Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

Something tells me they haven't implemented the revised MGU-H. I mentioned this in the team chat, but Crofty made some comment that made me feel a little uneasy. That if they were to use the new style MGU-H Alonso tested in practice they would have to take further penalties here, but they aren't. Again, he probably conveyed that incorrectly and he isn't really a reliable source of information regarding PU's...

[SameSame]

Are they not two sides to the same coin?

More power gives you more fuel efficiency because you are not using any more fuel but you are going faster.

That's only one option.
You could also lower fuel consumption while keeping power output about the same.
Doesn't help that much with one lap, but can be very good for race distance as you can run the higher power modes for a longer time.

I genuinely don't understand how this works.

I can only think of two ways to reduce power.

1. Run a lower fuel rate than is allowed.

2. Run the allowed fuel rate with lower efficiency.

What am I missing?

That's just ICE efficiency. Improved MGU-H harvesting will results in race efficiency gains and not much difference in qualifying.

[rgava]

Something tells me they haven't implemented the revised MGU-H. I mentioned this in the team chat, but Crofty made some comment that made me feel a little uneasy. That if they were to use the new style MGU-H Alonso tested in practice they would have to take further penalties here, but they aren't. Again, he probably conveyed that incorrectly and he isn't really a reliable source of information regarding PU's...

I Think it refers to Yusuke Hasegawa comments after quali:

"Unfortunately, after yesterday's FP2 session, we detected an issue with Fernando's MGU-H and it was necessary to change his PU back to the Spec Two to avoid penalties."
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/199 ... grand-prix

[hurril]

Are they not two sides to the same coin?

More power gives you more fuel efficiency because you are not using any more fuel but you are going faster.

That's only one option.
You could also lower fuel consumption while keeping power output about the same.
Doesn't help that much with one lap, but can be very good for race distance as you can run the higher power modes for a longer time.

I genuinely don't understand how this works.

I can only think of two ways to reduce power.

1. Run a lower fuel rate than is allowed.

2. Run the allowed fuel rate with lower efficiency.

What am I missing?

Nothing. There's a bit of involuntary bate-and-switch going on with the word power here (in a sense.) You can draw a graph with power on the Y-axis and fuel rate on the X-axis. Being able to increase the power output anywhere along that graph means that you get, if you pardon my pun, more bang for the buck. It is when people ask about how many Hp this or that update gave that we, for some `we´, get confused: what if Hasegawa managed to cultivate some 10-20Hp more at 85% of the permitted fuel rate? That means that when they're in race mode, they will be able to run more efficiently despite not having an engine that is more powerful up top.

Adding more power at 100% flow rate is of course also very very important as they, I can imagine, will utilise that even during fuel saving to kick off acceleration on some sections of any given track.

[HPD]

Why does Honda Power Unit MGU - H and Turbo break?
"I'd like to say unexpected trouble, but now MGU-H is not in a situation where reliability is perfect ... ...."

Hasegawa, general manager, said, "The countermeasure itself is on the bench and we are confirmed that the effect is coming out, but when running on the circuit, various things will happen,"

The problem in Bahrain and Monaco was a bearing. "The bearing's toughness was not enough" (general manager Hasegawa), Honda has introduced specifications that increased the durability in the situation of rotation speed and temperature from the Azerbaijan GP.

However, the problem occurred again. What is going on?
"What you are surely certain that when oil, water or mist enters the turbo, it will be a bad situation," explains Hasegawa. What do you mean.

"In the case of a racing engine, oil is always blown if it is too much, and in that situation (in the turbo) it will get in. In the bench test there will not be situations where you put too much and blow, In that sense, in that sense it means that we did not know how much we get damaged, but that part has not changed since last year ... but anyway, in the future this We are considering to be able to withstand such situations. "

The trouble this time is as mechanical as before, but because it was too short-lived as to the cause, there is a possibility that it was irregular, the general manager Hasegawa says.

https://sportiva.shueisha.co.jp/clm/mot ... _split_21/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This image goes to the forum "chassis" (Why mclaren earns so little with DRS?).
This is in the FP2 (motor spec 3) vs Renault PU

[henry]

That's only one option.
You could also lower fuel consumption while keeping power output about the same.
Doesn't help that much with one lap, but can be very good for race distance as you can run the higher power modes for a longer time.

I genuinely don't understand how this works.

I can only think of two ways to reduce power.

1. Run a lower fuel rate than is allowed.

2. Run the allowed fuel rate with lower efficiency.

What am I missing?

That's just ICE efficiency. Improved MGU-H harvesting will results in race efficiency gains and not much difference in qualifying.

Thanks.

