Page 807 of 1332
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 00:04
by MrPotatoHead
Craigy wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 23:44
MrPotatoHead wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 23:34
The biggest thing hurting Honda is the lack of testing mileage at this point.
In each of the last 3 years with only 1 team and lack of reliability it's probably halfway through the season before they get to the mileage that the other 3 engine manufacturers had at the end of pre season testing. By which time they have progressed more. That's really hurting them i believe.
Yup.
Km raced so far in 2017 per engine manufacturer:
1. Mercedes 32631
2. Ferrari 29447
3. Renault 18032
4. Honda 8733
5. TAG Heuer 8341 (but this is really a rebadged Renault, obviously).
from
http://www.statsf1.com/en/2017/stats.aspx?t=M
So Honda has less than a third of the racing Kms of their closest competitor (Renault, @ 26373 total).
Yeah it's pretty bad.
Even if they had the best engineers (which they could have) they are behind from the start.
2016 and 2017 winter testing mileage:
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 04:21
by OO7
stevesingo wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 22:50
The way I see it is, if you make the ICE 100% efficient, then you don't need KERS.
If the ICE was 100% efficient for all throttle positions then you wouldn't need an ERS-H, however an ERS-K would still be beneficial.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 13:13
by stevesingo
Blaze1 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2017, 04:21
stevesingo wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 22:50
The way I see it is, if you make the ICE 100% efficient, then you don't need KERS.
If the ICE was 100% efficient for all throttle positions then you wouldn't need an ERS-H, however an ERS-K would still be beneficial.
Correct, my bad.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 16:26
by maguetox
Craigy wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 23:44
MrPotatoHead wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 23:34
The biggest thing hurting Honda is the lack of testing mileage at this point.
In each of the last 3 years with only 1 team and lack of reliability it's probably halfway through the season before they get to the mileage that the other 3 engine manufacturers had at the end of pre season testing. By which time they have progressed more. That's really hurting them i believe.
Yup.
Km raced so far in 2017 per engine manufacturer:
1. Mercedes 32631
2. Ferrari 29447
3. Renault 18032
4. Honda 8733
5. TAG Heuer 8341 (but this is really a rebadged Renault, obviously).
from
http://www.statsf1.com/en/2017/stats.aspx?t=M
So Honda has less than a third of the racing Kms of their closest competitor (Renault, @ 26373 total).
Obviously Honda inability to make a reliable PU is hurting them, but also the opposition of McLaren to supply a second team add to their woes. But forgetting those two aspects (and penalties) and if we analice the Km raced in 2017, and make an average of Km raced per team per PU supplier, Honda and Renault are almost equal, Renault PU have raced in average 8791 per team, "only" 58 Km more than Honda and 392 Km less than Red Bull; a simplistic data, yes, but Honda doing everything alone with a team that doesn't help either, Honda effort have more merit than what the crude reality shown.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 18:54
by Mattchu
Surely we have to take Sauber off the amount of miles a 2017 Ferrari engine has covered as they use last years spec!
Next year they will use the same year version as a customer so I expect them to be quite a bit quicker.
Honda must be rueing the fact Sauber ripped up the contract for next year, having 4 cars as opposed to 2 would surely make a huge difference...
Winter testing this year is going to be massive for Honda [again], they can`t have a repeat of the last few years where they were only able to do a few laps before kaput. Reliability does seem to have been getting better, lets hope they don`t try radical new parts straight away which ony cause disaster.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 19:46
by MrPotatoHead
The problem is if they are having reliability problems now on the dyno with next year's engine that already doesn't sound good... We shall see but I hope they get things together next year and have more luck.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 20:19
by PlatinumZealot
godlameroso wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 04:14
It will be hotter if you run leaner as in closer to stoichiometric but still well below it, like in a road car engine you'd want to run ~12:1 A/F ratio on boost, and you'd run hotter if you were running 12.7, or 13:1, but if you're running say 15, or 16:1 you will run cooler.
Hmm.. I really am just as informed as the other guy.. but something tells me the accepted lean/rich hot/cold rule of thumb might not apply for TJI ignition. The exhaust might actually be colder... I don't know, but let us confirm first before making assumptions.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 21 Nov 2017, 20:55
by gshevlin
If an ICE was 100% efficient, it would generate no heat, no sound, and the exhaust gas velocity would be zero. All of those represent energy not converted to power at the crankshaft.
