Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Tommy Cookers]

But, if I understood you correctly,that means saturdays must be faced in a very different manner in terms of PU management. The same engine must be able to maximise harvesting in warm up lap and then potentially go crazy during qualy lap.

afaik they pre-charge the ES by including driving with the ICE working against the mgu-k acting as a generator
then qually lap with the compressor driven essentially by the mgu-h acting as a motor and the wastegate open (dropping exhaust pressure to ambient)
artificially maximising the ICE power (and PU power as mgu-k motor action is also maximal) in an unsustainable way
I guess you knew this

fwiw I still wonder for qually, do they use slightly less leaning/boost (track-specifically ?) to manage compressor lap-energy demand ?
presumably they under-cool the ICE during the Q lap to retain efficiency, and do some ICE driving of gu-k action at partial power

[PlatinumZealot]

It's strange, when an air fuel mixture is ignited, the reaction actually loses some mass, which is converted to energy. So this reduced mass is creating energy by increasing its volume. Kind of counter productive don't you think? Makes having a turbo all the more sense when you think of it like that. What better way to compensate for the lost mass than by adding more mass?

Do not twist it too much. The reaction loses reactants. From a classical physics or engineering point of view no mass is lost in the control volume. The energy comes from chemical bonds in the hydrocarbon. Not nuclear mass loss as you are suggesting.

[kasio]

It's strange, when an air fuel mixture is ignited, the reaction actually loses some mass, which is converted to energy. So this reduced mass is creating energy by increasing its volume. Kind of counter productive don't you think? Makes having a turbo all the more sense when you think of it like that. What better way to compensate for the lost mass than by adding more mass?

Do not twist it too much. The reaction loses reactants. From a classical physics or engineering point of view no mass is lost in the control volume. The energy comes from chemical bonds in the hydrocarbon. Not nuclear mass loss as you are suggesting.

IMHO change of weight is due to micro particles which are emitted in nuclear deacy. (nuclear reaction). so in general mass of products is still same as mass or reagents.

[godlameroso]

It's strange, when an air fuel mixture is ignited, the reaction actually loses some mass, which is converted to energy. So this reduced mass is creating energy by increasing its volume. Kind of counter productive don't you think? Makes having a turbo all the more sense when you think of it like that. What better way to compensate for the lost mass than by adding more mass?

Do not twist it too much. The reaction loses reactants. From a classical physics or engineering point of view no mass is lost in the control volume. The energy comes from chemical bonds in the hydrocarbon. Not nuclear mass loss as you are suggesting.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms. I didn't mean mass is lost in the nuclear sense of the word, rather that it's lost in the dispersal of the reactants in a non homogeneous matter(carbon, soot, NOx etc etc). Much like a wood fire leaves ash that is much lighter than the wood that supported said combustion.

[KingHamilton01]

I am curious to know how different could the engine be that Honda bring to next week's test? I haven't seen any articles to back it up but people have mentioned power unit that comes next week will have more power.

[makecry]

I am curious to know how different could the engine be that Honda bring to next week's test? I haven't seen any articles to back it up but people have mentioned power unit that comes next week will have more power.

Hasegawa himself said they are bringing race spec PU next week. It's safe to assume it will have more power. IIRC I think Eric B or Hasegawa confirmed that.

[godlameroso]

Was there any mention as to the cause of Tuesday's power unit snafu?

[KingHamilton01]

Was there any mention as to the cause of Tuesday's power unit snafu?

They still haven't found the cause, investigating that and oil tank issue! they said they would decide if oil tank need's a complete re-design but that sounds to me like a lengthy process not something they can bring to next week's test.

[roon]

Could it be that the oil tank is only a cover story? What if this is related to oil-consumption? As RB have recently accused Merc of doing.

Alonso had to keep "watching his oil pressure" but maybe this had more to do with fine tuning their oil consumption devices & modes of operation. Since all this could be an open secret amongst the teams, perhaps accusations & subtled signalling of clues is intended to initiate a technical directive. As has happened with the suspensions recently.

So Honda will be driving slower than normal while validating this oil burning system, and then say, "oh, we're just having a bit of trouble with our 'oil tank,' woops. He he." But in reality the other teams know exactly what they're referencing.

And if this is happening, maybe the teams wouldn't mind to see the system banned or regulated if it means they don't have to spend time & money developing the technology. Which would be a similar reason for banning trick heave-springs.

