F1technical.net

AndrisV wrote:This is my pure IMO. Honda isn't on top of game with controlling burning process on their experimental CC. And they shot themselves in a foot with various engine versions, everybody who has done some ECU mapping will tell you, every engine knocks differently, that is - to ear or microphone. So - active knock control fault. To be blunt - they don't know, when their current engine in a car is actually knocking. Look how long it took Renault to master this.

Since they admitted that they have gone for extremes, probably no safety border for harmonics, add a problem with knock (early V6T era problems) and we have an engine that is limited in power and throws rods.

I'm pretty sure these engines use the ignition system as the knock sensor.

popovic94 wrote:

Mudflap wrote:

godlameroso wrote:
Logic dictates they would, but who knows.

If by logic you mean unproven high-risk technology then maybe that explains the situation they are in. On the off-chance that I am completely wrong and Honda have indeed developed some sort of electro-hydraulic valve actuation then they are doing remarkably well!

Koeniggseg Freevalve?

have you driven one ? do you know anyone who has ?

Mudflap wrote:

popovic94 wrote:

Mudflap wrote:
If by logic you mean unproven high-risk technology then maybe that explains the situation they are in. On the off-chance that I am completely wrong and Honda have indeed developed some sort of electro-hydraulic valve actuation then they are doing remarkably well!

Koeniggseg Freevalve?

have you driven one ? do you know anyone who has ?

Dont understand your question.
I was asking if you mean something like Koenigseggs Freevalve technology in your post.
I dont know if rulles allow system like that, but it provides big gains.

popovic94 wrote:

Mudflap wrote:

popovic94 wrote: Koeniggseg Freevalve?

have you driven one ? do you know anyone who has ?

Dont understand your question.
I was asking if you mean something like Koenigseggs Freevalve technology in your post.
I dont know if rulles allow system like that, but it provides big gains.

sorry about that, for some reason I keep misinterpreting other users' comments today.
yes that was what I meant

Mudflap wrote:

popovic94 wrote:

Mudflap wrote:
have you driven one ? do you know anyone who has ?

Dont understand your question.
I was asking if you mean something like Koenigseggs Freevalve technology in your post.
I dont know if rulles allow system like that, but it provides big gains.

sorry about that, for some reason I keep misinterpreting other users' comments today.
yes that was what I meant

Relax

AndrisV wrote:This is my pure IMO. Honda isn't on top of game with controlling burning process on their experimental CC. And they shot themselves in a foot with various engine versions, everybody who has done some ECU mapping will tell you, every engine knocks differently, that is - to ear or microphone. So - active knock control fault. To be blunt - they don't know, when their current engine in a car is actually knocking. Look how long it took Renault to master this.

Since they admitted that they have gone for extremes, probably no safety border for harmonics, add a problem with knock (early V6T era problems) and we have an engine that is limited in power and throws rods.

They definitely use combustion analysis with internal pressure sensors on the test bed so I think its impossible they cant identify knock events.

Mudflap wrote:

Dimi wrote:If suddenly occurs a black out in electronics, that could lead to loss of control of pneumatic valves and other actuators driving the valvetrain. then you will definitely result with a broken engine and blown pistons. I m really curious what reason can cause these insulation failures only in track conditions and not on the dyno

Only mechanical regulators are allowed for the pneumatic system.

ok, so they adjust the springs pressure mechanically regarding the rpm, or pressure is constant?

Dimi wrote:They definitely use combustion analysis with internal pressure sensors on the test bed so I think its impossible they cant identify knock events.

I believe it's not that simple anymore (with TJI). And there could be a problem with corelation to dyno and real thing.

Imido_30 wrote:From Autosport.com: http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... al-f1-test

Honda has spent much of the winter working on advanced combustion technology in its bid to close the gap to the leading manufacturers, but the combustion process it has created is so unstable the engine will not hold together. Apparently, one unit even ejected a piston during one of Stoffel Vandoorne's runs in the car!

The early indications suggest Honda has reverse engineered its 2017 engine, delivering an initial specification that is down on power compared to the 2016 unit, and an updated version tried at the second test that was even worse.

