Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

Brundle saying planed Honda update canceld.

A Monaco upgrade?

[godlameroso]

Canada. I'm not even sure it'll be ready by Spa, I'm thinking Malaysia or Singapore.

[mrluke]

I was doing some simple maths here, considering Vettel's 326km/h top speed and Alonso' 314, considering that top speed is proportional to the cube root of power and a best case scenario (McLaren running the same drag as Ferrari, which is unlikely), and the result is a 10,6% deficit. For a 950hp figure that would mean a 101hp deficit.
So Alonso's statement of "more than 50hp deficit" is still quite optimistic.

Comparing top speeds is quite irrelevant. What is the power deficit between two teammates with the same engine that have 10km/h delta? Continuing a conversation based on an irrelevant hypothesis is quite illogical.

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree. From my knowledge, top speed was always a determinant factor in top speed, and looking at this link I haven't seen a deficit of 10km/h between any pair of teammates:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/05/13/2 ... -analysis/

Here is a table that demonstrates why this approach is misleading.

I have taken your source data and given Vettel the notional 950hp. This is how much power each driver would have:

Vet 950
Oco 943
Rai 939
Mas 937
Mag 923
Str 923
Ric 920
Per 918
Ham 917
Ver 913
Bot 906
Gro 898
Hul 886
Sai 881
Weh 881
Eri 869
Pal 863
Kvy 856
Alo 846
Van 815

Its a nonsense.

You cannot use top speed on its own to make a definitive statement on max bhp (unfortunately) as it is far too dependent upon both traction and drag (and furthermore how much drag the car can shed at high speed)

[DiogoBrand]

Comparing top speeds is quite irrelevant. What is the power deficit between two teammates with the same engine that have 10km/h delta? Continuing a conversation based on an irrelevant hypothesis is quite illogical.

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree. From my knowledge, top speed was always a determinant factor in top speed, and looking at this link I haven't seen a deficit of 10km/h between any pair of teammates:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/05/13/2 ... -analysis/

Here is a table that demonstrates why this approach is misleading.

I have taken your source data and given Vettel the notional 950hp. This is how much power each driver would have:

Vet 950
Oco 943
Rai 939
Mas 937
Mag 923
Str 923
Ric 920
Per 918
Ham 917
Ver 913
Bot 906
Gro 898
Hul 886
Sai 881
Weh 881
Eri 869
Pal 863
Kvy 856
Alo 846
Van 815

Its a nonsense.

You cannot use top speed on its own to make a definitive statement on max bhp (unfortunately) as it is far too dependent upon both traction and drag (and furthermore how much drag the car can shed at high speed)

It can be misleading, I agree. But pretty much all those top speed differences can be determined by either driver skill, drag level and/or chassis quality.
So let's analyze Mclaren's case:
-It's definitely not down to driver: even IF Vettel is better than Alonso, it's certainly not to the point where it would make a significant difference;
-It's highly unlikely that it's down to drag levels: even if Ferrari has really efficient downforce, and they probably do, it would make no sense at all for them to run lower drag than McLaren;
-It's not down to chassis: Ferrari most likely has a better chassis than McLaren, but not enough to make that big of a difference in traction to produce that big of a speed delta at the end of the straight.

So yes, top speeds will vary from driver to driver and from car to car, but remember that I considered the best case scenario of McLaren running equal drag to Ferrari, which is nearly impossible to be true.

Why do you guys think a 10% difference in power is so hard to believe? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[ronanharris09]

10% gap, and no one knows the detail on each factor . . . This is more reasonable than considering a complex calculations like what you did. . .

[Craigy]

I find these thread tangents a bit disappointing.

Power from these 2017-spec PUs obviously varies.

Are we talking about:

• power at the start of the PU life (first laps on a brand new PU with the lowest windage losses it will ever have)
• power at the end of the PU life (during the 5th race event for a given PU, say, once it's worn and already had its "extreme mode" duty cycle used up)
• ICE output (peak), without any ERS-K or ERS-H assistance
• ICE+ERS-H in "compounding" mode
• output in race conditions (2MJ from ES, but also a need to replenish for subsequent laps)
• output when running outside design-spec rev ranges (either very low - eg. in rain, or very high - as in Honda to get round resonance issues)
• Peak output numbers versus "power under the curve" graphs
• responsiveness/tractability figures (hypothetical example: so what if you have 1000bhp, it takes 1.5s to arrive, so the guy with 950bhp instantaneously at his disposal beats you in transient response).
• Any of the above modes when fuel-saving, or without fuel saving
• peak power in quali (4MJ limit from the ES), no need for battery to be replenished for subsequent laps, with or without extreme engine settings that do some damage to the internals of the ICE
• discussion of running below the fuel capacity limit (105kg) at the start of most races, because the weight saving at the start is worth the delta of not running full fuel flow for longer - Williams (merc) in particular do this and Honda are more limited because of their fuel consumption, and because of the lift/drag choices from each team.
• The fact that the PUs vary in output depending on environmental factors, and that various ICEs behave differently at different altitudes (Monaco is sea level, Mexico is about 7500ft) - some engines cope better than others with the thinner air, and in fact what works best at sea-level may work worst at altitude due to the way the PUs are optimised).
• The fact that a single PU, through its duty cycle, and through the engine modes used at various points, has more than one maximum output.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but can we at least agree that anyone trying to reduce the PU spec to a single, peak BHP number is missing the point?

