Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Tommy Cookers]

Both a spark and an ark are capable of igniting a fuel air mix, compressed or not.

not so ?
the spark typically has by design .......
enough energy (50-100 mJ) to ignite the mix when it has been heated by compression (engine cold) and ....
not enough energy to ignite the mix when unheated ie without compression (or residual engine/exhaust heat)
yes more energetic sparks are possible by design - but this in various ways has more costs
eg an 85 kV dragster distributor has a diameter of 14" (and spark energy measured in J not mJ)
of course if there's enough compression heating no spark is needed for ignition

the compression makes the gas hot - without this it won't fire
said a breakdown mechanic when my 750 Triumph had the usual undetectable compression leak between the cylinders
but thinking now the leak left the cylinder with about 15% of the usual combustible gas ... so ...
if this fired energy might be too low to sustain running - but Lenoir gas engines ran ok though efficiency was low
https://crohmiq.com/minimum-ignition-en ... y-product/
Pavel Malonik made a replica 1910 J.A.P. V8 aero engine (run in an appropriate replica speed record motorcycle)
with 3:1 compression ratio it won't combust normal petrol (early engines used petrol more like cigarette lighter fuel)
isn't this a similar thing ?

one hundred years ago most cars (being mostly model T Fords) had untimed sparks (from trembler coils aka buzz coils)
ie a continuous stream of sparks was passed to in each cylinder in turn
sparks were (vs today's) very low power so combustion wouldn't start without compression ie towards/near TDC
timed sparks weren't necessary - or desirable (without self-starters)
(I had a Sherman tank buzz coil with my RR Meteor (Centurion tank NA Merlin) - starting at near zero cranking speed)
buzz coils were preferred by Ford as requiring only a household eg radio battery (no car dynamo, starter, or battery)
(later they added a small flywheel 'magneto' to energise the BCs - no the magneto didn't produce sparks)
it's said model As Bs even early B V8 1932 had BCs (1 coil streaming sparks to 8 cyls not 4 BCs as in 4 cyl T, A, & B)
BCs were particularly favoured as enabling catalogued use of low-grade or alcohol fuels (and use of worn engines)
(Ford made all these engines for industry, boats, and tractors etc for decades after their car application had stopped)
yes except for the T you'd have difficulty finding parts now as most would have been modernised in-period
yes there's a lot of mis-description and mistaken terminology
this is the right stuff ...
https://www.larescorp.com/toolbox/skinn ... buzz-coil/

Honda 'invented' the 4 stroke 180 deg crank parallel twin cylinder (1 piston up, 1 down) motorcycle c.1959
it had 2 ignition contact breakers at 90 deg camshaft-driven - so exactly the sparks needed (none redundant)
(btw the later and larger CB450 was somewhat related to their 1960s F1 engines)

other makers emulated this 180 deg crank(when switching to 4 strokes in the oil and pollution panic c.1975) but ....
using simple crankshaft driven ign 'pickups' at 180 deg ie redundant spark ignition systems ie seemingly ....
relying on sparking c.bdc each cylinder full of explosive gas without effect ...
then 180 deg later c.tdc sparking it to the normal effect (there were 3 redundant sparks per 1 useful spark)
(not the conventional redundancy ie 1 redundant on the exhaust stroke and so without effect)

my 250 Kawasaki (like GPZ 305) would idle on both cylinders but only run at power on one cylinder
(partial carb drying-out had blocked one main jet but neither pilot jet - I later discovered)
I swapped each plug lead over to the other plug - and the behaviour was the same - the same cylinder ran at power
doesn't this prove the above ? - these engines spark c.bdc into a cylinder of explosive mixture without exploding it
unless I'm wrong
the Suzuki GS 400 etc seems to have used the same ignition layout

yes these days spark energies are by design made to be much greater
modern or old, the conventional (4 inline cylinder) car engine has no redundant sparks
but (by suitably moving each plug lead to another plug) could be changed to have every cylinder's spark 180 deg early
(rather as the Kawasaki mentioned already)

every cylinder full of explosive gas sparking around bdc - what would happen ?

