Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
HPD
198
Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 16:06

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

When asked by Autosport about the result, Honda chief Hasegawa said:
- "I'm very relieved that we could get points.
- "The drivers made a very good job in a race of survival and we are very pleased about that.
- "It's very important [to get two cars to the finish].
- "We didn't have a big concern [regarding reliability], even if we were introducing a new engine and MGU-H.
- "I'm very pleased we can show some development on reliability and because of that we can get points, which is very good."

But Hasegawa conceded Honda still has a long way to go to close the gap to its rivals.
- "It's very positive, but just with one race, I couldn't say we are very confident," he said.
- "From a performance point of view, just 13 cars finished, so it's fair to say we're not very fast.
- "The gain [from the update] is not big enough to catch up the top runners but it is good progress.
- "McLaren are not very excited because it's not a huge upgrade to catch up the top runners but of course they are pleased.
- "It's important we can show them we have some progress, although we didn't achieve the complete target of our goal [to match rivals]."

Honda brought one 'spec 3' engine to Baku, running it on Alonso's car on Friday before removing it to check for damage following a gearbox failure.
The Japanese manufacturer believes the unit has emerged unscathed, but further checks will be made at Sakura this week.

Hasegawa said he hopes to have two 'spec 3' units ready to run for the next race in Austria, though he is unsure if Honda will have enough time to manufacture spares.
- "We had a gearbox failure and we had some over-revs," said Hasegawa.
- "We didn't see any issues, but we will check the engine in Sakura again.
- "It should be alright so we expect to introduce spec 3 for both engines.
- "Even if we don't have a spare, there is no option - we need to run two 'spec 3' engines [in Austria]."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... aku-points

User avatar
nzjrs
60
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 11:21
Location: Redacted

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

HPD wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 17:02
Hasegawa said he hopes to have two 'spec 3' units ready to run for the next race in Austria, though he is unsure if Honda will have enough time to manufacture spares.
This strikes me as implausible. A question to those experienced in engine manufacture - can manufacturing time be the limiting factor here?

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

Absolutely, manufacturing the ICE alone takes a little less than a work week at the very least. Not even GM can can do one of their LS blocks any faster.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
amho
1
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:15
Location: Iran

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

daren_p wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 22:47
Andres125sx wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 22:32
bigblue wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 20:22
In response to the question about Alonso's top speeds : Alonso got bored at the end and started playing around; lap at Stroll pace, then 4-5 sec slower than those around him, another fast, another slow ... don't think Stoffel was in any position to do that as he was chasing Saubers. I'm guessing (don't know for sure) that those speeds came from those laps.
So when you see Alonso doing some laps noticeably slower than usual while driving his McHonda to a 9th position in the straights of Baku, you think that´s because he got bored and distracted instead of thinking, for example, he was saving energy when possible to defend or attack when possible or neccessary?



#-o
I would say that's exactly what he's doing, having some fun (as he did numerous times last year). Who was he saving energy to defend against, Sauber was ~29 seconds behind & he wasn't going to attack as Saintz was ~10 seconds ahead. And besides the time difference between some of his slow & fast laps was ~6 seconds, if your driving that slow for a few laps, your not going to be attacking anyone with all the time you just lost.
variation in Alonso's laptime at the end must be down to fuel saving...
There is no Might or Power except with Allah.

User avatar
nzjrs
60
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 11:21
Location: Redacted

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 19:44
Absolutely, manufacturing the ICE alone takes a little less than a work week at the very least. Not even GM can can do one of their LS blocks any faster.
I should have been more clear. Considering they already made one for Alonso, does the second one take the same time? Or the third, or the 4th (I presume they build as many as capacity will allow, in parallel.

So something about that quote seems odd to me.

shingles
shingles
3
Joined: 28 Nov 2016, 01:59

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

nzjrs wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 20:36
godlameroso wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 19:44
Absolutely, manufacturing the ICE alone takes a little less than a work week at the very least. Not even GM can can do one of their LS blocks any faster.
I should have been more clear. Considering they already made one for Alonso, does the second one take the same time? Or the third, or the 4th (I presume they build as many as capacity will allow, in parallel.

So something about that quote seems odd to me.
I am sure someone way more familiar will chime in. But I have a feeling this is way different than your run of the mill mass engine manufacturing. I suspect each individual part is quality checked over and over, everything is hand assembled, not to mention, many of these parts are probably not made in house, so they have to wait. I am not surprised they couldn't get it done in 2 weeks.

