Agree. The most efficient is to use maximum battery power allowed every lap (120kw for 33.33 seconds of each lap) provided the recharge cycle can be repeated/sustained each lap. If that electrical deployment can be maintained 160 electrical HP FOR 33.33 seconds each lap will be added to the ICE crankshaft. Anything less than the maximum the rules allows, the amount shortfall will translate into the same amount loss at crankshaft output end.
I think people are mistaken. It still looks like a twin entry to me but with a tube between the two exhausts. Why they did this I'm not sure. Maybe some kind of pulse tuning?
You can see the same setup if you zoom into the middle picture on the bottom row of the 6 pictures. There are clearly still two turbine entries with a tube joining the left and right exhaust banks. https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/83e9/ ... ?size_id=f
I agree about the two turbine entries. I think the tube between the exhausts connects up to the wastegate. They used to position the wastegate above the turbine, neatly sloped to minimise the need for bodywork around it. The exit to the cross tube(s) is below the exhaust which matches the wastegate outlet location they have been using more recently.
The pipes connecting to the wastegate leave the exhaust at right angles suggesting they are for pressure relief leaving the path to the turbine for pulses (kinetic) clear. Last time I saw the Renault setup it was the same, albeit with the wastegate itself above the turbine.
I think Mercedes also have a cross pipe below the turbine, but in the pictures I’ve seen it has a heat shield over it so I don’t know if it’s connected with wastegate use, or as you suggest for Honda, it is used for some tuning.
Agree. The most efficient is to use maximum battery power allowed every lap (120kw for 33.33 seconds of each lap) provided the recharge cycle can be repeated/sustained each lap. If that electrical deployment can be maintained 160 electrical HP FOR 33.33 seconds each lap will be added to the ICE crankshaft. Anything less than the maximum the rules allows, the amount shortfall will translate into the same amount loss at crankshaft output end.
Why would that be the most efficient and what efficiency? The best use of the MGU-k is the one that cuts the most amount of time from the lap.
What would be more efficient than using full battery power (120kw for 33.33 seconds per-lap) as allowed by the rules?.
I think people are mistaken. It still looks like a twin entry to me but with a tube between the two exhausts. Why they did this I'm not sure. Maybe some kind of pulse tuning?
You can see the same setup if you zoom into the middle picture on the bottom row of the 6 pictures. There are clearly still two turbine entries with a tube joining the left and right exhaust banks. https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/83e9/ ... ?size_id=f
I agree about the two turbine entries. I think the tube between the exhausts connects up to the wastegate. They used to position the wastegate above the turbine, neatly sloped to minimise the need for bodywork around it. The exit to the cross tube(s) is below the exhaust which matches the wastegate outlet location they have been using more recently.
The pipes connecting to the wastegate leave the exhaust at right angles suggesting they are for pressure relief leaving the path to the turbine for pulses (kinetic) clear. Last time I saw the Renault setup it was the same, albeit with the wastegate itself above the turbine.
I think Mercedes also have a cross pipe below the turbine, but in the pictures I’ve seen it has a heat shield over it so I don’t know if it’s connected with wastegate use, or as you suggest for Honda, it is used for some tuning.
The waste-gate/s in/out exhaust gases are those that have 'bypassed' the exhaust turbine housing. in short, the waste-gate/s does not receive exhaust gases from the exhaust turbine housing. When the waste-gate/s are opened the exhaust turbine is totally free of any pressure. (free load mode).
Agree. The most efficient is to use maximum battery power allowed every lap (120kw for 33.33 seconds of each lap) provided the recharge cycle can be repeated/sustained each lap. If that electrical deployment can be maintained 160 electrical HP FOR 33.33 seconds each lap will be added to the ICE crankshaft. Anything less than the maximum the rules allows, the amount shortfall will translate into the same amount loss at crankshaft output end.
Why would that be the most efficient and what efficiency? The best use of the MGU-k is the one that cuts the most amount of time from the lap.
This!
The battery is just another tool to defend, attack or cut lap-time. Its not free, but limited.
What Honda is saying is not that they will be dumping fuel or compromizing their engine into being an air pump to charge the battery, I think they are designing the charge system and combustion in such away that it operates with a certain level of back-pressure (high MGUH use) while still making good power.