[organic]

[Farnborough]

Both a spark and an ark are capable of igniting a fuel air mix, compressed or not.

not so ?
the spark typically has by design .......
enough energy (50-100 mJ) to ignite the mix when it has been heated by compression (engine cold) and ....
not enough energy to ignite the mix when unheated ie without compression (or residual engine/exhaust heat)
yes more energetic sparks are possible by design - but this in various ways has more costs
eg an 85 kV dragster distributor has a diameter of 14" (and spark energy measured in J not mJ)
of course if there's enough compression heating no spark is needed for ignition

the compression makes the gas hot - without this it won't fire
said a breakdown mechanic when my 750 Triumph had the usual undetectable compression leak between the cylinders
but thinking now the leak left the cylinder with about 15% of the usual combustible gas ... so ...
if this fired energy might be too low to sustain running - but Lenoir gas engines ran ok though efficiency was low
https://crohmiq.com/minimum-ignition-en ... y-product/
Pavel Malonik made a replica 1910 J.A.P. V8 aero engine (run in an appropriate replica speed record motorcycle)
with 3:1 compression ratio it won't combust normal petrol (early engines used petrol more like cigarette lighter fuel)
isn't this a similar thing ?

one hundred years ago most cars (being mostly model T Fords) had untimed sparks (from trembler coils aka buzz coils)
ie a continuous stream of sparks was passed to in each cylinder in turn
sparks were (vs today's) very low power so combustion wouldn't start without compression ie towards/near TDC
timed sparks weren't necessary - or desirable (without self-starters)
(I had a Sherman tank buzz coil with my RR Meteor (Centurion tank NA Merlin) - starting at near zero cranking speed)
buzz coils were preferred by Ford as requiring only a household eg radio battery (no car dynamo, starter, or battery)
(later they added a small flywheel 'magneto' to energise the BCs - no the magneto didn't produce sparks)
it's said model As Bs even early B V8 1932 had BCs (1 coil streaming sparks to 8 cyls not 4 BCs as in 4 cyl T, A, & B)
BCs were particularly favoured as enabling catalogued use of low-grade or alcohol fuels (and use of worn engines)
(Ford made all these engines for industry, boats, and tractors etc for decades after their car application had stopped)
yes except for the T you'd have difficulty finding parts now as most would have been modernised in-period
yes there's a lot of mis-description and mistaken terminology
this is the right stuff ...
https://www.larescorp.com/toolbox/skinn ... buzz-coil/

Honda 'invented' the 4 stroke 180 deg crank parallel twin cylinder (1 piston up, 1 down) motorcycle c.1959
it had 2 ignition contact breakers at 90 deg camshaft-driven - so exactly the sparks needed (none redundant)
(btw the later and larger CB450 was somewhat related to their 1960s F1 engines)

other makers emulated this 180 deg crank(when switching to 4 strokes in the oil and pollution panic c.1975) but ....
using simple crankshaft driven ign 'pickups' at 180 deg ie redundant spark ignition systems ie seemingly ....
relying on sparking c.bdc each cylinder full of explosive gas without effect ...
then 180 deg later c.tdc sparking it to the normal effect (there were 3 redundant sparks per 1 useful spark)
(not the conventional redundancy ie 1 redundant on the exhaust stroke and so without effect)

my 250 Kawasaki (like GPZ 305) would idle on both cylinders but only run at power on one cylinder
(partial carb drying-out had blocked one main jet but neither pilot jet - I later discovered)
I swapped each plug lead over to the other plug - and the behaviour was the same - the same cylinder ran at power
doesn't this prove the above ? - these engines spark c.bdc into a cylinder of explosive mixture without exploding it
unless I'm wrong
the Suzuki GS 400 etc seems to have used the same ignition layout

yes these days spark energies are by design made to be much greater
modern or old, the conventional (4 inline cylinder) car engine has no redundant sparks
but (by suitably moving each plug lead to another plug) could be changed to have every cylinder's spark 180 deg early
(rather as the Kawasaki mentioned already)

every cylinder full of explosive gas sparking around bdc - what would happen ?

