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.
godlameroso
241
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by godlameroso » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:35 pm

MrPotatoHead wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:23 pm
The 2017 engine is Plan B?
That's interesting because it would mean the 2018 Engine (aka Spec 4.0) would have to be physically the same size and shape as the 2017 engine to be able to swap them in the same chassis...
This does not agree with statements made here about why the Spec 4.0 was not running in car in 2017...
The difference is all in the heads and combustion chamber along with the turbo, things that can be changed without altering the layout.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

etusch
26
User avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Turkey

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by etusch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:56 pm

Snorked wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:41 pm
Isn't that interview from months ago? I could've swore I read something similar with Hasegawa talking about not deciding about next season spec, etc. It might have even been before the McLaren split was made official.


Amus says the 3.8 spec Honda PU produced 881bhp, is this correct, Wazari?
We got the horsepower data of the four manufacturers for the internal combustion engine in kilowatts and then count on another 163 hp of electric power. Theoretically, the full battery should last for 33 seconds. In fact, at least Mercedes boosts the entire lap on every racetrack. Because the MGU-H more electric power indicator: contributed as the battery can absorb. The then goes from the MGU-H directly into the MGU-K.

Now to the numbers. After these measurements, the Mercedes M08 V6 Turbo has a system performance of 949 hp. Ferrari comes to 934 hp, Renault to 907 hp and Honda with the latest specification to 881 hp. Previously, the Japanese just scratched at the 860 hp mark".

The gap between Mercedes and the competition is also evident in consumption. For 305 kilometers of the GP Mexico burned the Mercedes six-cylinder 89 kilograms of fuel. The competition needed 10 kilograms more.
When it come to fuel consumption we must remember Honda engine weight. İf Honda can reach ferrari level with same consumption without adding weight to the engine ( many if) they will have advantage.

Tommy Cookers
464
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by Tommy Cookers » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:03 pm

the reason they're using 20 Hz etc is mainly because ......
K generator power varying at eg 5 Hz would have the car surging on its transmission (but it's dead to 20 Hz)
and because 5 Hz would mean much greater rpm excursions and gas pumping losses

the disadvantage of eg 20 Hz .......
24000 rpm is 400 pulses/sec which limits the scope for slewing the excitation pulses to maintain synchrony throughout cycle
and they're reaching the rate of voltage change beyond which less current is driven through the H relative to applied voltage

it's a compromise
whose purpose and effect is to increase energy accumulation from fuel given that actual fuel accumulation is strictly banned
(pulsing at 20 Hz etc shows they aren't using novel MGs that simultaneously M and G because those would be run steadily)
so that all or most of the MGU-H generation can be used directly by MGU-K motoring
btw the drives have dedicated capacitive ES anyway - and this is presumably being added to the inertial mechanical ES effect
when cars get more drag and more roadholding genuine K recovery (braking) falls and fuel-driven recovery incentivised

unbanning fuel accumulation would be far simpler and cheaper and lighter and more reliable
often we now have 750 hp ICEs with 160 hp EMs driving on acceleration and being ICE-driven after acceleration
ie 910 hp hybrid PU for acceleration and 590 hp hybrid PU after acceleration - lapping quicker than a fixed 750 hp would
unbanning fuel accumulation (losing rate limits) will release from ICEs 910 hp for acceleration and 590 hp after acceleration
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wazari
627
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by Wazari » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:28 am

MrPotatoHead wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:23 pm
The 2017 engine is Plan B?
That's interesting because it would mean the 2018 Engine (aka Spec 4.0) would have to be physically the same size and shape as the 2017 engine to be able to swap them in the same chassis...
This does not agree with statements made here about why the Spec 4.0 was not running in car in 2017...
Components from 2017 engine (Plan B), Also 2018 engine does not have be same size. It can be larger. Plumbing and gearbox are the key to swap. If the older engine is slightly smaller and lighter, that doesn't pose a major issue. If it's substantially larger than obviously it does. We're talking MM's here, not CM's.

