Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[rscsr]

I think it's not about the rotational speed during the dynamic balancing.
IMHO it's about the sensibility of the balancing equipment.
...

These are 2 sides of the same coin. You either increase your sensitivity or increase the forces. And keep in mind that unbalanced forces increase with the square of rotational speed. Therefore if you balance at 1250rpm and you use it at 125000rpm you need to be able to detect forces which are 10 000 times smaller. And with bearings which are most likely specified on the limit of what is possible you can run into problems pretty easily. Because the expected lifetime of a ball bearing with twice the load is only an eigth (According to DIN ISO 281).

...
But more important for such a long shaft it's about multi plane balancing. If you are not able to detect the axial position of the unbalance your balancing mass will be offset axially creating a rotational couple which could destroy the bearings.

That's what dynamic balancing is for. It basically corrects the "mass axis" to the geometric rotational axis. But what is left (when you don't rebalance the parts where the "wrong mass" is) are dynamic internal moments. These shouldn't really matter for the bearing as long as the deformations of the shaft are still small. And since these create static stresses (for constant rpm) that effect should be relatively small compared to the torque of the shaft.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=rgava]......it's about multi plane balancing. If you are not able to detect the axial position of the unbalance your balancing mass will be offset axially creating a rotational couple .......[/quote]

which is why garages can't do proper wheel balance

putting the balance weight on the rim outer at circumferential point X is not the same as putting it on the rim inner at point X
the outer is nbg
putting half the weight on the outer and half on the inner works far better
maybe you all do this anyway

[noname]

I think it's not about the rotational speed during the dynamic balancing. (...)

Speed during balancing is important when you deal with supercritical rotors. And Honda's one is supercritical.

[Andres125sx]

Yeah, Honda is amazing. 3 years now and almost competitive =D>

Can you please point me to some manufacturer who did succed in only three seasons when they joined F1 with new rules they didn´t know before?

Mercedes (with Lewis) won on its 5th season, RBR (with Vettel) on its 4th, Ferrari (with Schumacher) on its 4th.... and contrary to Honda, neither of them were token limited on its first two seasons


We must be patient my friend, if we analyse it with some perspective it is way too optimistic to expect results before 4th season... or even 5th

[Craigy]

Yeah, Honda is amazing. 3 years now and almost competitive =D>

Can you please point me to some manufacturer who did succed in only three seasons when they joined F1 with new rules they didn´t know before?

Mercedes (with Lewis) won on its 5th season, RBR (with Vettel) on its 4th, Ferrari (with Schumacher) on its 4th.... and contrary to Honda, neither of them were token limited on its first two seasons


We must be patient my friend, if we analyse it with some perspective it is way too optimistic to expect results before 4th season... or even 5th

None of the teams you mention were new.
MB (chassis) was previously Brawn and before that was Honda.
RBR was Jaguar and before that Stewart.

In terms of engines, all those teams have had long-term racing departments.

Honda is the only one trying to build up a new organisation.

[harjan]

Comparing RBR and Mercedes to Honda is a strange comparison. You're comparing a chassis/engine/team combination to a engine builder.

Same as you shouldn't defend Honda by saying they've had less time than the others to develop. Honda made the decision themselves to enter F1 and when they did it, so they're the only ones accountable if indeed a lack of time would be to blame.

The mess in 2015 wasn't expected, 2016 was a nice recovery- but nothing more than that and 2017 had a disastrous start. Already during 2016 multiple people were concerned with Honda's choice to go revolutionary for 2017. And these people were right, because as Honda stated themselves- they underestimated (again) the challenges it would bring upon them.

Let's all just hope that the positive sounds from Honda and the Budapest test are the signs we've been hoping for over the last years. F1 needs Honda, and it will be sheer magic for all involved (Honda, McLaren, Alonso) once they're finally on that top step after all they've endured.

[etusch]

Tweet of Honda F1

#SummerOfStats – A complete #Honda power unit weighs about the same as the combined weight of @alo_oficial and @svandoorne in #F1 race gear https://t.co/JgOTVlAu3l

[Andres125sx]

Yeah, Honda is amazing. 3 years now and almost competitive =D>

Can you please point me to some manufacturer who did succed in only three seasons when they joined F1 with new rules they didn´t know before?

