Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[tuj]

AFAIK, Honda is the only engine config running the K at the front. Perhaps I phrased myself wrong, it may be big enough, but it is not dissipating or getting enough cooling; I believe this is what is limiting Honda. It is a fundamental flaw in packaging, not unlike what we saw with RB/Renault in 2014 pre-season.

The assumption was that the Japanese company would follow Mercedes’ ultra-successful approach of positioning the compressor (highlighted in blue) and turbine (highlighted in red) at either ends of the internal combustion engine with the MGU-H (upper green component) in the middle.

The big advantage of this layout, as opposed to the approach used by Renault and Ferrari - who chose to put the compressor and turbine next to each other and the MGU-H at the rear of the engine - was that it reduced the unit’s cooling requirement whilst improving overall efficiency.

Honda, however, have chosen to follow a different approach to all three manufacturers, positioning the MGU-H between the compressor and turbine at the rear of the engine, and the MGU-K at the front. Whether this unique solution proves to be an ace up McLaren’s sleeve, or indeed something of a hindrance, remains to be seen.

[bergie88]

Quoted from the same artical

the distance at full throttle is estimated by telemetry Wintax for 65% of the lap.

31.3/0.65 = 48.2 kW of MGU-H recovery power, which equals 48.2/~650 =~ 7.4% engine power recovery. To me this seems low, so the energy recovered by the MGU-H during one lap can be (much) higher. This also indicates the difference between MGU-K regeneration and MGU-H recovery, the MGU-H is far more important.

[drunkf1fan]

Honda's MGU-K is either too small or too tightly packaged. Simple as that. I cannot believe they would have made that mistake after having seen Merc's.

How does that make any sense? The regulations limit it to 120 kW so why would you purposely make it too small?

I somewhat assumed he meant mgu-h but would still be issues with the mgu-k. If you have packed it too tightly and it heats up too much causing failure then you would probably increase brake pad size and reduce harvesting to keep the mgu-k temps down when harvesting power. It's not necessarily the size or the power output the mgu-k is capable of but the package it's in, how well it can dump heat and as a result how reliable it is.

One team can put a tiny package around it to fit it in a small space but find it overheats. Another makes the package bigger with a better heatsink with more transfer area for liquid cooling but takes up more space.

I do think the mgu-k is susceptible to these things but maybe to a lesser degree than the mgu-h. It wouldn't surprise me if Mclaren have screwed both up a little but I would still guess their biggest power loss is from the mgu-h.

Those number above suggesting 1MJ for the mgu-k and 3 for the mgu-h. Is that plausible? I've always wanted to know how much the mgu-h is worth in power per lap but ultimately most people usually suggest it's worth less than brake harvesting.

[bergie88]

Honda's MGU-K is either too small or too tightly packaged. Simple as that. I cannot believe they would have made that mistake after having seen Merc's.

How does that make any sense? The regulations limit it to 120 kW so why would you purposely make it too small?

I somewhat assumed he meant mgu-h but would still be issues with the mgu-k. If you have packed it too tightly and it heats up too much causing failure then you would probably increase brake pad size and reduce harvesting to keep the mgu-k temps down when harvesting power. It's not necessarily the size or the power output the mgu-k is capable of but the package it's in, how well it can dump heat and as a result how reliable it is.

One team can put a tiny package around it to fit it in a small space but find it overheats. Another makes the package bigger with a better heatsink with more transfer area for liquid cooling but takes up more space.

I do think the mgu-k is susceptible to these things but maybe to a lesser degree than the mgu-h. It wouldn't surprise me if Mclaren have screwed both up a little but I would still guess their biggest power loss is from the mgu-h.

Those number above suggesting 1MJ for the mgu-k and 3 for the mgu-h. Is that plausible? I've always wanted to know how much the mgu-h is worth in power per lap but ultimately most people usually suggest it's worth less than brake harvesting.

Check my post just before yours, MGU-H recovery is worth much more than brake harvesting...

[mrluke]

Those number above suggesting 1MJ for the mgu-k and 3 for the mgu-h. Is that plausible? I've always wanted to know how much the mgu-h is worth in power per lap but ultimately most people usually suggest it's worth less than brake harvesting.

