Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[poolboy67]

so it's not even theoretically possible for the revs to go past the current 12.000rpm mark, while still making more hp?

i mean i know they can and will rev to 15k if the driver doesn't shift a gear, but would it be somehow possible for them to rev all the way up there with the current fuel flow limit, while still making hp at that rpm?

cause the engines would sound much louder and better if they would rev to 15k.

someone from the f1 circles suggested that if the hp is going to be rased for 2016 or 2017, the best way to go would be to allow more fuel flow, and thus have the engines rev more.

personally i'd rather see (or rather hear) something else than these current engines. i'd love to see 1.5l dual turbo v10's with the same ERS concept as today, but without the time limit for usage (they're now limited to 30sec per lap)
but then again i'd love to see the rear wing dropped and widened, front wing rased and narrowed, ground effect allowed, wider wheels, no fuel flow limit (unless engines get really too powerful, like 1300hp), a 130kg tank that has to be filled to the brim before the race, only one tyre compound per race, two mandatory pitstops per race... sigh, i can only dream.

[gruntguru]

More fuel flow will not increase the revs used. At present the max fuel rate is the same at all rpm between 10,500 to 15,000. With all else being equal this would allow the same power at any rpm in that range however, rising frictional (and other)losses means the power reduces somewhat as the rpm climb from 10,500 to 15,000 so the engines will be optimised to make max power at about 11,000, If you wanted the teams to run higher rpm, the rules would need to allow the max fuel rate increase a little from 10,500 to 15,000 say from 95 kg/hr at 10,500 to 100 kg/hr at 15,000.

[Cold Fussion]

so it's not even theoretically possible for the revs to go past the current 12.000rpm mark, while still making more hp?

i mean i know they can and will rev to 15k if the driver doesn't shift a gear, but would it be somehow possible for them to rev all the way up there with the current fuel flow limit, while still making hp at that rpm?

cause the engines would sound much louder and better if they would rev to 15k.

someone from the f1 circles suggested that if the hp is going to be rased for 2016 or 2017, the best way to go would be to allow more fuel flow, and thus have the engines rev more.

personally i'd rather see (or rather hear) something else than these current engines. i'd love to see 1.5l dual turbo v10's with the same ERS concept as today, but without the time limit for usage (they're now limited to 30sec per lap)
but then again i'd love to see the rear wing dropped and widened, front wing rased and narrowed, ground effect allowed, wider wheels, no fuel flow limit (unless engines get really too powerful, like 1300hp), a 130kg tank that has to be filled to the brim before the race, only one tyre compound per race, two mandatory pitstops per race... sigh, i can only dream.

Would they really sound any louder? Under the current fuel flow rules the fuel rate is the same from 10500 to 15000, so you aren't adding any extra energy to the system, so more noise could only come from decreasing efficiency surely.

[poolboy67]

Would they really sound any louder? Under the current fuel flow rules the fuel rate is the same from 10500 to 15000, so you aren't adding any extra energy to the system, so more noise could only come from decreasing efficiency surely.

good point. so maybe not louder per se, but atleast they'd sound better. following the logic of more revs=sounds better.

f1 used to about noise and speed and super futuristic looking cars. now it's so bland and sterile, no wonder people are less interested. i mean i remember my friend saying, when he saw a race in monza back in 2005 or 2004 i think. he said that the cars were so loud he could feel the sound in his chest!

anyway, i'm derailing the topic.

[Juzh]

i mean i know they can and will rev to 15k if the driver doesn't shift a gear

In theory. In practice 2014 V6 was rev-limited to something around 13500 rpm by the teams themselves to prevent accidental over-rev. As long as 100kg/h @ 10.5k rpm stays no one will rev continuously past that 13.5k rpm.

[gruntguru]

Interesting point on the relationship between power and sound level.

It is often thought that a louder exhaust requires a lot of energy to generate the sound. This is not so. Even though the louder exhaust may be indicative of less efficient energy conversion in the turbine, the energy required to make the actual noise is minuscule. For example your 100W sound system turned up to 11 might be deafening but most of those 100W are simply generating heat in the speakers. The sound energy coming out of the speakers is probably less than 1 Watt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_power

(Look at the "Table of Selected Sources". Remember these are Watts not kilo-Watts)

[GoranF1]

on this video;time around 0.25 sec there is an exhaust visible which i am not sure if it is the "log" designe or regular or something inbetween.

[Facts Only]

Doesn't look like it:



That's obviously an engine running on a Dyno (you all know that) but it a development engine because the dark patches on the manifolds are extra lambda probes for each primary (only a single lambda probe is allowed on the homologated engine I believe) so it may be footage of an old/early version of the engine.

[Facts Only]

Looks like:

Equal (but not tuned) length primaries
Short and quite small diameter secondaries
Twin entry turbine
Twin wastegates in the secondaries with twin outlets into the tailpipe
It looks like the turbine entry is a long enough distance away from the exhaust ports to suggest a Renault style turbo with the compressor at the back of the V

Thus could be any version of the engine so may bare no resemblance to the final 2015 race engine

[PhillipM]

Why would you say those primaries aren't a tuned length?

[Facts Only]

Why would you say those primaries aren't a tuned length?

I initially thought this because the primary from the front two cylinders appears to come out of the head, bend through 90deg and then run straight back to the collector (so it's the minimal length possible) and then the secondary goes straight to the turbine inlet minimising tube length, this usually never happens as it would be a massive stroke of luck that the tuned length is the same as the minimum length. The primaries from the other cylinders then bend around the match this length which gives the lowest weight for an equal length manifold. Likely I'm wrong though but it was just a thought I had.

[PlatinumZealot]

Looks like:

Equal (but not tuned) length primaries
Short and quite small diameter secondaries
Twin entry turbine
Twin wastegates in the secondaries with twin outlets into the tailpipe
It looks like the turbine entry is a long enough distance away from the exhaust ports to suggest a Renault style turbo with the compressor at the back of the V

Thus could be any version of the engine so may bare no resemblance to the final 2015 race engine

The turbo is nearly two feet away from the engine too. Must be a very early prototype.

[GoranF1]

Eric: Mr.Arai did you hear the sound of other engines!?
Mr.Arai: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Manoah2u]

Eric: Mr.Arai did you hear the sound of other engines!?
Mr.Arai: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8wegU0IIAAMk-w.jpg

the Honda engine sounds like a ferocious beast indeed!

However, as good as it sounds, that's not neccesarily a good thing, nor does it need to be the final product;
A lot of engine sound get's 'dimmed' when other mechanics are fully operational [ERS, etc]. Question remains
on how 'brute' that engine was running. The better an engine is 'tuned', the less noise it actually makes. So
we can actually expect the engine 'loudness' to fade a bit.

However, i 've noticed the other engines seem to sound a significant amount louder compared to last year, too.
So perhaps they actually will maintain this volume. I'd welcome it though,

it sounds like pure win =D>

[PhillipM]

Why would you say those primaries aren't a tuned length?

I initially thought this because the primary from the front two cylinders appears to come out of the head, bend through 90deg and then run straight back to the collector (so it's the minimal length possible) and then the secondary goes straight to the turbine inlet minimising tube length, this usually never happens as it would be a massive stroke of luck that the tuned length is the same as the minimum length. The primaries from the other cylinders then bend around the match this length which gives the lowest weight for an equal length manifold. Likely I'm wrong though but it was just a thought I had.

However, if you go to the effort of making them all a matched length, you'd just move the collector or step the primaries where appropriate...