I don't subscribe the dumping fuel proposal. There is no evidence of flames or soot constantly shooting out the back. We see clean clear scintillation and 99% of the time.
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 19 Mar 2021, 21:06
by Revs84
This article confirms everything that has previously been discussed here
- 2021 PU size has been shrunk to even smaller than size zero whilst getting more power than 2020 PU
- The layout of the ICE has been changed as Honda feel they had reached the limit of the previous one
- Although the ICE is more efficient, they are able to generate more through the MGU-H
- Honda has also started to use plating from its Kumamoto motorcycle mass production facility on the cylinder block
I truly hope Honda have reached and possibly exceeded Mercedes this year and can't wait for next weekend!!
Agree. The most efficient is to use maximum battery power allowed every lap (120kw for 33.33 seconds of each lap) provided the recharge cycle can be repeated/sustained each lap. If that electrical deployment can be maintained 160 electrical HP FOR 33.33 seconds each lap will be added to the ICE crankshaft. Anything less than the maximum the rules allows, the amount shortfall will translate into the same amount loss at crankshaft output end.
Why would that be the most efficient and what efficiency? The best use of the MGU-k is the one that cuts the most amount of time from the lap.
This!
The battery is just another tool to defend, attack or cut lap-time. Its not free, but limited.
What Honda is saying is not that they will be dumping fuel or compromizing their engine into being an air pump to charge the battery, I think they are designing the charge system and combustion in such away that it operates with a certain level of back-pressure (high MGUH use) while still making good power.
I don't subscribe the dumping fuel proposal. There is no evidence of flames or soot constantly shooting out the back. We see clean clear scintillation and 99% of the time.
Why would there be? Again, you have to hear it to believe it.
- 2021 PU size has been shrunk to even smaller than size zero whilst getting more power than 2020 PU
- The layout of the ICE has been changed as Honda feel they had reached the limit of the previous one
- Although the ICE is more efficient, they are able to generate more through the MGU-H
- Honda has also started to use plating from its Kumamoto motorcycle mass production facility on the cylinder block
I truly hope Honda have reached and possibly exceeded Mercedes this year and can't wait for next weekend!!
Size -1?
If everything in that article is true, a fully integrated engine/chassis size -1 with power gains and efficiency gains is a Grand Slam for RBRH. I bet Adrian wet himself when Honda gave him the final specs(size/power/efficiency) and he had so much more aero freedom.
Ps: Can you dampen engine harmonics with variable thickness "shell" plating on the block? It would probably be an AI/ML type problem to solve, but it would be cool if possible!
Why would there be? Again, you have to hear it to believe it.
Do you Sound of the engine?
Other cars sound similarly actually but you have to adjust your equalizer to hear. Not an accoustic engineer but whatever phiysics are in play makes the Honda sound come through more. The teams have definitlely been comparing sounds and trying things on the dyno as a result. Don't you find it intriguing why the engine manaufacturers are not commenting on the sounds of the other engines? I feel they all know what each other is doing when it comes to late combustion, exhaust flows and harmonics etc.
I am actually more interested in Honda changing the shape of the combustion chamber to make the valve steeper. This reminds of the increased tumble flow method.
- 2021 PU size has been shrunk to even smaller than size zero whilst getting more power than 2020 PU
- The layout of the ICE has been changed as Honda feel they had reached the limit of the previous one
- Although the ICE is more efficient, they are able to generate more through the MGU-H
- Honda has also started to use plating from its Kumamoto motorcycle mass production facility on the cylinder block
I truly hope Honda have reached and possibly exceeded Mercedes this year and can't wait for next weekend!!
I don't know why this particular line keeps getting spouted. "As Honda’s engine has had a fundamentally changed architecture since following Mercedes’ lead in splitting the turbine and compressor from 2017." It's wrong. Honda used a split turbine and compressor design, with the MGU-H between them, from day 1. Just for packaging reasons they put the, what was then termed as a mixed flow (mostly radial with some aspect of axial flow) compressor and some of the turbine within the V instead of at the front and back sticking out either end of the V.
Why would there be? Again, you have to hear it to believe it.
Do you Sound of the engine?