User avatar
mwillems
44
Joined: 04 Sep 2016, 22:11

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 16:00
SameSame wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 15:11
etusch wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 15:07
There are many different news about same thing

Honda will bring another engine upgrade to the next race in Austria.
Although the Japanese manufacturer looks set to be dumped by its works partner McLaren, Honda took a minor upgrade to Azerbaijan last weekend.
And now, Honda chief Yusuke Hasegawa says the long-awaited ‘specification 3’ unit is due to run in Austria next weekend.
If they bring the new spec then they will have to take more penalties in Austria? And why are forum members saying it is not Spec 3 when Hasegawa said so himself?
Only Vandoorne will take penalty for ICE, Alonso already served his ICE penalty in Baku, the new spec engine was trialed during FP1 and 2, but was not raced or qualified on.
Am I remembering incorrectly, or do the new rules stipulate that only the last engine used in the weekend can be carried forward in the season? I thought the rules were changed so that engines couldn't be stockpiled for the future as they were last year.
I'm not taking advice from a cartoon dog

-Bandit

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

Well Vandoorne won't take an engine penalty because it's his 4th ICE. A driver takes a penalty for each new element, Alonso and Vandoorne both served their penalties in Baku, so unless they take further new elements the penalties won't transfer over to the next race.

If either driver were to take additional power unit elements, they would then serve the penalty for each new element they used at each race used. This means if they take 4 extra ICE's in an event to build a new part pool they would take penalties at each race those 4 parts are used, in other words they would be penalized at the next 4 GPs they introduced those parts in.

If they only take one power unit element, then they serve their penalty and can race it in other races without any more penalties until they're forced to take another element.

So the engine Alonso took in Baku already had the penalty applied in Baku, that means he can race it in Austria, Silverstone, Hungary, Spa, and Italy if they last that long, without penalty. Of course if a new spec ICE becomes available, he will have to take a penalty if he wants it in the car.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
mwillems
44
Joined: 04 Sep 2016, 22:11

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 22:26
Well Vandoorne won't take an engine penalty because it's his 4th ICE. A driver takes a penalty for each new element, Alonso and Vandoorne both served their penalties in Baku, so unless they take further new elements the penalties won't transfer over to the next race.

If either driver were to take additional power unit elements, they would then serve the penalty for each new element they used at each race used. This means if they take 4 extra ICE's in an event to build a new part pool they would take penalties at each race those 4 parts are used, in other words they would be penalized at the next 4 GPs they introduced those parts in.

If they only take one power unit element, then they serve their penalty and can race it in other races without any more penalties until they're forced to take another element.

So the engine Alonso took in Baku already had the penalty applied in Baku, that means he can race it in Austria, Silverstone, Hungary, Spa, and Italy if they last that long, without penalty. Of course if a new spec ICE becomes available, he will have to take a penalty if he wants it in the car.
Ahh OK. One more question. If they broke the seals to investigate if there was any damage to the engine, does this mean that they can no longer use the engine, and actually require a brand new engine anyway?
I'm not taking advice from a cartoon dog

-Bandit

User avatar
diffuser
234
Joined: 07 Sep 2012, 13:55
Location: Montreal

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

They're allowed to break the seals with the FIA's surveillance.

gruntguru
gruntguru
565
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 07:43

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 11:13
gruntguru wrote:.......The evidence leans pretty heavily in favour of lower revs, ie if the fuel rate is fixed from 10,500 to 15,000 rpm, the best efficiency and therefor best power should be at 10,500. There are several reasons:
1. ICE friction rises rapidly with rpm
2. In-cylinder heat loss as a percentage of total heat released in a single cycle decreases with load (heat release per cycle). Heat release per cycle reduces as rpm increases from 10,500 to 15,000 since the heat release per minute stays constant over that rpm range.
3. The turbomachinery has more surplus power (available to the MGUH) at higher pressure ratios. If AFR is maintained at a constant value (assuming there is an optimum AFR for ICE efficiency) the highest PR will be at 10,500.
@gg regarding 2. what ?
Glad you pulled me up on that because I wrote that direct from gut feeling. So now I have to think it through.

