Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[harjan]

If Wazari is to be believed then Spec 4 has same power output but better potential than chosen route. So then there's no reason why Honda would choose to introduce Spec 4 as they chosen and developed on a different route. By now the output and reliability of the chosen route will be significantly better than Spec 4.

Going for Spec4 in the season would only make sense if they want to do this for 2018. But this would mean short term power and reliability deficit.

[MrPotatoHead]

There is always negative pressure in the crankcase from the Dry Sump system.
This helps with piston ring sealing.
Further complicating things.

Lubricant also "...helps with with ring sealing."
& introduction to the rings may be from above ( by inlet) &/or below ( via a minimalist 'oil ring' - to also reduce friction).

As for "oil burning" - well, internal consumption - which does not spread/spray liquid lubricant out of the ICE, really is..

My comment about the crankcase pressure was in reply to the post from 1158 above talking about not creating too much crankcase pressure.

[MrPotatoHead]

The easiest thing would be to route the 'oily air' coming out of the centrifuge back into the intake. Unlike the crankcase this has slightly higher pressure than ambient. Or at least higher than the pressure at the turbo inlet.

That would make a lot of sense wouldn't it? One could pass that off as a breather and not a feature also
The biggest thing is the active control of that being outlawed.

[dren]

IIRC, it was claimed that Simon wanted slower approach - eg not developing to last moment possible... altho it was his design which was chosen.

What makes me wonder:

- Wazari claims 3 variants were scaled to 6cyl on dyno... by then it was obvious the chosen variant has vibration problems (at least Honda claimed so - that 1cyl was fine, 6cyl had issues from the start). Then why was this variant chosen?! They tried to fix it for 6 months and failed ?!
But if 2nd variant had less issues from the start - why didn't they switch faster?!
Maybe due to different weight/distribution, the chassis would not work without major redesign?
So time was lost revamping that other engine to fit current chassis?

Either way. The responsibility lies on Honda management (as for size-zero concept)
The chassis maker may want fairy dust, the engine maker should know what is possible and what not... ( I guess thats why Wazari had said that some Honda management should quit... they "bended" too mcuh)

Sounds like internal politics. Honda designed internally the first PU. It didn't work out, so they were persuaded to go with outsider input, even if the internal engineers were telling them the Wazari PU had more potential. It sounds like they've been developing 'spec-4' internally still.

Vibration wise: Hasegawa said they saw vibration on the dyno but it wasn't what they were experiencing once the PU was coupled to the rear of the car. He said the dyno was dampening a lot of the vibration. So how much of that is true or an excuse, who knows?

[DrDejan]

IIRC, it was claimed that Simon wanted slower approach - eg not developing to last moment possible... altho it was his design which was chosen.

What makes me wonder:

- Wazari claims 3 variants were scaled to 6cyl on dyno... by then it was obvious the chosen variant has vibration problems (at least Honda claimed so - that 1cyl was fine, 6cyl had issues from the start). Then why was this variant chosen?! They tried to fix it for 6 months and failed ?!
But if 2nd variant had less issues from the start - why didn't they switch faster?!
Maybe due to different weight/distribution, the chassis would not work without major redesign?
So time was lost revamping that other engine to fit current chassis?

Either way. The responsibility lies on Honda management (as for size-zero concept)
The chassis maker may want fairy dust, the engine maker should know what is possible and what not... ( I guess thats why Wazari had said that some Honda management should quit... they "bended" too mcuh)

Sounds like internal politics. Honda designed internally the first PU. It didn't work out, so they were persuaded to go with outsider input, even if the internal engineers were telling them the Wazari PU had more potential. It sounds like they've been developing 'spec-4' internally still.

Vibration wise: Hasegawa said they saw vibration on the dyno but it wasn't what they were experiencing once the PU was coupled to the rear of the car. He said the dyno was dampening a lot of the vibration. So how much of that is true or an excuse, who knows?

I hope Honda has learned from the mistakes in the decision making process. There are a lot of lessons from the past three years and they should have accumulated enough knowledge about today's Formula 1 to improve vastly. Based on the info we had so far, it seems they have put a lot of effort to R&D, they've explored different technologies, they have resources to build various proof of concepts, and they need to improve the evaluation and decision making processes.

[gofast182]

If Wazari is to be believed then Spec 4 has same power output but better potential than chosen route. So then there's no reason why Honda would choose to introduce Spec 4 as they chosen and developed on a different route. By now the output and reliability of the chosen route will be significantly better than Spec 4.

Going for Spec4 in the season would only make sense if they want to do this for 2018. But this would mean short term power and reliability deficit.

I wouldn't assume that, especially now that Wazari has shed some new light on the timetable.

It seems the Illien team came in and found that existing Spec. 4 concept is a worthy approach and, not long into the season, this became part of the [public] development plan. Since we now know just how long the concept has existed (even in full V6 form) I don't think for a second that there hasn't been continuing development work on the concept; which is why we haven't seen it on track just yet. With Honda publicly saying they are targeting this year, any additional enhancements, perhaps by the Illien team, are nearly complete, bench tested, and the engine is ready to be tested on-track.

Based on this, I think Spec. 4 comes in with an increase in power and still more up-side potential for 2018.