The 881 HP figure is close but a little under. The gap to Renault is not that much.
If you can make the opposition flinch, you have already won.

McMika98
2
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:40 pm

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by McMika98 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:35 am

Thanks for the info @ Wazari.

Is the peak Hp north or south of 900?
I guess it would be very difficult to guesstimate the Hp figures for McHonda as they cannot compare and correlate with data from other cars, unlike with competitor engines.
Overall the general trend seems to be an average of 50hp gain every year since 2015. Given the gap to the top engine is quite big, do you think Honda will catch up with the other two by next year?

godlameroso
241
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by godlameroso » Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:02 pm

I do, power unit is in adolescent phase. Big changes happen during adolescence, the step forward you made from infancy to childhood was a big step even though all the adults had far more performance. But the adolescent stage is huge, successfully completing adolescent stage let's you compete with the adults. Honda will enter adult phase towards the end of the year, or the start of 2019.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Wazari
627
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by Wazari » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:49 pm

McMika98 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:35 am
Thanks for the info @ Wazari.

Is the peak Hp north or south of 900?
I guess it would be very difficult to guesstimate the Hp figures for McHonda as they cannot compare and correlate with data from other cars, unlike with competitor engines.
Overall the general trend seems to be an average of 50hp gain every year since 2015. Given the gap to the top engine is quite big, do you think Honda will catch up with the other two by next year?
Let's say a little south....
If you can make the opposition flinch, you have already won.

wuzak
344
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by wuzak » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:34 am

godlameroso wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:02 pm
I do, power unit is in adolescent phase. Big changes happen during adolescence, the step forward you made from infancy to childhood was a big step even though all the adults had far more performance. But the adolescent stage is huge, successfully completing adolescent stage let's you compete with the adults. Honda will enter adult phase towards the end of the year, or the start of 2019.
Or maybe just in time for the engine regulation change....

godlameroso
241
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by godlameroso » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:01 am

That's a possibility.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

PlatinumZealot
326
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by PlatinumZealot » Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:59 pm

Wazari wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:49 pm
McMika98 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:35 am
Thanks for the info @ Wazari.

Is the peak Hp north or south of 900?
I guess it would be very difficult to guesstimate the Hp figures for McHonda as they cannot compare and correlate with data from other cars, unlike with competitor engines.
Overall the general trend seems to be an average of 50hp gain every year since 2015. Given the gap to the top engine is quite big, do you think Honda will catch up with the other two by next year?
Let's say a little south....
There was a report from a japanese source that Honda did make over 900hp at a certain instant. Was that true?

Something to the words of "we can make over 900hp now"

I have Honda at 895 hp in my calculations. This is running at self sustaining mode. Does the electric supercharger mode give a little more power in qualifying? ( that is if Honda has an electric supercharger mode)
"The true champions are also great men. They are capable of making difficult decisions, of admitting their mistakes and of pushing harder than before when they get up from a fall."

- Ferrari chairman Sergio Marchionne

godlameroso
241
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by godlameroso » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:29 pm

Imagine enough electrical energy to both remove the compressor as a load on the engine, with the MGU-K going at full tilt. There is no regulation as far as the capacity of the ERS, just how much you can harvest or deploy per lap. It's a no brainer to take the 5kg weight penalty and stuff as many exotic battery cells as you can in the ES casing. Particularly since power from the ES to the MGU-H Is unlimited.

I wonder what the maximum power the MGU-H is capable of in motor mode?

If it takes ~100kw for ~5 bar MAP. Does that mean the MGU-H needs to be that powerful? Or does it only need to be powerful enough to create a lag free environment? ie maintain a minimum and maximum turbine speed.

If so it allows you to size your turbo for extreme efficiency as the turbine doesn't have to be efficient over as wide a range of efficiency islands. Provided of course you have enough electrical energy.