I think the problem lies in the use of the single word power when there are actually several operating modes each with their own power.

If the MGU-H harvesting is improved then more power goes to the crankshaft through the MGU-K. So the sustained power, ICE plus MGU-H, goes up. That's power unit efficiency and not just ICE.

The peak power, ICE plus MGU-K, won't go up.

For completeness there is also a maximum power, with the wastegate open and the ICE running with lower back pressure.

If, as a forum community, we could agree on a terminology we might have fewer protracted discussions. It would be nice if the teams made more effort but I guess they might think that they would be revealing secrets.

[henry]

That's only one option.
You could also lower fuel consumption while keeping power output about the same.
Doesn't help that much with one lap, but can be very good for race distance as you can run the higher power modes for a longer time.

I genuinely don't understand how this works.

I can only think of two ways to reduce power.

1. Run a lower fuel rate than is allowed.

2. Run the allowed fuel rate with lower efficiency.

What am I missing?

Nothing. There's a bit of involuntary bate-and-switch going on with the word power here (in a sense.) You can draw a graph with power on the Y-axis and fuel rate on the X-axis. Being able to increase the power output anywhere along that graph means that you get, if you pardon my pun, more bang for the buck. It is when people ask about how many Hp this or that update gave that we, for some `we´, get confused: what if Hasegawa managed to cultivate some 10-20Hp more at 85% of the permitted fuel rate? That means that when they're in race mode, they will be able to run more efficiently despite not having an engine that is more powerful up top.

Adding more power at 100% flow rate is of course also very very important as they, I can imagine, will utilise that even during fuel saving to kick off acceleration on some sections of any given track.

That's a good point.

However, I'm not clear how important running at percentages of maximum fuel rate is.

In terms of lap time efficiency I would think running 100% at the beginning of straights and 0% at the end of the straight, lift and coast, would be the most fuel efficient.

[SameSame]

Thanks.

I think the problem lies in the use of the single word power when there are actually several operating modes each with their own power.

If the MGU-H harvesting is improved then more power goes to the crankshaft through the MGU-K. So the sustained power, ICE plus MGU-H, goes up. That's power unit efficiency and not just ICE.

The peak power, ICE plus MGU-K, won't go up.

For completeness there is also a maximum power, with the wastegate open and the ICE running with lower back pressure.

If, as a forum community, we could agree on a terminology we might have fewer protracted discussions. It would be nice if the teams made more effort but I guess they might think that they would be revealing secrets.

Yes I agree, terms are used far too interchangeably. And it probably stems from as you say the teams not using any terminology.

On another note, I wonder how well the old MGU-H will work with the new spec if they decide to frankenstein the parts of Alonso's car in Silverstone. Maybe it's a good thing Alonso was taken out on the first lap, on a demanding track for the turbo, so that less mileage is put on the parts for Silverstone and Hungary where they should fare better.

[etusch]

İsn't the mgu-h of vd new too? His unit worked without any issue. Maybe Alonso's because of bakü gb issue?

[henry]

I genuinely don't understand how this works.

I can only think of two ways to reduce power.

1. Run a lower fuel rate than is allowed.

2. Run the allowed fuel rate with lower efficiency.

What am I missing?

Nothing. There's a bit of involuntary bate-and-switch going on with the word power here (in a sense.) You can draw a graph with power on the Y-axis and fuel rate on the X-axis. Being able to increase the power output anywhere along that graph means that you get, if you pardon my pun, more bang for the buck. It is when people ask about how many Hp this or that update gave that we, for some `we´, get confused: what if Hasegawa managed to cultivate some 10-20Hp more at 85% of the permitted fuel rate? That means that when they're in race mode, they will be able to run more efficiently despite not having an engine that is more powerful up top.

Adding more power at 100% flow rate is of course also very very important as they, I can imagine, will utilise that even during fuel saving to kick off acceleration on some sections of any given track.

That's a good point.

However, I'm not clear how important running at percentages of maximum fuel rate is.

In terms of lap time efficiency I would think running 100% at the beginning of straights and 0% at the end of the straight, lift and coast, would be the most fuel efficient.

Thinking some more about this perhaps the value of running the power unit below the peak fuel flow lies in reliability. Running at 90 kg/hr instead of 100 for the whole straight might result in less "damage" than the 100kg/hr for most of the straight and then coast. We know that some strategy modes produce more damage than others perhaps this is part of the way of managing engine life.

The main restriction on lap time is tyre performance. There is no point in running the power unit at a higher power output than the tyres can sustain. The power output of the engine needs to be matched to the ability of the tyres to sustain the predicted lap time. So the engine people have to design modes that provide a lap time with the best fuel consumption/"damage" balance.

