Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
What does this mean in a V4 4 stroke 90deg engine? Does the 2 cylinders in the right bank fire together and then 2 cylinders in the left bank follows it after about 90 deg of crank turn? is it followed by a complete non powered rotation?
Is that something they will consider in a f1 engine ?
There were some discussions on it just before testing started but then stopped
Question from an uninformed fan about EM bearings. They look way more complex than a traditional bearing, wich in my mind means they´re heavier.
Taking into account weight is a critical factor in F1, would EM bearings really provide such an advantage to make it worth the extra weight?
That´s assuming they´re heavier obviously. If they´re not maybe this could be feasible, but if they´re heavier I can´t see a heavier solution will be worth just for a minimal drag reduction, specially considering that would be an added weight at the upper part of the PU wich will also affect car handling
What does this mean in a V4 4 stroke 90deg engine? Does the 2 cylinders in the right bank fire together and then 2 cylinders in the left bank follows it after about 90 deg of crank turn? is it followed by a complete non powered rotation?
Is that something they will consider in a f1 engine ?
There were some discussions on it just before testing started but then stopped
In my understanding the Honda "big bang" engines was from the last decade of the 500cc 2T. Suddenly the beasts became a lot more drivable (relative of course). The peak torque more then doubled and there was a longer "pause" in-between firings so the rear tire had a bit more time to keep grip. It came at the cost of more force on the crank, gearbox and chain. To not completely ruin everything with a few bangs, they gave both banks of pistons a slight overlap, so you had quite a long bang, with an offset of 10-20 degrees or so.
With a 4t engine, especially with such high torque (As a F1 PU) i won't see this work. We would have seen gearboxes explode left right and center. Plus, the 2t had a separate exhaust per cylinder, a F1 PU has a turbo which needs 6 small pushes instead of one big one (for max efficiency).
In my understanding the Honda "big bang" engines was from the last decade of the 500cc 2T. Suddenly the beasts became a lot more drivable (relative of course). The peak torque more then doubled and there was a longer "pause" in-between firings so the rear tire had a bit more time to keep grip. It came at the cost of more force on the crank, gearbox and chain. To not completely ruin everything with a few bangs, they gave both banks of pistons a slight overlap, so you had quite a long bang, with an offset of 10-20 degrees or so.
The Big bang engines were 4 stroke engines, the guiding philosophy being that in a big bang engine, the "relaxation time" is long enough between the time when the engine is applying force to the road (the first 90 or so degrees of crankshaft rotation, or ignition) and the time when it's going through the non-force applying functions of a four stroke engine (exhaust intake and compression), that the remaining 630 degrees allow the tyre to re-grip, such that if too much force is applied during that 90 degrees of ignition and the tyre begins to slide, there is still 630 degrees of non force application. This provides a buffer for the rider to not be sent over the handlebars.
The only advantage I can see with this on an F1 car is that it may increase the life of the rear tyres, But I am sure there are much cleverer people than me that have already weighed up the pro's and cons.
EDIT: Right, I had to go through 10 pages to clean out some of the rubbish. Popular off-topic discussion was:
-mercedes helping honda
-mercedes helping ferrari
-mercedes helping renault
-Complaints engines blow up
-complaints by overall lack of competitive performance
-dissapointment
-escape strategy for Honda
-Newly arisen chassis vs PU performance jibber jabber
-Trying to discredit a valuable source
Let's try to avoid that shall we? The last few pages had discussion about bearings. That is acceptable as a part of the Honda PU topic. I also see references to overall Honda philosophy by mentioning for instance the motogp engine. As long as specific parts are being mentioned and everything is dialed back to the PU/ICE of the Honda F1 engine, that's fine as well.
In general, if something breaks on the Honda PU, here are your options in this topic. One of these options is sarcastic and is not allowed. Can you guess it? Here it goes:
-A sole mention of the issue and under which circumstances it happened.
-Discussion which specific parts broke.
-Discussion about how to fix it
-Complaints and dissapointment and moaning to the gods why Honda is that good in failing.
According to pictures from Bahrain test Ferrari have not adopted Mercedes’ signature split-turbo design,they still have the compressor and turbine at the back of the unit.This proves that this concept is not wrong at all, and it can be exploited as successful.
I still think the main advantage of the split turbo is packaging. Not going to make any significant difference to power.
Exactly.
There has been so much hype over the split turbo being the big advantage to Mercedes - It's a packaging advantage, but other than allowing for less heat transfer from the hot side to the cold side there are no power advantages to it, and F1 engine packaging is so tight that it won't take long for heat soak of the compressor side anyway.