Again if your combustion process is good it's easier to make that compromise. As you can just harvest K->H->ES, and you can take that engine penalty, still have more power and need less fuel to do it than everyone else.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Tommy Cookers
464
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by Tommy Cookers » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:59 pm

every make of engine has good combustion

in some makes combustion is good at higher AFR than is possible in other makes

combustion is the burning of fuel, not the ways some of its heat is turned into work

godlameroso
241
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by godlameroso » Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:12 pm

No doubt, the combustion is good, and some do it better at leaner AFR's, I reckon getting there is why they call it a combustion process.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Craigy
69
User avatar
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:20 am
Location: UK

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by Craigy » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:03 pm

godlameroso wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:29 pm
Imagine enough electrical energy to both remove the compressor as a load on the engine, with the MGU-K going at full tilt. There is no regulation as far as the capacity of the ERS, just how much you can harvest or deploy per lap. It's a no brainer to take the 5kg weight penalty and stuff as many exotic battery cells as you can in the ES casing. Particularly since power from the ES to the MGU-H Is unlimited.

I wonder what the maximum power the MGU-H is capable of in motor mode?

If it takes ~100kw for ~5 bar MAP. Does that mean the MGU-H needs to be that powerful? Or does it only need to be powerful enough to create a lag free environment? ie maintain a minimum and maximum turbine speed.

If so it allows you to size your turbo for extreme efficiency as the turbine doesn't have to be efficient over as wide a range of efficiency islands. Provided of course you have enough electrical energy.

Again if your combustion process is good it's easier to make that compromise. As you can just harvest K->H->ES, and you can take that engine penalty, still have more power and need less fuel to do it than everyone else.
Personally, I tend to think of this from the opposite direction - just another way to do it and both ways are equally valid. Let me explain how I see this.

The energy flow from MGU-H to ES is unlimited in both per-lap limit (amount) and in charge/discharge speed (rate), and given that the MGU-H can be used as a flywheel to allow some sort of alternative route from the K to the battery, then you'd have to work pretty hard on the sizing of both the MGU-H and MGU-K than if you ignored this route and optimised them against more traditional, simpler sizings. Both of those components are going to have higher limits than they would otherwise have, if you didn't see this route and optimise your PU around using it.

The first thing I'd say is that the 2MJ and 4MJ limits for K-direct-to-ES need to be maximised, so the ES is going to have to be able to store and discharge 4MJ per lap for the working life of the control electronics and energy store, purely from this workload alone.
All rechargeable batteries lose capacity with each charge-discharge-recharge cycle, so an ES battery at end-of-life ( which is what, 10 weekends next year?) needs a lot more than 4MJ full-to-empty at the start of its life in order to have that at the end of life. But it's not a 4MJ lap limit at all anyway. It's far more than that because of the flywheel route.

Consider the sizing of the MGU-H if you're using it as a flywheel a lot of the time during a lap.
If the flywheel is being used to charge the ES, then you're going to want it to be able to accept power from the MGU-K at maximum rate for the MGU-K (120kW) during the flywheel spin-up, and it's going to need to be able to dump that kinetic energy into the ES at some rate you decide.

You might guess/start off with at the same 120kW that was being used to generate electricity for the ES, so a 50/50 split of time spent charging and discharging.
I think that would be really ineffective, since there is an *unlimited* path from the MGU-H to the ES. You'd actually want that to discharge into the battery as quickly and for as short a time as possible - just for example, you might opt to have the MGU-H dumping power back into the ES at 240kW or 360kW, or more.
If weight and volume weren't factors, you'd want the rate to be as high as was possible with any known generator and battery technology, because the faster you can discharge energy from the flywheel to the ES, the more time you can spend receiving energy at the regulated 120kW limit from the MGU-K. That 50/50 time slicing of the charge/discharge of inertia from the flywheel is a bad assumption. You want it to be 99% charging, 1% discharging or better.

That leads to a sizing discussion about how fast the MGU-H could feasibly dump power into the CE and ES, how it would switch between charge/discharge and how much time the MGU-K would actually spend charging the ES using this route. It is unlimited in both rate and duration in the regulations. Why not a 240kW MGU-H, capable of time slicing 1/3d of the time putting its power into the ES and the other 2/3rds of the time charging up from the MGU-K?