That Honda 450 has quite a following nowadays, with torsion bar valve springs and forked rocker to lift valves back up as cam lobe is withdrawn. A very interesting engine and running around 100 bhp per litre in a sixties production engine.

The second point I see the same as you, in regard to not firing uncompressed mixture. The older Honda four cylinder engine (starting with late sixties 750) and having the ignition of "wasted spark" from two sets of points at crankshaft, feeding two double ended coils for respectively cylinder 1&4 and 2&3 now have chance to use a new Boyer made electronic system that fires from two trigger, all the cylinders all of the time irrespective of relationship with top or bottom dead centre. No odd firing intervals evident from this either. They are fully electronic for "advance" as well with no mechanical a&r mechanism installed. They actually fire (mechanical setup) at full advance, and then via crankshaft rpm monitoring, retard the ignition curve for low speed running. This because they can't physically move the fire point forwards, but can delay it according to a programme internal to system that delays the fire point. So naturally set at full advance, temporarily retarded below proscribed rpm floor.
My experience suggests that with a compression check on this era engine they're starting to show symptoms of missing ignition as they get much below 90 psi, down to 75 psi and lucky to get them going at all, especially when cold combustion chamber temperature.

[chrisc90]

Does anyone know what the rumoured 2024 engine/PU improvements are?

[Wouter]

Does anyone know what the rumoured 2024 engine/PU improvements are?

.

"In terms of power and performance, we may not improve anything, but in other areas we can also make strides with this engine.
At Ferrari, for example, they have developed the engine considerably and Mercedes' ERS system is also very strong.

We will also improve our engine for next year in terms of its longevity. So there is definitely something in the pipeline,"
Watanabe informed.

Red Bull-Honda relationship

Honda, meanwhile, has been Red Bull's engine supplier for several years, but that period is coming to an end. From 2026, the Japanese will join forces with Aston Martin, where Red Bull will develop its own engine with partner Ford. So only in 2024 and 2025 will Honda and Verstappen's team continue to work together.

That collaboration is going well, despite the relationship coming to an end. "Red Bull doesn't tell us anything about their engine, and we don't tell them anything about our development either. So there is already a kind of information war going on at the moment. At Red Bull, they do have some knowledge about our current engine, but ultimately we are responsible for the development and the whole process. Most of the knowledge is with us," Watanabe explained.

[SirBastianVettel]

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

I don't know where I should to write or ask,but I want to understand something.
Red Bull Powertrains currently works alongside Honda on the engines and will continue to do so trackside until the end of the 2025 season when the next generation of engines will be introduced. As I know Redbull doesn't craft their own engine and Honda still making it in Japan and they get the engine from Japan. From 2026 they will continue with Ford. So who will design, creat,craft the 2026 engine? I don't think Redbull Powertrains can make an engine from zero. I mean from zero, because they can't use Honda engine blueprints,they can't just copy it,because is would be illegal or intellectual property theft etcetera. And is just the engine, bunch of other parts they have to design, craft, make it work and develop.

[Wouter]

I don't know where I should to write or ask,but I want to understand something.
Red Bull Powertrains currently works alongside Honda on the engines and will continue to do so trackside until the end of the 2025 season when the next generation of engines will be introduced. As I know Redbull doesn't craft their own engine and Honda still making it in Japan and they get the engine from Japan. From 2026 they will continue with Ford.

So who will design, creat,craft the 2026 engine? I don't think Redbull Powertrains can make an engine from zero.

I mean from zero, because they can't use Honda engine blueprints,they can't just copy it,because is would be illegal or intellectual property theft etcetera. And is just the engine, bunch of other parts they have to design, craft, make it work and develop.

