1Yz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YAISFDC.jpg

Something I'm unsure of how to articulate: is the combustion of the injected fuel occurring near theoretical limit i.e. is nearly 100% of the energy content of the fuel being released in the combustion chamber? I'm curious what figure to begin such an energy flow diagram with—the theoretical energy content of the fuel or is a slightly smaller figure used which represents imperfect energy conversion? From there the diagram would split into work and waste divisions.

In the Wright diagram, it looks like this is shown as 4.6% incomplete combustion. I'm curious why this is shown alongside the other divisions and not preceding them. Maybe it doesn't matter, or it's a semantic point. But I'm inclined to depict the process as starting not from energy content of the fuel but from energy released from combustion, as shown in the sketch with the crude 80/20 initial divide (which more likely is 95/5 or better).

It would be reasonable to assume combustion efficiency near 100% for the current F1 engines. The Wright TC diagram is for cruise mixture (lambda 1.21) and shows combustion efficiency of 95.4%. At take-off power the WTC mixture was 0.68 and combustion efficiency was 52.2% (47.8% unburned fuel products). Assume the "Energy in fuel" value = heating value X fuel flow.

[henry]

The turbine of your average turbocharger is capable of extracting a considerable portion of the blowdown kinetic energy and certainly does in an F1 engine. This is in addition to the large amount of heat energy (enthalpy) extracted....

In my observation the wastegates are positioned so that when they are open the turbine continues to harvest blow down energy reducing the power contribution needed from the MGU-H to drive the compressor.

This, potentially, provides another area for compromise decisions, kinetic vs sensible recovery. And because the goal is lap time and race wins, not power unit efficiency alone, yet more whole system simulation effort.

[Frank_]

interesting stuff so is the temperature difference (pre/post turbine) the main driving force for the turbine shaft ?
and how much of a part does the exhaust gas pressure difference play (pre/post turbine)

[Tommy Cookers]

good question

another point .....
the Wright energy balance shows unaccessed chemical energy level due to 'incomplete combustion' at 10% of the declared exhaust energy level
so is there (how wouldn't there be ?) further combustion in the exhaust system pre-turbine ?
an aspect of the turbine's activity that is unrecognised by our physical thermodynamics ?

chemical thermodynamics etc presumably explains how methane is being generated from fuel (as well as the carbon monoxide that we expect)
and what happens to both these combustible gases in the hot oxygen-rich mix pre-turbine that we call exhaust
some catalytic effect might be useful here ?

btw we see that at very low cruise boost the Wright recovers a few % of the exhaust energy (this the earlier ? CR of 6.something) and has 33% TE
designing for cruise only they could have used maybe 11:1 CR and related EVO timing - and approached 40% TE ?

unlike the Wright, F1 uses a high mean exhaust pressure, the high load reduces choked flow % following EVO and better conserves useable energy
they may run at true backpressure -dP to improve PU power (the lean-run 'heat dilution' engines w/o recovery all seem to use .5 bar BP)

[Chicane]

When asked by Motorsport.com about the progress in curing the vibration issues, Hasegawa said: “I don’t think the drivers agree, but I think we have improved [the situation] since the beginning of the season.

“We improved gradually but it is still not completely solved of course. So with the next update I would like to solve clearly.”

When asked to firm up the time frame of the upgraded engine, Hasegawa said: “We cannot tell you an exact date but here or at any grand prix. If we have the chance, we would like to update our engines.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hond ... es-893162/

[loner]

and whats better chance than next Tuesday

[GoranF1]

When asked by Motorsport.com about the progress in curing the vibration issues, Hasegawa said: “I don’t think the drivers agree, but I think we have improved [the situation] since the beginning of the season.

“We improved gradually but it is still not completely solved of course. So with the next update I would like to solve clearly.”

When asked to firm up the time frame of the upgraded engine, Hasegawa said: “We cannot tell you an exact date but here or at any grand prix. If we have the chance, we would like to update our engines.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hond ... es-893162/

As article from a few days quotes Hasegawa saying they will test engine in BAH test and if good introduced it in Russia.
Now this saying no new engine until Monaco or Canada.

Who should we trust?

[loner]

When asked by Motorsport.com about the progress in curing the vibration issues, Hasegawa said: “I don’t think the drivers agree, but I think we have improved [the situation] since the beginning of the season.

“We improved gradually but it is still not completely solved of course. So with the next update I would like to solve clearly.”

When asked to firm up the time frame of the upgraded engine, Hasegawa said: “We cannot tell you an exact date but here or at any grand prix. If we have the chance, we would like to update our engines.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hond ... es-893162/

As article from a few days quotes Hasegawa saying they will test engine in BAH test and if good introduced it in Russia.
Now this saying no new engine until Monaco or Canada.

Who should we trust?

paradox!!

when its updated Formula 1 engine gets introduced in the next month or so.

We cannot tell you an exact date but here or at any grand prix. If we have the chance, we would like to update our engines

[fellowhoodlums]

I agree, this is the kind of thing that frustrates. Sometimes it's interpretation of the language, othertimes it's interpretation of the answer by the journalist.

Honda haven't said Canada/Monaco, jounalist assumed it..they get mooted because that's 1/4 of way into season and you can only assume if the update hasn't happened before then this is when a new engine effectively has to happen.

Honda saying they will bring new PU as soon as they can but until then updates to the engine will come.

[dren]

good question

another point .....
the Wright energy balance shows unaccessed chemical energy level due to 'incomplete combustion' at 10% of the declared exhaust energy level
so is there (how wouldn't there be ?) further combustion in the exhaust system pre-turbine ?
an aspect of the turbine's activity that is unrecognised by our physical thermodynamics ?

chemical thermodynamics etc presumably explains how methane is being generated from fuel (as well as the carbon monoxide that we expect)
and what happens to both these combustible gases in the hot oxygen-rich mix pre-turbine that we call exhaust
some catalytic effect might be useful here ?

unlike the Wright, F1 uses a high mean exhaust pressure, the high load reduces choked flow % following EVO and better conserves useable energy
they may run at true backpressure -dP to improve PU power (the lean-run 'heat dilution' engines w/o recovery all seem to use .5 bar BP)

With TJI, wouldn't the combustion process take place quicker with less down stream combustion?

Higher mean exhaust pressures allow for more mass flow to the turbine. Way back when, wasn't the consensus that it was roughly a 1:1 crank to recovery ratio?