big bang is a silly myth if people see BB as some magic beans boosting traction in car or bike GPs
because torque variations at the crankshaft (whatever the firing intervals) are at far higher frequencies than the tyre can transmit to the road
and the transmission via its torsionally elastic joints will exactly not transmit torque variation at this frequency (about 500 power strokes/sec)
low frequency torque ripple to give imagined 'recovery time' to the tyre could be produced by some device in the transmission or by an engine 'stutter box'
but power curve varies with firing intervals for reasons to do with the flow patterns in the airbox
according to the late Prof Gordon Blair suggestions and his evidence of eg the MotoGP Ducati power curve with various firing intervals
so some firing intervals could have smoother response in throttling up or down
crucially in Moto GP, bikes now have 'slipper' clutches managing the down response
but a standard traction control managing the up response (worse than the factory teams are accustomed to)
it's said that's why they now use BB firing intervals
btw re Honda 2 strokes BB myth
actually Doohan disliked the BB as response was bad (throttling down ?) - the BB must have had a N-S-N-S crankshaft imo
Honda road V4s had a 180 deg '2 pin' crank , the related race versions of these a 0 deg '2 pin' (for greater strength/rpm imo)
people should remember all previous 2 strokes 4s had for practicality cylinder pairs firing simultaneously and kept them for 4 decades
eg Suzuki square 4s 60s-90s and Yam 60s & 80s-90s 'square Vs' & 70s inlines - nobody called them BB
and the (4 stroke) Honda NR500 had a 0 deg '2 pin' crank - but nobody called that BB
(FW17 you can check the firing intervals of all these Honda 0 deg cranks ie whether 270/450 intervals or 90/630 intervals)
btw regarding what some might see as the traction aspect of BB
c.1962 Johnny Giles rigged his Triumph scrambler to have simultaneous firing, but his Triumph boss freaked out
the unsuccesssful ? Yankee OSSA 500 twin 2 stroke several years later had simultaneous firing, later was a similar Husqvarna ? c.500/700 cc
but c.1949 Triumphs (even firing twin of course) ridden by 'Jim' Alves seemed able to beat all the single cylinder machines in 'English trials'
he attributed this to being able to go very slowly ie slower than the rest (singles)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 21 Apr 2017, 17:59, edited 6 times in total.
In the current F1 turbos the discharge valve is not the main overpressure controller, it is the MGU-H which in recharging mode slows down the turbo speed. The MGU-H should not be the most expensive or complicated, in my opinion should be electronic management, make everything work at the right time.
The MGU-H motor is very "complicated" and as a result expensive. The rotational inertia and forces that it has to control during the required acceleration and deceleration times are immense.
It's this combination of moment of inertia and acceleration that blows my mind.
Back to the most pressing matter for Honda to resolve, the combustion chamber in general, the main issue being jet instability. Without specifics it's hard to know what is being done to fix the issue short of the obvious and general answer of modifying the piston crown, and head. Naturally a change there has knock on effects and needs supporting modifications to other systems to take full advantage. Perhaps the modification needed is tiny, maybe a few tenths of a mm here and there. If I know Honda I know they have more than two versions that are currently being evaluated, one that is too heavy but works, and the current one that doesn't work as well but is lighter, and probably something in between.
If they are on the right track, then manufacturing, and testing, and dialing it in along with supporting components will probably take at least another month, probably two more, so I would say that Canada would be optimistic although do-able(with a lot of sleepless nights). Baku, or Spielberg would be nice, but likely around Silverstone for a nice bump in power.
My hope is that in Sochi they more or less have reliability under control, and maybe they have made some progress with tuning and engine settings to get a little more out of the power unit with regards to efficiency. If there is another 80-90hp lurking in this power unit, that they can at least get another 10-15 out of it, or improving fuel efficiency, perhaps with an upgraded injector.
As for the drivetrain issues, I'm hoping, but by no means expecting it to be fixed when they(McLaren) make their ratio change.
2-3 Months from the end of Feb. it should be said. Which would be Spain or Canada, personally I think they are going to rush again, but it may be wise for them to wait for Canada, then another update after the summer break. They will need to keep pace, all three other manufacturers are bringing new PUs to Canada, which may absorb/mask the gains Honda is trying to achieve.
2-3 Months from the end of Feb. it should be said. Which would be Spain or Canada, personally I think they are going to rush again, but it may be wise for them to wait for Canada, then another update after the summer break. They will need to keep pace, all three other manufacturers are bringing new PUs to Canada, which may absorb/mask the gains Honda is trying to achieve.
Cared to elaborate which parts specific they are going to update, as according to thread policy?
I neither think for the record general PU update strategy is part of the thread. However, we can extrapolate from the failing parts which ones are going to receive upgrades.
What I am going to mention next, is not something I either want to see a discussion sprout from, rather it is to end one with simply making sense: the issues Honda is dealing with are that significant they are not only going to take penalties later on, they will take a buckload of them. Therefore a careful update strategy is off the tables. Rather, they should bring a new PU with small upgrades every race until they sorted out the reliability issues. Better to take the penalty hit while they are uncompetitive anyway.
wuzak wrote:
I still think the main advantage of the split turbo is packaging. Not going to make any significant difference to power.
I thought the packaging advantage would allow you to have the ideal sized compressor. Which itself has its gains
Don't think compressor size is limited by putting it in a cradle between gearbox and engine
Ferrari have the shortest routing for air with the inter cooler sitting in the V of the engine. They have done something totally different with the intake plenum. Something clever in the way they have made it, if the accommodated the Variable lengths with it, it will be one incredible design.
PS: Somehow the Honda engine thread has become the all engine discussion thread
The variable length runner are upside-down (inverted) in my opinion. They point downward into the V of the engine. The plenum is a big box with the intercooler at the back and the runnuers draw air from he bottom.
I thought the packaging advantage would allow you to have the ideal sized compressor. Which itself has its gains
Don't think compressor size is limited by putting it in a cradle between gearbox and engine
Ferrari have the shortest routing for air with the inter cooler sitting in the V of the engine. They have done something totally different with the intake plenum. Something clever in the way they have made it, if the accommodated the Variable lengths with it, it will be one incredible design.
PS: Somehow the Honda engine thread has become the all engine discussion thread
The variable length runner are upside-down (inverted) in my opinion. They point downward into the V of the engine. The plenum is a big box with the intercooler at the back and the runnuers draw air from he bottom.
PZ lets move this to Ferrari Engine thread before it gets deleted
Feel free to continue discussing the Ferrari PU here (the ongoing discussion only). Once I get something handier than smartphone screen I'll move that discussion to the Ferrari PU thread. Just as long I'm not suddenly faced with a dozen pages when I do it this evening.
