Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

Is there a particular reason your shoving other members on to the witness stand lol?

Do you know what the chemical make up is of the actual lubricants they are using? What the fuel is? The internal structure of the ICE, the actual design of the intake system and oil tank and their relationship? You're asking questions and then telling them they are wrong so this will be an endless circle of half informed misery.

We, as the interested public, know what the issue was, from Honda. MGU-H shaft hearing failure. Getting the ultra intricate details as to why and how this occurred is likely never going to happen. Since when has a manufacturer sat down and spent a lot of time describing down to the hair what has happened to the general audience, especially when the internal design is pretty much classified anyway.

[Zynerji]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

In the Bisimoto case from that magazine (Honda war wagon I think it was called), the oil was separated in a cyclone type tank, and the turbo had its own pickup and pump. The bottom end never got the much lighter hydrocarbon, as its pickup was at the very bottom of the tank, while the turbo burnt up while taking oil from much higher in the tank.

I don't pretend to know the current F1 tech, but that was a real world case of blow-by/oil separation/turbo bearing failure that Wazari alluded to it seemed to me.

[galien]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

Is there a particular reason your shoving other members on to the witness stand lol?

Do you know what the chemical make up is of the actual lubricants they are using? What the fuel is? The internal structure of the ICE, the actual design of the intake system and oil tank and their relationship? You're asking questions and then telling them they are wrong so this will be an endless circle of half informed misery.

We, as the interested public, know what the issue was, from Honda. MGU-H shaft hearing failure. Getting the ultra intricate details as to why and how this occurred is likely never going to happen. Since when has a manufacturer sat down and spent a lot of time describing down to the hair what has happened to the general audience, especially when the internal design is pretty much classified anyway.

I don't understand how fuel can be merged with oil in a formula 1 power unit which has to perform 50% energy conversion with high end combustion technology, very sorry.
The explanation is less or too precise for Beotians.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

Is there a particular reason your shoving other members on to the witness stand lol?

Do you know what the chemical make up is of the actual lubricants they are using? What the fuel is? The internal structure of the ICE, the actual design of the intake system and oil tank and their relationship? You're asking questions and then telling them they are wrong so this will be an endless circle of half informed misery.

We, as the interested public, know what the issue was, from Honda. MGU-H shaft hearing failure. Getting the ultra intricate details as to why and how this occurred is likely never going to happen. Since when has a manufacturer sat down and spent a lot of time describing down to the hair what has happened to the general audience, especially when the internal design is pretty much classified anyway.

Some statements are completely false or extremely improbable - since this is a technical forum the whole point is to debate such statements.

Yes I do often tell people they are wrong and many times I am wrong myself. This is not an everyone is right kind of club. There's a few competent engineers around and I think I speak for all of us when I say that we get our kicks from dissecting technical details to death.

Unfortunately many members mistake these threads for 'how much power does X have' sort of discussions.

If you feel that you are left out and can't participate in the conversation then I'm afraid I can't really help you.

[Zynerji]

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

Is there a particular reason your shoving other members on to the witness stand lol?

Do you know what the chemical make up is of the actual lubricants they are using? What the fuel is? The internal structure of the ICE, the actual design of the intake system and oil tank and their relationship? You're asking questions and then telling them they are wrong so this will be an endless circle of half informed misery.

We, as the interested public, know what the issue was, from Honda. MGU-H shaft hearing failure. Getting the ultra intricate details as to why and how this occurred is likely never going to happen. Since when has a manufacturer sat down and spent a lot of time describing down to the hair what has happened to the general audience, especially when the internal design is pretty much classified anyway.

I don't understand how fuel can be merged with oil in a formula 1 power unit which has to perform 50% energy conversion with high end combustion technology, very sorry.
The explanation is less or too precise for Beotians.

Where do you think, specifically, the performance degradation of these engines lie after they put on mileage?

Seals, contact areas, and deformations. All of those can lead to compression chamber sealing problems, and induce blow-by.

That may be exactly why the compression ratio has been nerfed down to 18:1, as high compression blow-by might have been used to contaminate the oil to a level that it could be recycled beyond the 100kg/hr limit.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I would say that there is always going to be a small amount of blow by, and it would make sense that the much lighter fuel would rise to the top of the oil tank, get pulled in by the pump, and delivered directly to the fluid bearing of the turbo. Gasoline washes off oil, leading to a catastrophic fluid bearing failure. Vapor may not be the best term, but this make sense as I've seen a similar problem happen to Bisimoto in a magazine years ago.

And if it's agreed upon that these engines lose 1% power every 700km, is expect that a decent part of that is ring blow-by.

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

In the Bisimoto case from that magazine (Honda war wagon I think it was called), the oil was separated in a cyclone type tank, and the turbo had its own pickup and pump. The bottom end never got the much lighter hydrocarbon, as its pickup was at the very bottom of the tank, while the turbo burnt up while taking oil from much higher in the tank.

I don't pretend to know the current F1 tech, but that was a real world case of blow-by/oil separation/turbo bearing failure that Wazari alluded to it seemed to me.

Wazari initially said that the turbo was starved due to cavitation. Then the tank was overfilled to prevent cavitation (which would have lessened any alleged oil dilution since the oil quantity increases). Which of these scenarios would have caused fuel in oil ?