If brake harvesting was allowed on the front wheels and was not limited to 120kw by regulation then what you say would likely be true.

[drunkf1fan]

IT was more of a, no one seem to know, Sky/pundits/commentators never mention how much energy they are harvesting but then they don't even like talking about how much power they can have. I don't think I've ever seen them clarify the ERS system beyond 2MJ max harvest to the battery and 4MJ max output. I've never heard any of them say mgu-h harvesting is unlimited. Part of the 'treat the fans like morons" campaign Sky/FIA appear to be on, boil everything down to as simple as possible believing anything remotely more technical will upset the fans somehow.

Without any direct knowledge whenever people ask or talk about it most people just seem to say the mgu-h harvesting probably barely makes a difference. I was never convinced this was true but I also didn't realise how big the disparity between the systems would be.

From Merc's performance last year and this year, where Ferrari made the most changes in the engine and their performance improvements as a result the only thing that ever made sense to me was mgu-h harvested at least as much if not noticeably more than the mgu-k. The logical part of my brain is happy to finally see some official numbers on it.

It only reinforces my thinking that Honda/Mclaren won't move forward till they basically design an engine to maximise mgu-h harvesting, which like Ferrari means shelving any ideas of ultra compact mgu-h/turbos stuck in the v of the engine.

Ferrari I think were well on their way to the 2015 engine by this point last season though. They figured this out after testing last year, maybe the first race at worse. Honda/Mclaren publicly at least are saying this design can work still, could just be publicly though.

[Cold Fussion]

It's fairly safe to ignore everything the sky pundits say in regards to technical matters.

[diffuser]

AFAIK, Honda is the only engine config running the K at the front. Perhaps I phrased myself wrong, it may be big enough, but it is not dissipating or getting enough cooling; I believe this is what is limiting Honda. It is a fundamental flaw in packaging, not unlike what we saw with RB/Renault in 2014 pre-season.

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... medium.jpg

The assumption was that the Japanese company would follow Mercedes’ ultra-successful approach of positioning the compressor (highlighted in blue) and turbine (highlighted in red) at either ends of the internal combustion engine with the MGU-H (upper green component) in the middle.

The big advantage of this layout, as opposed to the approach used by Renault and Ferrari - who chose to put the compressor and turbine next to each other and the MGU-H at the rear of the engine - was that it reduced the unit’s cooling requirement whilst improving overall efficiency.

Honda, however, have chosen to follow a different approach to all three manufacturers, positioning the MGU-H between the compressor and turbine at the rear of the engine, and the MGU-K at the front. Whether this unique solution proves to be an ace up McLaren’s sleeve, or indeed something of a hindrance, remains to be seen.

Nothing that image is depicting for the Honda PU is correct.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 82#p593382

[Tommy Cookers]

Quoted from the same artical
the distance at full throttle is estimated by telemetry Wintax for 65% of the lap.

31.3/0.65 = 48.2 kW of MGU-H recovery power, which equals 48.2/~650 =~ 7.4% engine power recovery. To me this seems low, so the energy recovered by the MGU-H during one lap can be (much) higher. This also indicates the difference between MGU-K regeneration and MGU-H recovery, the MGU-H is far more important.

bergie - you have confused your kW with your (650) hp ??

presumably the MGU-H recovery is what's left (for mu-k action) after deducting the ES energy used for mu-h action ie spoolup
the distance at full throttle (if that's what is meant) does not mean the time at full throttle
ie the time at full throttle is presumably less % than the 65 % (distance %)
if the % time at full throttle is, say, 55 the full throttle power is 31.3/0.55 = 56.9 kW
the crankshaft power is 650 bhp or PS = 485 kW
the exhaust recovery is an 11.7 % supplement to the crankshaft power

also maybe think eg pulling through a sequence of bends the rpm is intentionally quite low but the accelerator full down or nearly
ie crankshaft power is intentionally less than 650 hp/485 kW but demand % is what we might loosely regard as 'full throttle'
at lower than full rpm the throttle plates need not be 100% open for the engine to behave as if 'full throttle'
so as a % of average 'foot down' crankshaft hp the mgu-h recovery power is maybe higher than the above 11.7 % ??
another maybe, maybe this sort of use can be discounted as its distance % and time % relationship are not so different as above ??