The Power Unit would be an ICE, with no turbine-based or heat-based energy recovery, plus a kinetic energy recovery unit.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 22 Nov 2017, 07:24
by gruntguru
PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑21 Nov 2017, 20:19
godlameroso wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 04:14
It will be hotter if you run leaner as in closer to stoichiometric but still well below it, like in a road car engine you'd want to run ~12:1 A/F ratio on boost, and you'd run hotter if you were running 12.7, or 13:1, but if you're running say 15, or 16:1 you will run cooler.
Hmm.. I really am just as informed as the other guy.. but something tells me the accepted lean/rich hot/cold rule of thumb might not apply for TJI ignition. The exhaust might actually be colder... I don't know, but let us confirm first before making assumptions.
Combustion temperature is highest at lambda = 1.0. Richer or leaner = lower gas temperature. From that point the exhaust temperature depends on how efficiently the engine extracts energy during the expansion stroke.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 22 Nov 2017, 17:09
by MrPotatoHead
gruntguru wrote: ↑22 Nov 2017, 07:24
PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑21 Nov 2017, 20:19
godlameroso wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 04:14
It will be hotter if you run leaner as in closer to stoichiometric but still well below it, like in a road car engine you'd want to run ~12:1 A/F ratio on boost, and you'd run hotter if you were running 12.7, or 13:1, but if you're running say 15, or 16:1 you will run cooler.
Hmm.. I really am just as informed as the other guy.. but something tells me the accepted lean/rich hot/cold rule of thumb might not apply for TJI ignition. The exhaust might actually be colder... I don't know, but let us confirm first before making assumptions.
Combustion temperature is highest at lambda = 1.0. Richer or leaner = lower gas temperature. From that point the exhaust temperature depends on how efficiently the engine extracts energy during the expansion stroke.
Yepp.
This rule still holds true for TJI as well. I saw a slide showing as much somewhere I'll see if I can find it again.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 22 Nov 2017, 19:06
by HPD
Honda will switch to Toro Rosso next season and the Japanese manufacturer's head of F1 project, Yusuke Hasegawa, doesn't want to set his target only on catching Renault.
"With the current chassis downforce level it is difficult to tell, but I think we are closing the gap," Hasegawa told RACER. "We just haven't closed the gap yet, not enough.
"Obviously we hope we will be able to close the gap over the winter, but they are not staying where they are, either. But definitely we need to catch up with Renault and try to overtake them."
Asked if catching Renault is Honda's target ahead of 2018, Hasegawa replied: "No, much higher! Even higher. Yes [we set targets compared to other manufacturers] but at this moment we don't want to disclose our plans."
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/145910-alo ... -struggles
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 22 Nov 2017, 20:45
by roon
NL_Fer wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 19:05
godlameroso wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 04:14
It will be hotter if you run leaner as in closer to stoichiometric but still well below it, like in a road car engine you'd want to run ~12:1 A/F ratio on boost, and you'd run hotter if you were running 12.7, or 13:1, but if you're running say 15, or 16:1 you will run cooler.
It is suggested that Mercedes runs 25-30:1 AF-ratio. That must be cooler than stoich. Unless they use the excess air to burn oil
Source? (Not saying you're wrong.)
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 22 Nov 2017, 22:03
by etusch
I wrote it before. My theory is oil burning for better gas output for turbine spinning power.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 22 Nov 2017, 22:06
by NL_Fer
roon wrote: ↑22 Nov 2017, 20:45
NL_Fer wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 19:05
godlameroso wrote: ↑20 Nov 2017, 04:14
It will be hotter if you run leaner as in closer to stoichiometric but still well below it, like in a road car engine you'd want to run ~12:1 A/F ratio on boost, and you'd run hotter if you were running 12.7, or 13:1, but if you're running say 15, or 16:1 you will run cooler.
It is suggested that Mercedes runs 25-30:1 AF-ratio. That must be cooler than stoich. Unless they use the excess air to burn oil
Source? (Not saying you're wrong.)
Mercedes PU topic, maybe even Godlameroso himself.
Re: Honda Power Unit
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 00:46
by Wazari
Speaking of fuel efficiency, I averaged the starting fuel loads for some teams for the last 15 races and came up with these figures:
McLaren 103.7 kilos, Ferrari 101.8 kilos, RBR 100.5 kilos, Mercedes 91.2 kilos, That's a huge advantage.