.
Red Bull Powertrains will design, develop and manufacture/produce the 2026 PU.
RBPT has recruited a large number of PU engineers from various manufacturers who have been developing PUs for years.
So there is a lot of knowledge available.

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

I don't know where I should to write or ask,but I want to understand something.
Red Bull Powertrains currently works alongside Honda on the engines and will continue to do so trackside until the end of the 2025 season when the next generation of engines will be introduced. As I know Redbull doesn't craft their own engine and Honda still making it in Japan and they get the engine from Japan. From 2026 they will continue with Ford.

So who will design, creat,craft the 2026 engine? I don't think Redbull Powertrains can make an engine from zero.

I mean from zero, because they can't use Honda engine blueprints,they can't just copy it,because is would be illegal or intellectual property theft etcetera. And is just the engine, bunch of other parts they have to design, craft, make it work and develop.

.
Red Bull Powertrains will design, develop and manufacture/produce the 2026 PU.
RBPT has recruited a large number of PU engineers from various manufacturers who have been developing PUs for years.
So there is a lot of knowledge available.

I have no doubt about they knowledgeable. But they Still get the engine from Japan,so 9s mean they didn't even manufactured a engine block or parts at F1 level right? Like example, look at Honda they one of the best engine manufacturers in the history and even they was struggling for years to creat an engine. How I know they failed, because by FIA and other teams permit some Mercedes engineers helped to them with the engine and just after they could working on power.It made to much resonance,vibration and was problem with turbo also. Look at Renault last year or Ferrari engine exploding.
I would be very very surprised if at first time from nothing they make a working,powerful and most important reliable engine and other bunch of stuff.

[AR3-GP]

I don't know where I should to write or ask,but I want to understand something.
Red Bull Powertrains currently works alongside Honda on the engines and will continue to do so trackside until the end of the 2025 season when the next generation of engines will be introduced. As I know Redbull doesn't craft their own engine and Honda still making it in Japan and they get the engine from Japan. From 2026 they will continue with Ford.

So who will design, creat,craft the 2026 engine? I don't think Redbull Powertrains can make an engine from zero.

I mean from zero, because they can't use Honda engine blueprints,they can't just copy it,because is would be illegal or intellectual property theft etcetera. And is just the engine, bunch of other parts they have to design, craft, make it work and develop.

.
Red Bull Powertrains will design, develop and manufacture/produce the 2026 PU.
RBPT has recruited a large number of PU engineers from various manufacturers who have been developing PUs for years.
So there is a lot of knowledge available.

I have no doubt about they knowledgeable. But they Still get the engine from Japan,so 9s mean they didn't even manufactured a engine block or parts at F1 level right? Like example, look at Honda they one of the best engine manufacturers in the history and even they was struggling for years to creat an engine. How I know they failed, because by FIA and other teams permit some Mercedes engineers helped to them with the engine and just after they could working on power.It made to much resonance,vibration and was problem with turbo also. Look at Renault last year or Ferrari engine exploding.
I would be very very surprised if at first time from nothing they make a working,powerful and most important reliable engine and other bunch of stuff.

When Honda entered F1, they did it the Honda way which meant it was a japanese in-house project in full. Those people did not have experience building F1 engines so it took some time.

RB went a different way. They hired the people making the engines at Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, and Honda. It has been reported that RBPT already has a full working power unit on a bench since August (?).

[Alexf1]

Does anyone know what the rumoured 2024 engine/PU improvements are?

.

"In terms of power and performance, we may not improve anything, but in other areas we can also make strides with this engine.
At Ferrari, for example, they have developed the engine considerably and Mercedes' ERS system is also very strong.

We will also improve our engine for next year in terms of its longevity. So there is definitely something in the pipeline,"
Watanabe informed.

Red Bull-Honda relationship

Honda, meanwhile, has been Red Bull's engine supplier for several years, but that period is coming to an end. From 2026, the Japanese will join forces with Aston Martin, where Red Bull will develop its own engine with partner Ford. So only in 2024 and 2025 will Honda and Verstappen's team continue to work together.