[makecry]

Could it be that the oil tank is only a cover story? What if this is related to oil-consumption? As RB have recently accused Merc of doing.

Alonso had to keep "watching his oil pressure" but maybe this had more to do with fine tuning their oil consumption devices & modes of operation. Since all this could be an open secret amongst the teams, perhaps accusations & subtled signalling of clues is intended to initiate a technical directive. As has happened with the suspensions recently.

So Honda will be driving slower than normal while validating this oil burning system, and then say, "oh, we're just having a bit of trouble with our 'oil tank,' woops. He he." But in reality the other teams know exactly what they're referencing.

And if this is happening, maybe the teams wouldn't mind to see the system banned or regulated if it means they don't have to spend time & money developing the technology. Which would be a similar reason for banning trick heave-springs.

IDK about it. It's too much tinfoil for me. If they just wanted to do that, they wouldn't have wasted 2 valuable days. You know they could just have said we are having issues with oil tank so we have to drive slow and kept on doing their thing .

[Sonador]

Could it be that the oil tank is only a cover story? What if this is related to oil-consumption? As RB have recently accused Merc of doing.

Alonso had to keep "watching his oil pressure" but maybe this had more to do with fine tuning their oil consumption devices & modes of operation. Since all this could be an open secret amongst the teams, perhaps accusations & subtled signalling of clues is intended to initiate a technical directive. As has happened with the suspensions recently.

So Honda will be driving slower than normal while validating this oil burning system, and then say, "oh, we're just having a bit of trouble with our 'oil tank,' woops. He he." But in reality the other teams know exactly what they're referencing.

And if this is happening, maybe the teams wouldn't mind to see the system banned or regulated if it means they don't have to spend time & money developing the technology. Which would be a similar reason for banning trick heave-springs.

I dont think that is very logical.

Why would you consume oil that also lubricates the engine?
If you want to add oil to the combustion, just put a completly seperate system in, with its own oil tank ala methanol injection. Or mix it with the fuel directly ...

[SameSame]

Would that mean less recovery?
It os perhaps a stupid question, but I thought lean combustion was rich in gasses and subsequently, good for turbine harvesting.

The more efficient the combustion process is the less energy the exhaust gasses will have if I understand it correctly. More of the total energy is given to the ICE leaving less energy in the exhaust flow to be harvested.
Edit: I think Hasagawa said that one of the challenges of improving the ICE efficiency was that less exhaust energy was available and that this would require a turbine redesign.

afaik (as I like to say from time to time) ........
combustion efficiency is about 95% in all engines (unless they are using rich mixture)
the issue is eg in normal engines that the mixture cannot be very lean without combustion efficiency falling below eg 95%

Mahle claims better combustion not more efficient combustion
they mean that they can go very lean without the combustion efficiency falling below eg 95%

going very lean means our F1 fixed fuel rate/heat rate is diluted by the extra air in the cylinder
there's more mass of gas so its temperature is lower so less heat energy needs to be taken by the coolant
less heat taken means more heat energy left in the cylinder to work on the large mass of gas, so producing more crankshaft power

higher boost is needed to provide the greater mass of air to make the mixture very lean
so exhaust pressure is higher (and there's greater mass), creating more power at the turbine (despite the gas being less hot)
but of course more compressor power is taken
ie there is no gain in recovery

the big question is how much heat dilution/leaning is being used
ie broadly, how much boost is being used

imo
the heat dilution engine is an engine further downsized (beyond turbo downsizing) in heat loss to coolant terms
but because of eg the higher gas pressure throughout compression, not further downsized in friction terms

Thank you for a very logical explanation.

Why does Hasagawa so often say that introducing a better combustion concept reduces harvesting?

[godlameroso]

Could it be that the oil tank is only a cover story? What if this is related to oil-consumption? As RB have recently accused Merc of doing.

Alonso had to keep "watching his oil pressure" but maybe this had more to do with fine tuning their oil consumption devices & modes of operation. Since all this could be an open secret amongst the teams, perhaps accusations & subtled signalling of clues is intended to initiate a technical directive. As has happened with the suspensions recently.

So Honda will be driving slower than normal while validating this oil burning system, and then say, "oh, we're just having a bit of trouble with our 'oil tank,' woops. He he." But in reality the other teams know exactly what they're referencing.

