Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[hurril]

I think he miss-thunk a little but there is a tiny point related to what we online might think is the problem. Maybe godlameroso is referring to vibrations or interferences otherwise from the other cylinders and that the 150-side, in that sense, is a little closer and thus has less time. On the other hand - that pertains to the time before the ignition. What if the exhaust stroke is what's interfered with, then the 150-bank has it better and the 90 worse.

I would think that the intake system would be, as much as possible, split into 2 x 3 cylinder units, as is the exhaust. In that manner the spacing between cylinders would be 240° for all of them.

Oh, so would I. Just trying to be generous with what he could have meant. They [Honda] did indicate that the cylinders interfere with each other so in what way could they be doing that?

[Craigy]

They [Honda] did indicate that the cylinders interfere with each other so in what way could they be doing that?

I can think of a few ways.

• The pressure waves on the exhaust side could be interfering with each other. Depends on valve timing, valve lift, exhaust scavenging concept, exhaust manfold design, backpressure (which is affected by how the MGU-H and wastegate function, both of those being controllable to a degree).
• There are 6 cylinders, it's a 4-stroke engine, so every 720º there are 6 "bangs", or 120º per bang on average (and most likely, not just on average, but actually exactly that). If a bang in one cylinder adversely affects another it could be directly in terms of shock moving through the head or block into an adjacent cylinder, causing it to misfire in some way - hitting an intake charge physically with a hammer, for example.
• It could be that the combustion pressures and lack of inertia in the ICE are such that the engine is not rotating smoothly - through the 360º of rotation it will speed up and slow down appreciably as each of the three combustion events in that rotation happen, like a sine wave. Each of those accelerations/decelerations on the crank will naturally affect the other cylinders (a bang in one cylinder will cause acceleration of the crank which will affect the intake on a totally different cylinder). If the concept is intolerant to this (requiring smooth crankshaft running) then I could forsee problems here that would only be visible on multi-cylinder, low flywheel inertia versions of the engine.
• When you have (or partially-have) detonation on one cylinder, the action taken to avoid it causing a chain of them will mean one cylinder having a problem will affect the others.

I'm sure there are others.

[Powerslide]

honda's frequent engine break down does point towards them trying but mclaren should worry that its going nowhere. at times some engine makers do face an increment of power when they push their engines but suffer break downs but in hondas case, just added wind

[gruntguru]

[*]There are 6 cylinders, it's a 4-stroke engine, so every 720º there are 6 "bangs", or 120º per bang on average (and most likely, not just on average, but actually exactly that).

No, the rules require a 90 degree Vee and three shared crankpins so 90*, 150* is the closest they can get to even-fire.

[Sasha]

The only reason for a wild crank design is for packaging(shorter block).
People have very short memory on this site.This was a talking point during testing in Feb.

But did they take it too far?(looking at the product on track.......a big yes)
Alonso lost the crank at the last race!

[godlameroso]

I remember talk about fork and blade type crank.

[etusch]

If I didn't find out this forum, I was just look the Honda PU same with others and each of others same as well. Just a PU working same. And I would think why some did and other didn't. Thanks to technical knowledge of forumers I learnt here many things.
It looks like Honda didn't make a straightforward (or with a conservative approach) engine. Yes they couldn't achieve successfully their objective but they tried it with a different way which I like everytime.

[crf1]

The Honda R&D F1 Engine Dyno:

http://i.imgur.com/U09v5Uh.png

...
https://twitter.com/gzoneStudios/status ... 7771666435

[PlatinumZealot]

From what i can tell Honda have a full AVL track simulation dyno system.
But it is a rigid test stand type system not a full chassis simulation.

If they are still having vibration issues the chances of finding the solution on the dyno without a full chassis simulation is pretty slim.
But it's important to remember that a 90 degree V6 with straight crank pins will always be an odd fire engine and will inherently be vibration prone.

Very wrong. They have the full chassis dynamoteter. In this 2015! Article you can see they even use it for super formula...

http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/09/mclar ... d.html?m=1

They have all sorts of dyno types and brands it seems..

This photo was years ago but they surely have upgraded since then.

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't get their logic. They are having failures on a race by race basis, they are going to start taking penalties on a race by race basis.

Introduce the bloody updates. If it's slow and blows up after a lap, work needs doing, we knew that anyway; if it's fast but fragile, yay, progress; if it's slow but reliable, yay, progress. It's like they want McLaren to invoke the performance clauses in their contract, or even like they want to fail and get out soon.

Personally, I think they just are out of their depth with this sort of highly complex formula. I have no doubt they would eventually get it, but I do doubt they can before the next formula is introduced.

As engineers we would do that.. But the guys in the board room at Honda was have given the order to avoid engine failures on track at all costs! It is unrrasonable for progress but guys in suits have always been unreasonable when it comes to most engineering matters.

[Sasha]

Also the fuel supplier switch was a major problem.(that is on McLaren)
Honda's pre-chamber CC was tested with ExxonMobil fuel in single cylinder.(another reason for the problems)

BP fuel is not as good as the ExxonMobil fuel......not even close.(-20 hp plus detonation problems)

[godlameroso]

Also the fuel supplier switch was a major problem.(that is on McLaren)
Honda's pre-chamber CC was tested with ExxonMobil fuel in single cylinder.(another reason for the problems)

BP fuel is not as good as the ExxonMobil fuel......not even close.(-20 hp plus detonation problems)

Is there a fuel supplier arms race going on in the background?

[etusch]

Also the fuel supplier switch was a major problem.(that is on McLaren)
Honda's pre-chamber CC was tested with ExxonMobil fuel in single cylinder.(another reason for the problems)

BP fuel is not as good as the ExxonMobil fuel......not even close.(-20 hp plus detonation problems)

When we think about Alonso's statement talking about +50 hp power for good performance, if there is -20 hp because of fuel thats too much and too bad.

[GoranF1]

Also the fuel supplier switch was a major problem.(that is on McLaren)
Honda's pre-chamber CC was tested with ExxonMobil fuel in single cylinder.(another reason for the problems)

BP fuel is not as good as the ExxonMobil fuel......not even close.(-20 hp plus detonation problems)

I asked Wazari if it will be a problem when the switch was made, he said not at all and that Castrol is better for Honda due to their history together.

[McHonda]

Also the fuel supplier switch was a major problem.(that is on McLaren)
Honda's pre-chamber CC was tested with ExxonMobil fuel in single cylinder.(another reason for the problems)

BP fuel is not as good as the ExxonMobil fuel......not even close.(-20 hp plus detonation problems)

Mobil left McLaren because they fell down the grid and weren't worth the money McLaren wanted. Red Bull got that money.

Now you can blame Ron for asking too much money but you can also blame the fall down the grid to backmarker on Honda I'm afraid.

Also Marko has said in an interview in Austria that when they tested Mobil and BP difference on the Renault it was negligible. It was something Red Bull were worried about which is why they tested it but it turned out there wasn't any difference.