Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[anthonyfa18]

I bit the bullet and purchased a copy:
https://i.ibb.co/Bs7G7bz/1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/r7D6S67/2.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nLwFRnY/3.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nf3xjPv/4.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/42yNFT7/4-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/wYfn0CB/5.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/LRMt5SL/5-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/1vjJqmX/6.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ss0f6G3/7.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/zr4rG5N/8.jpg

where is this from and where can i buy it and one have it english sub too

[dren]

I bit the bullet and purchased a copy:
https://i.ibb.co/Bs7G7bz/1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/r7D6S67/2.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nLwFRnY/3.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nf3xjPv/4.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/42yNFT7/4-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/wYfn0CB/5.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/LRMt5SL/5-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/1vjJqmX/6.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ss0f6G3/7.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/zr4rG5N/8.jpg

where is this from and where can i buy it and one have it english sub too

Japanese only. Will have to have it translated.

[ringo]

The "reforming process" is what is done at oil refineries. Naptha (intermediate material that makes gasoline) is passed over catalyst at high pressure and temperature to reform the hydrocarbon chains, resulting in higher octane material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_reforming

It's interesting that this is to be done inside the engine to the fuel, when it's something that should be done before the fuel is even sold and used in the vehicle.
However i can see how octane rules can be broken, if fuel is further reformed from a certain octane at inspection to higher octane when its in the engine before combustion.

So the technology isn't really new, it's just a very useful way of adopting what should be oil refining into an engine.

[subcritical71]

I bit the bullet and purchased a copy:
https://i.ibb.co/Bs7G7bz/1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/r7D6S67/2.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nLwFRnY/3.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nf3xjPv/4.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/42yNFT7/4-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/wYfn0CB/5.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/LRMt5SL/5-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/1vjJqmX/6.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ss0f6G3/7.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/zr4rG5N/8.jpg

where is this from and where can i buy it and one have it english sub too

Japanese only. Will have to have it translated.

I used a website that will translate text in photos. As you can imagine there is a lot of translation gibberish. However the x-1 slides (4-1 and 5-1) the following was translated fairly well;

Slide 4-1 (https://i.ibb.co/42yNFT7/4-1.jpg)
Left: an illustration showing the configuration of the war Unit ( different from the actual installation position). The point is that the energy that can be sent from the battery(ES) to the MGU-K is the maximum 4MJ per lap, while the energy that can be sent from the MGU-K to the ES is limited to the maximum 2MJ per lap . Using MGU-H, both the amount of regenerative energy and the amount of energy that goes through the cycle, it is possible to compensate for the shortage.MGU-H is not specified. After the trial mistake, the model has settled down before and after 70kW.

Right: the energy flow of MGU-K→ES is limited to a maximum of 2MJ per lap, but the energy generated by MGU-H can be deployed without limitation. For MGU-K, which is not a brake cycle, the MGU-K is a partial cycle in which the generator uses the MGU-K during acceleration.The MGU-H yield contains an extra harvest bun ( P094) that follows the flow of MGU-K → MGU-H → ES. In fact, it deploys more than 4MJ per lap, as specified by ES→MGU-K.

Slide 5-1 (https://i.ibb.co/LRMt5SL/5-1.jpg)
Since the energy sent from the MGU-K to the ES is specified as" maximum 2MJ per lap", the MGU-K is actually generated once (brake life or brake life), but it is not sent directly to the ES and MGU-H is sent through (MGU-K→MGU-H→ES). It is the extra best to realize MGU-K→ES realistically without resisting the rules. Figure shows that occur times 3MJ with MGU-K . If you send this to the ES as it is, it becomes a regulation violation, so 1mj of the Super-amount is sent to the MGU-H and line. Send the inertia energy to the ES by the raw (repeat the row and the raw at 20~40Hz). Thanks to this technology, the MGU-K deployment time is long.

Would love to see a human translated version of this. The above does seem to indicate some of the theories and interpretations in the past are very close.

[FW17]

Intercooler piping to both side pods in 2018

[henry]

Would love to see a human translated version of this. The above does seem to indicate some of the theories and interpretations in the past are very close.

Thanks for that. Seems to confirm 70kW MGU-H and motoring against the K. Also reaffirms the “extra harvest” route.

[mzso]

That's very unfair to say that. You can always deduce down to the engine still has cylinders, pistons and spark plugs and that's hardly innovating anything. Whether something has its root from road tech or invented on the track, it is what limit they push the tech to makes it a pinnacle series.

The car manufactures R&D exists first and foremost to try to turn it into a product someday and make profit. Therefore it hardly really matter if any tech started from road or track.

F1 is hardly the pinnacle of technology if they don't innovate anything anymore. They just throw piles of money on old concepts to optimize them for high power output. It's little short of over-engineered obsolescent technology by now.

The only thing new-ish in the past several years is adding a motor to the turbine of a turbocharger. And this was forced by regulation.

[mzso]

My interpretation would be that it would not be allowed, but for different reasons.[...]