That collaboration is going well, despite the relationship coming to an end. "Red Bull doesn't tell us anything about their engine, and we don't tell them anything about our development either. So there is already a kind of information war going on at the moment. At Red Bull, they do have some knowledge about our current engine, but ultimately we are responsible for the development and the whole process. Most of the knowledge is with us," Watanabe explained.

So much for the need for a longevity engine: https://www.racefans.net/2024/02/05/cha ... ts-agreed/

Hope they can up the power now that the engine only has to do 6 races.

[AR3-GP]

Does anyone know what the rumoured 2024 engine/PU improvements are?

.

"In terms of power and performance, we may not improve anything, but in other areas we can also make strides with this engine.
At Ferrari, for example, they have developed the engine considerably and Mercedes' ERS system is also very strong.

We will also improve our engine for next year in terms of its longevity. So there is definitely something in the pipeline,"
Watanabe informed.

Red Bull-Honda relationship

Honda, meanwhile, has been Red Bull's engine supplier for several years, but that period is coming to an end. From 2026, the Japanese will join forces with Aston Martin, where Red Bull will develop its own engine with partner Ford. So only in 2024 and 2025 will Honda and Verstappen's team continue to work together.

That collaboration is going well, despite the relationship coming to an end. "Red Bull doesn't tell us anything about their engine, and we don't tell them anything about our development either. So there is already a kind of information war going on at the moment. At Red Bull, they do have some knowledge about our current engine, but ultimately we are responsible for the development and the whole process. Most of the knowledge is with us," Watanabe explained.

So much for the need for a longevity engine: https://www.racefans.net/2024/02/05/cha ... ts-agreed/

Hope they can up the power now that the engine only has to do 6 races.

FIA wants to help Ferrari and Renault.

[Zynerji]

.

So much for the need for a longevity engine: https://www.racefans.net/2024/02/05/cha ... ts-agreed/

Hope they can up the power now that the engine only has to do 6 races.

FIA wants to help Ferrari and Renault.

They could have gone back to the 2 weekend per engine rule. I believe the teams blow up more than that on the dyno, so better to just put them in the cars and run them all strung out.

[Big Tea]

So much for the need for a longevity engine: https://www.racefans.net/2024/02/05/cha ... ts-agreed/

Hope they can up the power now that the engine only has to do 6 races.

FIA wants to help Ferrari and Renault.

They could have gone back to the 2 weekend per engine rule. I believe the teams blow up more than that on the dyno, so better to just put them in the cars and run them all strung out.

Yeh, they really need to go back to the drawing board with this rule and decide what the object of it is.

As it is now, cost saving is missing the mark by a light year. They are destroying more engines in tests to ensure they are up to it than they would use putting a freah one in each weekend.

Are they working to limit cost, improve longlivity to transfer to road cars, which the now expect to be electric anyway, or just to mix up the starting grid?

Same with "exotic materials". I understand not allowing nasty materials to be used, but if something costs twice as much and lasts five times as long, or adds 5% to fuel economy or service life, which is the cost saving path?

[Zynerji]

FIA wants to help Ferrari and Renault.

They could have gone back to the 2 weekend per engine rule. I believe the teams blow up more than that on the dyno, so better to just put them in the cars and run them all strung out.

Yeh, they really need to go back to the drawing board with this rule and decide what the object of it is.

As it is now, cost saving is missing the mark by a light year. They are destroying more engines in tests to ensure they are up to it than they would use putting a freah one in each weekend.

Are they working to limit cost, improve longlivity to transfer to road cars, which the now expect to be electric anyway, or just to mix up the starting grid?

Same with "exotic materials". I understand not allowing nasty materials to be used, but if something costs twice as much and lasts five times as long, or adds 5% to fuel economy or service life, which is the cost saving path?

I mean, just giving them 5, but allow rebuilds would go a long way.