Mercedes (with Lewis) won on its 5th season, RBR (with Vettel) on its 4th, Ferrari (with Schumacher) on its 4th.... and contrary to Honda, neither of them were token limited on its first two seasons


We must be patient my friend, if we analyse it with some perspective it is way too optimistic to expect results before 4th season... or even 5th

None of the teams you mention were new.
MB (chassis) was previously Brawn and before that was Honda.
RBR was Jaguar and before that Stewart.

In terms of engines, all those teams have had long-term racing departments.

Honda is the only one trying to build up a new organisation.

I know, but that´s exactly what I was talking about, in F1 there are no short-cuts and even for teams with experience it´s very difficult to succed and it always takes several seasons from the start of a new project. If the team does not have previous experience like Honda (with this set of rules) I´d say it´s normal they will need some more time.

Since those experienced teams actually needed 3-4 seasons before suceeding... What timeframe would be reasonable for Honda?

THAT is my point, we all become impatinent after watching their poor perfomance, but we must stopo from time to time and take a look at the whole picture

[gruntguru]

But more important for such a long shaft it's about multi plane balancing. If you are not able to detect the axial position of the unbalance your balancing mass will be offset axially creating a rotational couple which could destroy the bearings.

That's what dynamic balancing does.

[gruntguru]

......it's about multi plane balancing. If you are not able to detect the axial position of the unbalance your balancing mass will be offset axially creating a rotational couple .......

which is why garages can't do proper wheel balance

putting the balance weight on the rim outer at circumferential point X is not the same as putting it on the rim inner at point X
the outer is nbg
putting half the weight on the outer and half on the inner works far better
maybe you all do this anyway

Yes to your last sentence. The vast majority of wheel balancing these days is dynamic.

[63l8qrrfy6]

There is an important distinction between balancing a relatively rigid rotating assembly (where 2 plane balancing is sufficient) and balancing a flexible rotor operating above the first critical speed(s) as noname has correctly identified.

For the latter, one of the more common practices is to analytically determine the modes within the operating frequency and balance them individually on a multi plane machine (one plane for each mode). For very high speed rotors such as this turbo it is very hard to distinguish between high frequency rotor modes and other dynamic effects such as rig response which is why computational prediction as well as data acquisition and signal processing have to be top notch.

Also the mathematical models for rotor-dynamics are often as unreliable as they are complex - I suspect this might have been an area wher the gas turbine group helped.

[rgava]

There is an important distinction between balancing a relatively rigid rotating assembly (where 2 plane balancing is sufficient) and balancing a flexible rotor operating above the first critical speed(s) as noname has correctly identified.

For the latter, one of the more common practices is to analytically determine the modes within the operating frequency and balance them individually on a multi plane machine (one plane for each mode). For very high speed rotors such as this turbo it is very hard to distinguish between high frequency rotor modes and other dynamic effects such as rig response which is why computational prediction as well as data acquisition and signal processing have to be top notch.

Also the mathematical models for rotor-dynamics are often as unreliable as they are complex - I suspect this might have been an area wher the gas turbine group helped.

I fully agree with you.
For dynamic balancing the engineer chooses the balancing planes. The machine itself is not capable to detect the axial position of the unbalance mass. It only tells you where to add or extract mass on the planes you already selected.
And that's the tricky question, to properly select the axial position of the balancing planes on such a long shaft.

[GoranF1]

Torro Rosso confirmed no Honda deal due to money.....thats good lets give it another go...Mclaren Honda. [-o<

[the EDGE]

Torro Rosso confirmed no Honda deal due to money.....thats good lets give it another go...Mclaren Honda. [-o<

I figured Torro Rosso pulled out because The 2 teams couldnt agree whether the Honda engine could be tuned when it kicks red bulls ass next year

[Joseki]

Torro Rosso confirmed no Honda deal due to money.....thats good lets give it another go...Mclaren Honda. [-o<

Toro Rosso Honda never made any sense to me, especially for McLaren. They wanted to ditch Honda but if they would change idea/couldn't ditch them they would have pushed for any other team but no Toro Rosso/Red Bull. Sauber was the perfect deal for both Honda and McLaren but sadly it didn't happen.