[63l8qrrfy6]

That may be exactly why the compression ratio has been nerfed down to 18:1, as high compression blow-by might have been used to contaminate the oil to a level that it could be recycled beyond the 100kg/hr limit.

That's more nonsense, if you want to have high blowby by design you decrease ring stiffness and increase the ring gap.

[Zynerji]

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

In the Bisimoto case from that magazine (Honda war wagon I think it was called), the oil was separated in a cyclone type tank, and the turbo had its own pickup and pump. The bottom end never got the much lighter hydrocarbon, as its pickup was at the very bottom of the tank, while the turbo burnt up while taking oil from much higher in the tank.

I don't pretend to know the current F1 tech, but that was a real world case of blow-by/oil separation/turbo bearing failure that Wazari alluded to it seemed to me.

Wazari initially said that the turbo was starved due to cavitation. Then the tank was overfilled to prevent cavitation (which would have lessened any alleged oil dilution since the oil quantity increases). Which of these scenarios would have caused fuel in oil ?

Neither.
The piston-ring blow-by would be the culprit from the case that I have stated, but they were running like a 76lb turbo on a 1.6l D series. I don't doubt the F1 engines could way better control this, but if it was an end of race type thing, it could cause issues, especially when the oil tank has 5 liters less oil in it to dilute the fuel.

[Zynerji]

That may be exactly why the compression ratio has been nerfed down to 18:1, as high compression blow-by might have been used to contaminate the oil to a level that it could be recycled beyond the 100kg/hr limit.

That's more nonsense, if you want to have high blowby by design you decrease ring stiffness and increase the ring gap.

Or increase compression to get the same compliance from stiffer rings, and a smaller ring gap.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Increasing compression does not guarantee blowby increase. Rings are pressure energized, the higher the pressure the better they seal. Reducing tension on the other hand is guaranteed to reduce contact pressure and decrease friction.

[Zynerji]

Increasing compression does not guarantee blowby increase. Rings are pressure energized, the higher the pressure the better they seal. Reducing tension on the other hand is guaranteed to reduce contact pressure and decrease friction.

I shall defer to you on this.

[GhostF1]

That can only happen if you pour fuel into the oil tank. Not even then - in ww2 german pilots used to pour petrol into the crankcase in the winter to start the engines. As I have said previously - if something is wrong with the oil, the highly loaded hydrodynamic bearings (big ends and mains) will always fail first.

Oil is changed after each race, it doesn't do 10k miles like a road car.

Is there a particular reason your shoving other members on to the witness stand lol?

Do you know what the chemical make up is of the actual lubricants they are using? What the fuel is? The internal structure of the ICE, the actual design of the intake system and oil tank and their relationship? You're asking questions and then telling them they are wrong so this will be an endless circle of half informed misery.

We, as the interested public, know what the issue was, from Honda. MGU-H shaft hearing failure. Getting the ultra intricate details as to why and how this occurred is likely never going to happen. Since when has a manufacturer sat down and spent a lot of time describing down to the hair what has happened to the general audience, especially when the internal design is pretty much classified anyway.

Some statements are completely false or extremely improbable - since this is a technical forum the whole point is to debate such statements.

Yes I do often tell people they are wrong and many times I am wrong myself. This is not an everyone is right kind of club. There's a few competent engineers around and I think I speak for all of us when I say that we get our kicks from dissecting technical details to death.

Unfortunately many members mistake these threads for 'how much power does X have' sort of discussions.

If you feel that you are left out and can't participate in the conversation then I'm afraid I can't really help you.

I'm not entirely sure where the personal attack on my comprehension or participation came from that's unnecesasary and you need to calm down. I'm merely stating you're asking for intimate details on a PU from members on a public forum which, lets be honest, either have no relation to Honda or are not at liberty to further divulge what you're asking.

You aren't "discussing", you're awaiting a response for which you are already waiting to dismiss so you can then berate that person on their "inferior logic", you're also taking 12 posts to do so. We aren't getting anywhere with this tirade, so how about we stop that dead end, and discuss what we ACTUALLY have information or facts on. Not heresay from members..

The school lesson on how a piston ring works in your above post was surely a valuable contribution to this community.

[PlatinumZealot]

I see nothing wrong with mudflaps' way of discussion because we should aim to keep a high technical standard on the forum. We are not going in the direction of watering things down for a "comfortable read." There are quite a good number of posters who provide that balance anyway. If a users posts are getting to technical to follow, simply skip ahead.

That person's logic is quite questionable I agree. 1.5 Lambda and fuel landing on, not vapourizing and passing the piston rings in a significant amount to DILUTE engine oil is quite something to believe!

[MrPotatoHead]

That may be exactly why the compression ratio has been nerfed down to 18:1, as high compression blow-by might have been used to contaminate the oil to a level that it could be recycled beyond the 100kg/hr limit.

That's more nonsense, if you want to have high blowby by design you decrease ring stiffness and increase the ring gap.

There is a lot of nonsense posted in this thread... sadly it's diluting the real facts I feel.
Carry on Mudflap...

[MrPotatoHead]

One thing to think about in regards to blowby and ring seal is this - one of the ways in which friction is reduced in high performance racing engines is through the reduction of ring tension and pressure. It's a very fine balancing act to get the rings to seal and have super low friction.