[Tommy Cookers]

.....Higher boost pressure does not have a turbine recovery cost. If the exhaust back pressure is increased by the same amount, the turbine power will increase by roughly the same as the compressor power ie no change in recovery. This is for compressor and turbine efficiencies of 80%. At higher efficiencies the recovery will improve with an increase in boost and BP. This also assumes intercooling to ambient. At higher CAT the turbine recovery will improve. Thermal loading of the combustion chamber will not increase due to the additional surplus air offsetting the higher CAT.

in your examples the compressor work doubles going from 2.5 to 3.3 PR
so, for a given CAT, the charge cooling requirement (heatflow) doubles

yes, the gas temperature during the compression stroke will rise equally for both PRs
yes, during combustion the temperature will rise less with the higher PR
so a somewhat higher CAT seems possible with the higher PR
but surely the charge cooling requirement remains much greater ?
of course, because of the small temperature differences, the charge cooler is relatively much bulkier than other coolers

[bergie88]

Quoted from the same artical
the distance at full throttle is estimated by telemetry Wintax for 65% of the lap.

31.3/0.65 = 48.2 kW of MGU-H recovery power, which equals 48.2/~650 =~ 7.4% engine power recovery. To me this seems low, so the energy recovered by the MGU-H during one lap can be (much) higher. This also indicates the difference between MGU-K regeneration and MGU-H recovery, the MGU-H is far more important.

presumably the MGU-H recovery is what's left (for mu-k action) after deducting the ES energy used for mu-h action ie spoolup
the distance at full throttle (if that's what is meant) does not mean the time at full throttle
ie the time at full throttle is presumably less % than the 65 % (distance %)
so as a % of the full crankshaft power the mgu-h recovery power is higher than the above 7.4% ..... maybe 9% ?

also maybe think eg pulling through a sequence of bends the rpm is intentionally quite low but the accelerator full down or nearly
ie crankshaft power is less than 650 but demand % is what we might loosely regard as 'full throttle'
at lower than full rpm the throttle plates need not be 100% open for the engine to behave as if 'full throttle'
so as a % of average 'foot down' crankshaft hp the mgu-h recovery power is higher than the above 9% ??

You are right, 65% full throttle does not mean 65% of the time full MGU-H recovery due to both reasons you mentioned. Maybe it is more like 40-50% which implies around 12% MGU-H recovery.

[Albrodpul]

via @ferran_figufer

[Sasha]

via @ferran_figufer

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COEH5t5WUAAZPdl.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COEH5uBWgAArD9t.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COEH5uMWEAEDLta.jpg:large

Finally picture proof of split turbo.

[PlatinumZealot]

AFAIK, Honda is the only engine config running the K at the front. Perhaps I phrased myself wrong, it may be big enough, but it is not dissipating or getting enough cooling; I believe this is what is limiting Honda. It is a fundamental flaw in packaging, not unlike what we saw with RB/Renault in 2014 pre-season.

http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... medium.jpg

The assumption was that the Japanese company would follow Mercedes’ ultra-successful approach of positioning the compressor (highlighted in blue) and turbine (highlighted in red) at either ends of the internal combustion engine with the MGU-H (upper green component) in the middle.

The big advantage of this layout, as opposed to the approach used by Renault and Ferrari - who chose to put the compressor and turbine next to each other and the MGU-H at the rear of the engine - was that it reduced the unit’s cooling requirement whilst improving overall efficiency.

Honda, however, have chosen to follow a different approach to all three manufacturers, positioning the MGU-H between the compressor and turbine at the rear of the engine, and the MGU-K at the front. Whether this unique solution proves to be an ace up McLaren’s sleeve, or indeed something of a hindrance, remains to be seen.

Your diagram is very, very dated...

[bergie88]

via @ferran_figufer

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COEH5t5WUAAZPdl.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COEH5uBWgAArD9t.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COEH5uMWEAEDLta.jpg:large

Finally picture proof of split turbo.

Are the golden pipes of the first picture the boost pipes to and from the intercooler? If so, then the compressor is indeed at the front and the turbine at the back of the engine. MGU-K seems to be positioned under/besides of the engine, as by the other teams. MGU-H in the V of the engine?