[Jolle]

I find these thread tangents a bit disappointing.

Power from these 2017-spec PUs obviously varies.

Are we talking about:

• power at the start of the PU life (first laps on a brand new PU with the lowest windage losses it will ever have)
• power at the end of the PU life (during the 5th race event for a given PU, say, once it's worn and already had its "extreme mode" duty cycle used up)
• ICE output (peak), without any ERS-K or ERS-H assistance
• ICE+ERS-H in "compounding" mode
• output in race conditions (2MJ from ES, but also a need to replenish for subsequent laps)
• output when running outside design-spec rev ranges (either very low - eg. in rain, or very high - as in Honda to get round resonance issues)
• Peak output numbers versus "power under the curve" graphs
• responsiveness/tractability figures (hypothetical example: so what if you have 1000bhp, it takes 1.5s to arrive, so the guy with 950bhp instantaneously at his disposal beats you in transient response).
• Any of the above modes when fuel-saving, or without fuel saving
• peak power in quali (4MJ limit from the ES), no need for battery to be replenished for subsequent laps, with or without extreme engine settings that do some damage to the internals of the ICE
• discussion of running below the fuel capacity limit (105kg) at the start of most races, because the weight saving at the start is worth the delta of not running full fuel flow for longer - Williams (merc) in particular do this and Honda are more limited because of their fuel consumption, and because of the lift/drag choices from each team.
• The fact that the PUs vary in output depending on environmental factors, and that various ICEs behave differently at different altitudes (Monaco is sea level, Mexico is about 7500ft) - some engines cope better than others with the thinner air, and in fact what works best at sea-level may work worst at altitude due to the way the PUs are optimised).
• The fact that a single PU, through its duty cycle, and through the engine modes used at various points, has more than one maximum output.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but can we at least agree that anyone trying to reduce the PU spec to a single, peak BHP number is missing the point?

And, don't forget the gearbox! I believe a lot of the gain in laptime comes from difference in shift speed settings. The closer they get to real seamless the more stress the gears take. All the millisecond that you earn in a lap, count up as quite a lot over a lap.

[dren]

I would think most everyone on the grid has hit the plateau for any lap time advantage in shifting speeds. Even the less funded teams use boxes sourced from the bigger guys.

[kfrantzios]

I find these thread tangents a bit disappointing.

Power from these 2017-spec PUs obviously varies.

Are we talking about:

• power at the start of the PU life (first laps on a brand new PU with the lowest windage losses it will ever have)
• power at the end of the PU life (during the 5th race event for a given PU, say, once it's worn and already had its "extreme mode" duty cycle used up)
• ICE output (peak), without any ERS-K or ERS-H assistance
• ICE+ERS-H in "compounding" mode
• output in race conditions (2MJ from ES, but also a need to replenish for subsequent laps)
• output when running outside design-spec rev ranges (either very low - eg. in rain, or very high - as in Honda to get round resonance issues)
• Peak output numbers versus "power under the curve" graphs
• responsiveness/tractability figures (hypothetical example: so what if you have 1000bhp, it takes 1.5s to arrive, so the guy with 950bhp instantaneously at his disposal beats you in transient response).
• Any of the above modes when fuel-saving, or without fuel saving
• peak power in quali (4MJ limit from the ES), no need for battery to be replenished for subsequent laps, with or without extreme engine settings that do some damage to the internals of the ICE
• discussion of running below the fuel capacity limit (105kg) at the start of most races, because the weight saving at the start is worth the delta of not running full fuel flow for longer - Williams (merc) in particular do this and Honda are more limited because of their fuel consumption, and because of the lift/drag choices from each team.
• The fact that the PUs vary in output depending on environmental factors, and that various ICEs behave differently at different altitudes (Monaco is sea level, Mexico is about 7500ft) - some engines cope better than others with the thinner air, and in fact what works best at sea-level may work worst at altitude due to the way the PUs are optimised).
• The fact that a single PU, through its duty cycle, and through the engine modes used at various points, has more than one maximum output.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but can we at least agree that anyone trying to reduce the PU spec to a single, peak BHP number is missing the point?

And, don't forget the gearbox! I believe a lot of the gain in laptime comes from difference in shift speed settings. The closer they get to real seamless the more stress the gears take. All the millisecond that you earn in a lap, count up as quite a lot over a lap.

Exactly! Besides shift speed let's not forget gear ratio!

[Espen84]

Brundle saying planed Honda update canceld.

Where did you find this information?

[Craigy]

Brundle saying planed Honda update canceld.

Where did you find this information?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/live-blog/3 ... sip-column

Time index 10.57.

[godlameroso]

"I head yesterday that the big upgrade that Honda had coming is not working and has been cancelled," Brundle said after Practice One for the Monaco GP.

That's certainly a shame, it looks like Wazari's team CC design still has issues on top of being heavier.

[MrPotatoHead]

"I head yesterday that the big upgrade that Honda had coming is not working and has been cancelled," Brundle said after Practice One for the Monaco GP.

That's certainly a shame, it looks like Wazari's team CC design still has issues on top of being heavier.

He probably read it on the f1technical forums

[loner]

well Canada was just a fancy of some journos after all ...
i mean even Hasegawa was talking about midseason which is not Canada any way

[gruntguru]

Would the increase on fuel pressure from ambient to 500bar cause significant increase in fuel temperature?

No. The energy required is low because the volume change is very small.