Other cars sound similarly actually but you have to adjust your equalizer to hear. Not an accoustic engineer but whatever phiysics are in play makes the Honda sound come through more. The teams have definitlely been comparing sounds and trying things on the dyno as a result. Don't you find it intriguing why the engine manaufacturers are not commenting on the sounds of the other engines? I feel they all know what each other is doing when it comes to late combustion, exhaust flows and harmonics etc.
I am actually more interested in Honda changing the shape of the combustion chamber to make the valve steeper. This reminds of the increased tumble flow method.
If you increase compression ratio you either make the piston protrude more into the CC, or make the CC smaller and keep the piston as is. Or you do a combination of the two. Naturally to optimize the compression ratio and CC shape, as well as the port angles requires repackaging of everything in the head. Also when you consider the aero advantage of having a shorter cylinder head. By reducing the thickness of the camshaft by half you cut its strength by 400%, ditto for the camshaft girdle, so to go to the extremes Honda has made means they have absolute faith in the materials they're using.
Honda runs the wastegate open more than before, so it is natural that you would hear the engine 'more' as the turbo spends less time absorbing soundwaves.
If you reduce the bore spacing you also reduce coolant flow between the bores.
Look at how transparent unstable detonation is.
Re: Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software
Posted: 20 Mar 2021, 02:27
by PlatinumZealot
F1 bore spacing is always as small as possible. That they can reduce it even more now means Honda has found something that allowed that.
Side tracking a bit. The BMW E46 M3 engine, The S54 had only 3mm!! As the thickness of material between the cylinders. It was an iron engine so the strength and stiffness was there to do this. The engine still had some issues when boosted as a result. (say at around 800hp).
Disregarding the bore plating, the Aluminum material itself between the bores would be very unstable at 3mm as you can imagine, with all that heat and pressure. I am going to take a wild guess that Honda is using 3D printed, single peice steel sleeves to allow closer bore spacing for a shorter engine. Probablg short by just ten to 15 millimeters overall, but probably worth it to RedBull.
If you increase compression ratio you either make the piston protrude more into the CC, or make the CC smaller and keep the piston as is. Or you do a combination of the two. Naturally to optimize the compression ratio and CC shape, as well as the port angles requires repackaging of everything in the head. Also when you consider the aero advantage of having a shorter cylinder head. By reducing the thickness of the camshaft by half you cut its strength by 400%, ditto for the camshaft girdle, so to go to the extremes Honda has made means they have absolute faith in the materials they're using.
Honda runs the wastegate open more than before, so it is natural that you would hear the engine 'more' as the turbo spends less time absorbing soundwaves.
If you reduce the bore spacing you also reduce coolant flow between the bores.
Piston bowl shape is really important in these engines. Honda can play with that to easily adjust compression ratio.
I feel making a more extreme tumble flow design was the leading reason for changing the valve angle. The camshaft is lowerd as a side-effect becuase the use of the direct lifters.
Why would there be? Again, you have to hear it to believe it.
Do you Sound of the engine?
Other cars sound similarly actually but you have to adjust your equalizer to hear. Not an accoustic engineer but whatever phiysics are in play makes the Honda sound come through more. The teams have definitlely been comparing sounds and trying things on the dyno as a result. Don't you find it intriguing why the engine manaufacturers are not commenting on the sounds of the other engines? I feel they all know what each other is doing when it comes to late combustion, exhaust flows and harmonics etc.
I am actually more interested in Honda changing the shape of the combustion chamber to make the valve steeper. This reminds of the increased tumble flow method.
If you increase compression ratio you either make the piston protrude more into the CC, or make the CC smaller and keep the piston as is. Or you do a combination of the two. Naturally to optimize the compression ratio and CC shape, as well as the port angles requires repackaging of everything in the head. Also when you consider the aero advantage of having a shorter cylinder head. By reducing the thickness of the camshaft by half you cut its strength by 400%, ditto for the camshaft girdle, so to go to the extremes Honda has made means they have absolute faith in the materials they're using.
Honda runs the wastegate open more than before, so it is natural that you would hear the engine 'more' as the turbo spends less time absorbing soundwaves.
If you reduce the bore spacing you also reduce coolant flow between the bores.