And if this is happening, maybe the teams wouldn't mind to see the system banned or regulated if it means they don't have to spend time & money developing the technology. Which would be a similar reason for banning trick heave-springs.

I dont think that is very logical.

Why would you consume oil that also lubricates the engine?
If you want to add oil to the combustion, just put a completly seperate system in, with its own oil tank ala methanol injection. Or mix it with the fuel directly ...

Hard to do when space is at a premium.

[GhostF1]

The more efficient the combustion process is the less energy the exhaust gasses will have if I understand it correctly. More of the total energy is given to the ICE leaving less energy in the exhaust flow to be harvested.
Edit: I think Hasagawa said that one of the challenges of improving the ICE efficiency was that less exhaust energy was available and that this would require a turbine redesign.

afaik (as I like to say from time to time) ........
combustion efficiency is about 95% in all engines (unless they are using rich mixture)
the issue is eg in normal engines that the mixture cannot be very lean without combustion efficiency falling below eg 95%

Mahle claims better combustion not more efficient combustion
they mean that they can go very lean without the combustion efficiency falling below eg 95%

going very lean means our F1 fixed fuel rate/heat rate is diluted by the extra air in the cylinder
there's more mass of gas so its temperature is lower so less heat energy needs to be taken by the coolant
less heat taken means more heat energy left in the cylinder to work on the large mass of gas, so producing more crankshaft power

higher boost is needed to provide the greater mass of air to make the mixture very lean
so exhaust pressure is higher (and there's greater mass), creating more power at the turbine (despite the gas being less hot)
but of course more compressor power is taken
ie there is no gain in recovery

the big question is how much heat dilution/leaning is being used
ie broadly, how much boost is being used

imo
the heat dilution engine is an engine further downsized (beyond turbo downsizing) in heat loss to coolant terms
but because of eg the higher gas pressure throughout compression, not further downsized in friction terms

Thank you for a very logical explanation.

Why does Hasagawa so often say that introducing a better combustion concept reduces harvesting?

In very basic terms. The turbo is driven by waste energy from combustion. But if the engine has become extremely efficient and harnasses more of that energy, there is less "waste" available to drive the turbo and therefore the MGU-H in which it is attached. So Honda are now forced to be clever and find other areas to claw more energy back to drive the turbo/MGU-H (Merc's Vortex Exhaust being one solution).

At least that's my understanding of it.

[SameSame]

afaik (as I like to say from time to time) ........
combustion efficiency is about 95% in all engines (unless they are using rich mixture)
the issue is eg in normal engines that the mixture cannot be very lean without combustion efficiency falling below eg 95%

Mahle claims better combustion not more efficient combustion
they mean that they can go very lean without the combustion efficiency falling below eg 95%

going very lean means our F1 fixed fuel rate/heat rate is diluted by the extra air in the cylinder
there's more mass of gas so its temperature is lower so less heat energy needs to be taken by the coolant
less heat taken means more heat energy left in the cylinder to work on the large mass of gas, so producing more crankshaft power

higher boost is needed to provide the greater mass of air to make the mixture very lean
so exhaust pressure is higher (and there's greater mass), creating more power at the turbine (despite the gas being less hot)
but of course more compressor power is taken
ie there is no gain in recovery

the big question is how much heat dilution/leaning is being used
ie broadly, how much boost is being used

imo
the heat dilution engine is an engine further downsized (beyond turbo downsizing) in heat loss to coolant terms
but because of eg the higher gas pressure throughout compression, not further downsized in friction terms

Thank you for a very logical explanation.

Why does Hasagawa so often say that introducing a better combustion concept reduces harvesting?

In very basic terms. The turbo is driven by waste energy from combustion. But if the engine has become extremely efficient and harnasses more of that energy, there is less "waste" available to drive the turbo and therefore the MGU-H in which it is attached. So Honda are now forced to be clever and find other areas to claw more energy back to drive the turbo/MGU-H (Merc's Vortex Exhaust being one solution).

At least that's my understanding of it.

From what I understand of what Tommy Cookers said; the combustion efficiency is the same (TJI needed to keep the combustion efficiency the same) it is more the heat dilution that changes (less waste heat to coolant, what about sensible heat though?). And more turbine power is available due to higher mass flow rate of mixture but more compressor power needed to achieve lean mixture so net effect is zero?