Ok this clears up a number of things.
First of all combustion stability takes a hit the higher it goes above stoichiometric. The stability is measured by a number of means. Statistically by the missfire events. The consistency of peak pressure.. The consistency of the deflagration.. Temperature patterns, to name the little i know.

It simply means to me that the misfires are what are causing the vibrations. And there seems to be some detonations in the mix. I don't want to be believe it but maybe the worst has come to pass. Maybe Wazari can confrim:

Did Honda go ahead and design their own jet ignitor? The injector is showing inconsistent firing and seems mechanically weak.

Is the castrol fuel wreaking havoc on Honda and to some extent Renault?

What about the piston shape?

Dimi wrote:

Mudflap wrote:

Dimi wrote:If suddenly occurs a black out in electronics, that could lead to loss of control of pneumatic valves and other actuators driving the valvetrain. then you will definitely result with a broken engine and blown pistons. I m really curious what reason can cause these insulation failures only in track conditions and not on the dyno

Only mechanical regulators are allowed for the pneumatic system.

ok, so they adjust the springs pressure mechanically regarding the rpm, or pressure is constant?

8.2.5 Pneumatic valve pressure may only be controlled via a passive mechanical regulator or from the ECU and its operation will be monitored by the ECU.

I guess passive means constant pressure. It would make sense to try and lower pressure at lower engine speeds though.

PlatinumZealot wrote:

Imido_30 wrote:From Autosport.com: http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... al-f1-test

Honda has spent much of the winter working on advanced combustion technology in its bid to close the gap to the leading manufacturers, but the combustion process it has created is so unstable the engine will not hold together. Apparently, one unit even ejected a piston during one of Stoffel Vandoorne's runs in the car!

The early indications suggest Honda has reverse engineered its 2017 engine, delivering an initial specification that is down on power compared to the 2016 unit, and an updated version tried at the second test that was even worse.

Ok this clears up a number of things.
First of all combustion stability takes a hit the higher it goes above soichiometric. The stability is measured by a number of means. Statistically the missfure events. The consistency of peam pressure.. The consistency of the deflagration.. Temperature patterns, to name the little i know.

It simply means to me that the misfires are what are causing the vibrations. And there seems to be some detonations in the mix. I don't want to be believe it but maybe the worst has come to pass. Maybe Wazari can confrim:

Did Honda go ahead and design their own jet ignitor? The injector is showing inconsistent firing and seems mechanically weak.

Is the castrol fuel wreaking havoc on Honda and to some extent Renault?

What about the piston shape?

What I find interesting though is this is what your ECU is there for. If combustion becomes too unstable shouldn't it pull back ignition timing, add more fuel etc? This is a fascinating mystery!

You will lose the advantage because the formula is a fuel limited formula every drop of fuel must be utilized to the maximum and not wasted on cooling or "richening" up the combustion for stability.

The only cure is to fix the hardware or improve the fuel.

PlatinumZealot wrote:You will lose the advantage because the formula is a fuel limited formula every drop of fuel must be utilized to the maximum and not wasted on cooling or "richening" up the combustion for stability.

The only cure is to fix the hardware or improve the fuel.

Definitely - however to have so many failures and not dialing it back in testing??? It would be interesting to know the order of the failures.

Actually they did, only 4 sec slower, considering their problems, they have done good.

It's a classic loop of development. Let's pretend that You are Honda technican, You have spent god knows how many days on dyno mapping that thing to a perfection, only to realise, that everything you have done is worth only as initial settings. You are out there in cold, alone, without time. Once you twitch in wrong direction, that thing blows.

I perfectly understand why Honda used so many engines. There is no point to just rack up laps. There is no point in gathered info about chasis and there are certainly no point of gathering engine info, if you just go around. So they tried to sort thing outs on a go and gather info, which means - blowing up a few lumps.

I m really curious what reason can cause these insulation failures only in track conditions and not on the dyno

Maybe the higher g forces this year, higher than they expected it?

Could it be that the new prechamber ignition is the source of evil, as it causes higher pressure and temperature inside the bore, therefore pistons , valves and combustion chamber have to be reinforced, maybe there is the weak point?

And there has to be absolutely accurate valve timing with a specialized software. Which one does Honda use?
Maybe there is a software issue which causes the insulation failures?