[Nonserviam85]

If Wazari is to be believed then Spec 4 has same power output but better potential than chosen route. So then there's no reason why Honda would choose to introduce Spec 4 as they chosen and developed on a different route. By now the output and reliability of the chosen route will be significantly better than Spec 4.

Going for Spec4 in the season would only make sense if they want to do this for 2018. But this would mean short term power and reliability deficit.

The chosen PU was lighter and had a lower COG. Theoretically it would had offered better handling and packaging characteristics but it turned out to be very fragile. The unexpected vibrations made matters worse...

[1158]

There is always negative pressure in the crankcase from the Dry Sump system.
This helps with piston ring sealing.
Further complicating things.

Good call. I didn't even think about the dry sump pulling negative pressure.

Unless the oil tank has a cavity in it with a valve that allows some of the burnable oil components to mix with the oil. That would allow for steady control of the combustible compounds. Have we ever seen pics of all the PU's oil tanks? I can't remember.

[bigblue]

It seems the Illien team came in and found that existing Spec. 4 concept is a worthy approach

Sorry, I'm not sure I've seen anything concrete to show this is the case ? Quite a lot of forum 1 + 1 = 3, kinda posts - not having a go at you but this stuff gets speculated on by someone, repeated a few times and then sinks into the collective forum consciousness as a fact (or near fact). I don't think there are any reasonably substantiated claims about what Illien has done with respect to Honda so far, or did I miss something ?

[dren]

There is always negative pressure in the crankcase from the Dry Sump system.
This helps with piston ring sealing.
Further complicating things.

Good call. I didn't even think about the dry sump pulling negative pressure.

Unless the oil tank has a cavity in it with a valve that allows some of the burnable oil components to mix with the oil. That would allow for steady control of the combustible compounds. Have we ever seen pics of all the PU's oil tanks? I can't remember.

Possibly a chamber within the crank that has active valving? I'm not very good on the chemical side of things, perhaps there exist additives that can be vaporized out of the oil in such a chamber if it's heated?

[MrPotatoHead]

There is always negative pressure in the crankcase from the Dry Sump system.
This helps with piston ring sealing.
Further complicating things.

Good call. I didn't even think about the dry sump pulling negative pressure.

Unless the oil tank has a cavity in it with a valve that allows some of the burnable oil components to mix with the oil. That would allow for steady control of the combustible compounds. Have we ever seen pics of all the PU's oil tanks? I can't remember.

Possibly a chamber within the crank that has active valving? I'm not very good on the chemical side of things, perhaps there exist additives that can be vaporized out of the oil in such a chamber if it's heated?

Something else to ponder.
The pressure of this magical elixir would have to be above the pressure in the intake plenum / system.

[Craigy]

Something else to ponder.
The pressure of this magical elixir would have to be above the pressure in the intake plenum / system.

If the intake system itself was ablating, that could be ingested and burned. I wonder what sort of power bump could be possible from powdered metal (eg. aluminium) in the intake charge - and how you could cause that to occur. It's not impossible.

Back in the realms of the less unlikely, if you were simply looking for an additive to the combustion to give the largest energy output for a small quantity of additive, you might start with zip fuels. Boranes. Roughly twice the energy density of gasoline, although it'd be more like 1.5x by the time you add it to oil (it's too hard to handle otherwise).

[ncassi22]

Good call. I didn't even think about the dry sump pulling negative pressure.

Unless the oil tank has a cavity in it with a valve that allows some of the burnable oil components to mix with the oil. That would allow for steady control of the combustible compounds. Have we ever seen pics of all the PU's oil tanks? I can't remember.

Possibly a chamber within the crank that has active valving? I'm not very good on the chemical side of things, perhaps there exist additives that can be vaporized out of the oil in such a chamber if it's heated?

Something else to ponder.
The pressure of this magical elixir would have to be above the pressure in the intake plenum / system.

A reed valve before the compressor intake? When pressure in the inlet drops below crank-case pressure it'll literally suck in oil wouldn't it? The higher the boost the higher the neg. pressure at the comp inlet.

[MrPotatoHead]

Possibly a chamber within the crank that has active valving? I'm not very good on the chemical side of things, perhaps there exist additives that can be vaporized out of the oil in such a chamber if it's heated?

Something else to ponder.
The pressure of this magical elixir would have to be above the pressure in the intake plenum / system.

A reed valve before the compressor intake? When pressure in the inlet drops below crank-case pressure it'll literally suck in oil wouldn't it? The higher the boost the higher the neg. pressure at the comp inlet.

It would and it would also coat the turbo compressor wheel and everything else in the intake system with it.
Not the most elegant solution at all and very unlike F1.

[ncassi22]

Something else to ponder.
The pressure of this magical elixir would have to be above the pressure in the intake plenum / system.

A reed valve before the compressor intake? When pressure in the inlet drops below crank-case pressure it'll literally suck in oil wouldn't it? The higher the boost the higher the neg. pressure at the comp inlet.

It would and it would also coat the turbo compressor wheel and everything else in the intake system with it.
Not the most elegant solution at all and very unlike F1.

Obviously not directly but via an oil seperator. Suck in the vapour and not the oil. Just thinking of how they'd do it it without an active valve or the expandable insert like someone talked about a while back.