This opens up possibilities. The whole system is also reversible, ES powering up MGU-H at some huge rate, then that power being used to discharge into the MGU-K at its limit. The time when the ES is spinning up the flywheel of the MGU-H, it would also be powering the MGU-K directly at 120kW.

It does mean that there is a >4MJ route from the ES to the MGU-K. In fact, it's essentially unlimited. You would want an ES capable of generating 120kW for the whole time the car needs to accelerate around the whole lap at the longest duration on the throttle (I suppose this will be somewhere like Spa, Monza or Baku). It would dump the 4kW permitted directly to the MGU-K only during the timeslices where the MGU-H wasn't able to provide the indirect route because it was being spun up itself by the ES. Total energy out from the ES through the K would be a hell of a lot more than 4kW by adding together the flywheel and direct routes. The ES would need to be capable of outputting 120kW as well as whatever limit the MGU-H was running at (eg. another 240kW), meaning its real limits would need to be potentially 360kW and upwards of 10MJ, for the sake of example.

Essentially, the 25KG limit for the ES becomes a hard limit. The sizing of the MGU-K would be such that it could run 120kW for a lot longer than the 33s the 4MJ direct ES to MGU-K would suggest - maybe double this. The sizing of the MGU-H would not be the amount of energy produced by the turbine and otherwise lost to the wastegate, it would instead be capable of large rates, in order to permit effective flywheel operations. The CE would need to be capable of switching 120kW from MGU-H to ES to MGU-K very quickly and smoothly for several races.

The ES thermals would be quite hard to control, with the amount of work it would be doing and the charge and discharge rates. The MGU-K is going to be physically bigger and will need more cooling as it's going to be active a lot of the time. The MGU-H is going to be doing a hell of a lot more work than it would have been doing if it was just a power takeoff for unwanted boost pressure. The ES and CE are both going to be throwing electricity around at much higher rates than the MGU-K basic 120kW, and the CE in particular is going to be switching quite a lot.

That's how I see things anyway. Forget 33s of deployment per lap, followed by whatever can be dripfed from the turbine in sustaining mode. What you're interested in is, how much power can you get out of the ES using the unlimited route. It's feasible that with an ES with enough capacity, the direct ES to MGU-K route would *only* be used to fill in the times when the MGU-H is being topped up with rotational inertia (at an unlimited rate!).

It'd be interesting to see what the capacity and discharge rates would look like for 25KG of lithium ion batteries, at a maximum, using modern cells. Also, it'd be interesting to know how many seconds per lap the hardest duty cycles are for tracks on the 2018 calendar, because it could provide a maximum required specification for quali mode.

Thoughts?

Edited to add: Just looked at the FIA's notes for the ES and the regs state a maximum of 4MJ SoC difference from top to bottom in a lap. This means that the route out of the ES and into the MGU-K is likely direct for most of the 4MJ, but the charging idea still stands as a way to bypass the 2MJ ERS-K to ES limit.
Last edited by Craigy on Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wazari
627
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Re: Honda Power Unit

Post by Wazari » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:29 pm

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:59 pm
Wazari wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:49 pm
McMika98 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:35 am
Thanks for the info @ Wazari.

Is the peak Hp north or south of 900?
I guess it would be very difficult to guesstimate the Hp figures for McHonda as they cannot compare and correlate with data from other cars, unlike with competitor engines.
Overall the general trend seems to be an average of 50hp gain every year since 2015. Given the gap to the top engine is quite big, do you think Honda will catch up with the other two by next year?
Let's say a little south....
There was a report from a japanese source that Honda did make over 900hp at a certain instant. Was that true?

Something to the words of "we can make over 900hp now"

I have Honda at 895 hp in my calculations. This is running at self sustaining mode. Does the electric supercharger mode give a little more power in qualifying? ( that is if Honda has an electric supercharger mode)
I can't disagree with anything in your post.
If you can make the opposition flinch, you have already won.