[PhillipM]

The brakes are far more stressful on the tyres than the engine, so lift and coast after 100% power would still work out better than running 90% everywhere.

[drunkf1fan]

I've seen speed trap data and it seems that spec 2.5 doesn't give Vandorne any speed advantage over spec 2.0 although I don't know about their down force level.
After checking Alonso's laptimes in late stages of Bako gp I estimate that he lost 17 sec for fuel saving. hopefully this new update with focus on fuel efficiency at least will address the mentioned issue.

Sorry what are you basing him losing time to save fuel at Baku on exactly? If it's the extremely slow laps, that isn't saving fuel. The race went for ages under safety car, that is a life saver for Mclaren getting god knows how many laps without having to power heavily all the way down the straight. In fact he could be in an ultra harvesting mode throughout the safety car so he can use more elec power than usual down that long straight.

The slow laps at the end were for harvesting power so he could do some glory fast laps, nothing to do with fuel. If he was fuel saving you wouldn't do 110 second laps then go and do your two fastest laps of the race and blow away any saving you made. he did significantly slower laps iirc, 2 before his first hot lap, 1 before his second hot lap. My guess is this is warming up the tires as much as possible with one hot lap but not too much elec power then topping up the battery then trying another hot lap. One of their issues is at lower pace struggling to generate tire temp. He's repeated this pattern at multiple tracks, which both makes their fastest lap abnormal compared to other cars because no one else does this and it makes their speed trap data somewhat dodgy as again their fastest laps will be this glory run later in the race.

Pretty much any track Mclaren have a large gap to the people in front and behind you'll see this sequence of laps, 2-3 super slow laps and a couple hot laps. He did this all the way back in Abu Dhabi in 2015 and many times since.

[harjan]

Something changed in McLarens and Alonso's tone. I don't think this is because of legal reasons, I genuinely feel Honda has made a breakthrough. Perhaps just wishful thinking but I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with something special before the end of the season.

[alexx_88]

I think Mclaren realized they have 0% chance of exiting early without incurring huge costs. So they're stuck with Honda. Alonso either has a deal with another team or realizes that his only competitive option is still Mclaren, as funny as that sounds.

In regards to the Honda PU, I have given up on them winning races consistently under these regulations. If I counted correctly, this is the 3rd PU architecture they are running and that's after seeing what the other teams have done in the first year. They seem lost and I think they hugely underestimated the complexity of these PUs, especially given that they were absent from F1. Furthermore, it seems they allocated less yearly resources than Mercedes and started later, with less expertise. From what people in the know have said, developing a great PU under these regulations is an iterative process, where it's almost impossible to take shortcuts, so it's a reasonable conclusion to think that Honda will end up spending the same amount (optimistically) of man-hours as Mercedes or Ferrari did. Now add the fact that they've started later and (presumably) have allocated fewer people to the project.

The most logical decision for them is, as soon as the 2020/2021 PU regs are announced to focus solely on that. If some side-benefits of that can be extracted and used on the current PUs, even better, but their best chance is 2021.

[loner]

I think Mclaren realized they have 0% chance of exiting early without incurring huge costs. So they're stuck with Honda. Alonso either has a deal with another team or realizes that his only competitive option is still Mclaren, as funny as that sounds.

In regards to the Honda PU, I have given up on them winning races consistently under these regulations. If I counted correctly, this is the 3rd PU architecture they are running and that's after seeing what the other teams have done in the first year. They seem lost and I think they hugely underestimated the complexity of these PUs, especially given that they were absent from F1. Furthermore, it seems they allocated less yearly resources than Mercedes and started later, with less expertise. From what people in the know have said, developing a great PU under these regulations is an iterative process, where it's almost impossible to take shortcuts, so it's a reasonable conclusion to think that Honda will end up spending the same amount (optimistically) of man-hours as Mercedes or Ferrari did. Now add the fact that they've started later and (presumably) have allocated fewer people to the project.

The most logical decision for them is, as soon as the 2020/2021 PU regs are announced to focus solely on that. If some side-benefits of that can be extracted and used on the current PUs, even better, but their best chance is 2021.

you still didn't get it Honda doing this for her own sake you should focus in what Wazari said

Trying to figure out how to correctly answer this. I am not fond of term "TJI" but more combustion process. CP is basically all Honda's design but with heavy input from "outside" sources. Yes, this a very heavy study area as this technology can relatively easily be transferred to road cars as long as economically feasible.

for example the 9speed ZF Honda developed it in-house with modifications for this
http://articles.sae.org/15215/