OK. Comparing two different combustion events and subsequent power stroke - one at 10500 (A) and one at 15000 (B). Same AFR, same 100 kg/hr fuel rate. Assume for simplicity that both events follow Otto cycle ie compression to TDC then complete combustion at TDC. Clearly "A" will be at higher pressure so the unfired TDC temperature will be a little higher. (I will do the maths later) Since the AFR is the same for both, the heat added per kg of charge will be the same for both so the temperature rise will be the same for both. So A ends up with "slightly higher" temperature after combustion completes. This means a slightly higher rate of heat loss to the metal for A. A spends more time getting to BDC but this is completely offset by the fact that A happens less often (lower rpm). A better way to look at this is - the cylinder spends 25% of the time performing power strokes, regardless of rpm. So far we seem to have slightly higher heat loss for A. There is one more factor. Combustion does not occur instantaneously at TDC and A has more time for combustion than B. It may be possible to complete the combustion at B within the same crank angle but if not, there will be greater heat loss to the metal as well as the exhaust due to any combustion later in the power stroke.
regarding 3.
didn't your own calculations ultimately suggest that recovery essentially does not increase with PR ?
(because of the increase in compressor work with PR at the efficiencies available with the simple machinery mandated)
True. Not much in it for steady state. Would it be reasonable to think that blowdown recovery might be better at A due to higher PR, higher pressure at EO while mass-flow/pulse X number of pulses remains the same?
btw .....
wouldn't such steady-flow type calculations (wrongly) suggest blowdown (PR=1) 'free' power does not exist ?
with prechamber or other leaning there's less energy drop per kg but more kg, so maybe they would then also underestimate the recovery ?
Yes and yes.
and (anyone) - how can people running 13000 rpm be fuelling 100 kg/hr at 10500 rpm ?
Can't see why not. It would be crazy not to spec the engine (CR etc) to handle the higher PR required to run max fuel down to 10,500 as well. Operating envelope is still important in spite of close ratio transmissions etc.
je suis charlie

User avatar
HPD
198
Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 16:06

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

So the question.. Why is the Honda engine so bad?

Well lets again start with perhaps why it isn’t, we also know that the Honda engine in the paddock is classed as a GOOD engine (that’s right) and when it is fully developed it is likely to be a match for Merc and Ferrari. Sauber might not be so daft..

We also know that new combustion technologies have been used by other teams that usual refer to it as a Thermally Efficient engine. It is a tricky system to get right, ask Renault. But when its right, its right. Ask Mercedes.

Control

In a TJI engine, the mapping is finely tuned to depict the amount of fuel and air that enters the bore and then precisely when spark ignites. In theory pretty standard stuff, similar to a conventional engine but hard to get things just right

With HCCI, things are even harder to control. As the sole form of igniting the fuel is from the compression (which generates heat). The way to control that is more complex. If the compression is too high too soon, the mixture will ignite too early, not high soon enough and the mixture will ignite too late to make it efficient.

The obvious way to control it is through variable timing of the valve, but that would probably mean it would be less efficient…and that would mean that less of the allocated fuel could be used purposefully and hence reduce the power of the engine.

Therefore…

We have to conceded to a minute understanding in comparison to dedicated engineers, and despite years in engine mapping, these guys have forgotten more than we will ever know about these engines, the problem Honda are having is in controlling the compression within the bore in order to obtain efficiency. The optimum band in which the detonation of the HCCI engine is at peak is minute and getting it to occur at that time is proving difficult.

Engine dyno testing is one thing, putting it into a car where many other variables are added is another. To give but one example; air pressure that can change enough in one lap let alone a race. The mapping then becomes so complex that it would almost have to re-write itself constantly to maintain itself.

Ineffective combustion = miss fire, poor power and economy through lack of efficiency

Detonation at the wrong time is a big problem. If the piston is at the wrong part of the stroke cycle you get a “knock” (an audible miss fire), and low power whilst it all gets adjusted. The unburnt fuel is effectively passed through the exhaust valves and out the exhaust. In short if the engine does not give up (and it probably will), it will be slow and terrible on fuel. Pistons are not meant to push when they should be sucking.

Running high boost adds to the issue (and I think the Honda does this, a lot). Hot countries or altitudes will effect the issue. This makes air intake temperature high. This means the cylinder fills with poor quality and less dense air, so the fuel that gets mixed to match the ratio (road cars are generally 15:1) is also going to create low power, so running in dirty air adds to the issue. These are issues that cannot be replicated on a dyno OR rolling road. In reality it needs real life experience and tiny adjustments, it needs track time and Honda have had the least.

Fuel Mix

An experienced F1 engineer told TJ13:
The mapping includes software tables that define certain fuelling conditions. E.G when airflow is X, fuel is Y and and ignition is Z. These engines need to be so fuel efficient that it is difficult to keep out of the detonation zone inside the cylinders and if you get much of that, its game over.
This can be especially difficult at certain rev zones and can cause big torsional oscillations through the power train…and I dunno – kill gearboxes.

So why is Honda struggling?

Well time is an issue, its had the least time to get this right and they have had no experience yet. There were rumours that Mercedes were going to assist Honda in certain aspects of development, my money is on the mapping. Mercedes have now backed that truck up.

It has been suggested that Honda should strap the PU in a GT car and drive it round its own F1 track, but again – the mapping is such a fine art that unless the airflow is identical to the F1 car, and it’s in traffic, there will probably be little to gain.

Then there is another idea, and it is just a theory BUT..

The fuel has many additives, one of which is OIL (see previous stories on extra tanks and bans for next year). Engines, tolerances and especially mapping are designed around fuel, oil and other additives that keep temperatures inside the cylinders down and results in a more reliable and predictable combustion. Understanding fuel, additives and they tiny details on how they effect combustion is ESSENTIAL to any mapping engineer.

Honda had developed all of its previous power units to specifically use Exxon-Mobil fuel but ahead of the 2017 season a very late switch to BP-Castrol fuel was needed after McLaren signed a new deal with the the British supplier. This would have been a massive blow. Engine tokens are ditched this year but this change needs real miles. Track time is non existent, and dynos are almost useless past producing a base map.

So I am going to say it… Have McLaren created a large chunk of the problems through a last minute trade deal?

Baku saw a new generation engine used, and SKY reported that they had bought it along basically as a dyno test. They retired and returned to the old engine because they feared the gearbox failure (power train oscillations in specific rev ranges anyone?) may have damaged the engine. It may have but I don’t think they ever intended on using it for the race. Just some track time.

#SteveBarbyF1
https://thejudge13.com/2017/06/27/why-a ... explained/

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

Who says it's HCCI, and not RCCI, a compromise between the two is likely due to the regulations, maybe a SCCI, or stratified controlled combustion ignition.
Saishū kōnā

3jawchuck
3jawchuck
37
Joined: 03 Feb 2015, 08:57

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

The obvious way to control it is through variable timing of the valve, but that would probably mean it would be less efficient…and that would mean that less of the allocated fuel could be used purposefully and hence reduce the power of the engine.
That would also be against the regulations.

drunkf1fan
drunkf1fan
28
Joined: 20 Apr 2015, 03:34

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post

HPD wrote:
28 Jun 2017, 00:59
So the question.. Why is the Honda engine so bad?

Well lets again start with perhaps why it isn’t, we also know that the Honda engine in the paddock is classed as a GOOD engine (that’s right) and when it is fully developed it is likely to be a match for Merc and Ferrari. Sauber might not be so daft..

Engine tokens are ditched this year but this change needs real miles. Track time is non existent, and dynos are almost useless past producing a base map.

#SteveBarbyF1
https://thejudge13.com/2017/06/27/why-a ... explained/
I can't take this altogether seriously, part you cut out said, it's under powered and fuel heavy.... but then he says it's a known good engine in the paddock and it could be right up there when working. Sorry but this is nonsense. I can't believe an engine that lacks power and uses more fuel to produce less power is considered good. By the time it produces more power and uses less fuel to do it.... it will be a different engine basically. This engine is not good, because as he also says, it has a tendency to commit suicide. Down on power, unreliable and very inefficient any of which alone would make it uncompetitive but all three together, considering it a good engine is insane to me.

Then the latter, Merc have brought new engines, specifically new combustion chambers along with brand new fuel mix to the track and it work well straight away. His assertion that dyno testing is useless beyond basic maps is simply incorrect or Merc wouldn't have turned up to the first test each season with an exceptionally reliable and fantastically working engine. A bad dyno without the ability to mimic air pressure at different tracks and mimic changing air pressure/gusting wind, is a bad dyno considering what is required. A good dyno is provably very useful in testing an entire engine nearly to exhaustion as Ferrari and Mercedes have proven over the past three and a bit seasons. Track time is still huge, every weekend counts as track time, but again, it's proven that this isn't required to make a very very good engine. Can they be tweaked further from feedback from track testing, I'm sure, but Merc were lets say 98% of the way there when those engines turn up at the first test of the season.

It reads like an excuse, it is a good engine but lack of track testing is holding them back, with only more track testing they can turn this obviously great engine into what it should be. Reality check, this engine kinda sucks, if it's ever competitive there won't be many parts that are the same as in the current engine.