These do seem indeed problematic particularly the EGW part.

[Tommy Cookers]

......However i can see how octane rules can be broken, if fuel is further reformed from a certain octane at inspection to higher octane when its in the engine before combustion.

there are no octane rules in the current engine era - or rather the maximum octane allowed is unlimited
(though octane should not be low enough to facilitate diesel engine techniques)

[Snorked]

Talisman posted info that he can read from dren's Motorfan images: https://forums.autosport.com/topic/2099 ... try8620302

I used to translate these for a more technically orientated F1 forum until they started deleting translations that they deemed off topic. Hopefully that won't be the case here.




I can't make out many of the characters. Regarding changes from the 2017 unit, the air filter is bigger. Again the tube from the air filter to the compressor is bigger and of a shallower angle so the airflow is easier. The same is true of the tailpipe (exhaust?)



The first target for the 18 engine was reliability. Although almost all of the parts are new the PU appears very similar to the previous. Combustion is where there is most to gain, but they didn't want to change too much as introducing too many technologies at once as per the previous three years could have resulted in similar reliability issues. I think they mean the 2018 unit started with the 2017 combustion system while other teams developed the combustion systems that were introduced during the season. They aimed primarily for reliability with spec 1 with some performance gains but spec 2 and 3 were more performance orientated. Spec 3 performance gains were far in excess of what was expected and that resulted in problems balancing that with the reliability. In Russia the spec 3 suffered from oscillation issues just after upshifts as the revs dropped. This has been resolved completely and they are confident this problem won't recur for 2019. Oscillation issues don't arise in other Honda PUs in other formula. This is because in a fuel limited formula (ie F1) power is gained by increasing the compression ratio and making the fuel/air ration leaner. The leaner it gets the more unstable the mixture. At about 10-12.5k rpm combustion times are incredibly short and the slightest issue can cause problems. Ideally to convert combustion to kinetic energy most economically the combustion time should be as short as possible but this causes difficulties. Also with seamless shift gearboxes the transition from combustion at the higher revs with the previous gear to the lower revs of the next gear is nearly instantaneous. In other formula there is no fuel flow limitation, the engine operates at lower RPM and seamless shift gearboxes aren't used.



Honda gelled well with STR and the new team allowed Honda to change the air filter, tube to the compressor and tailpipe to improve airflow although this resulted in increased bulk. Also STR provided an intercooler with less loss. So Honda believed merely switching teams allowed them to liberate a little power. STR's attitude was to let Honda do what was required to improve their performance then fit the chassis around it which was different to before. Likewise the 2017 oil tank which caused so many problems was designed in such a way to minimise space use, however the 2018 tank is bulkier which has resolved the previously encountered issues that caused so many problems in 2017 with the MGUH shaft, again thanks to STR being more tolerant of the PU dimensions increasing. McLaren preferred to have the intercoolers on the left while STR prefers them split on both sides, apparently purely a difference of philosophy. The 2017 and 2018 units reflect this difference.



The PU harvests energy in three ways. Via the MGUK during acceleration (sapping some energy off the ICE), during braking and also via the MGUH to the battery. The first two methods are limited to 2MJ per lap, the latter is unlimited. More than half the energy harvested during a typical lap is through the latter method (my note, this is pretty amazing given this technology was only introduced by Honda mid 2017). Apparently efficiency improved from 2017 to 2018 despite a handicap resulting from changing teams due to a difference in gear ratio selection between McLaren and STR. Apparently McLaren prefer shorter gear ratios with the PU operating in a higher rev range while STR prefers longer gear ratios with the PU operating at a lower rev range. Harvesting from a higher rev range is easier and therefore switching to lower operating revs decreased the efficiency, despite this it is still better than in 2017. Energy is deployed largely via the MGUK but with a small amount being used to e-boost the MGUH.



Spec 2 improved combustion, exhaust efficiency and less losses from the water pump. As STR and Honda had not worked with each other before the first spec PU and chassis were developed with large margins of error. The spec 2 was developed with a smaller margin of error as they knew STR's radiator specs more precisely, hence the smaller water pump. Spec 2 was a development of the spec 1, but spec 3 had new technologies including something that they had found that improved performance substantially resulting in a bigger step over spec 2 than spec 2 was over spec 1.



The 2019 unit will be a refinement of the 2018 unit. If there was no MGUH then combustion would simply be made leaner to improve power, but with an MGUH this would result in decreased harvesting so a balance has to be found. Some tracks put more emphasis on ICE performance, others more on MGUH performance so both need to be improved and different balances between the two found for each track. However 2018 has provided new perspectives and has shown that some of the technologies being developed have real potential.

[etusch]

I glanced at that forum a bit. They are talking about Avl honda split and illien. When I read that it thought it is talking about spec 3 of 2018. Especially last part of it.
And after reading Talisman's translation (thanks to Talisman and snorked ) it must be realy about spec 3

[PlatinumZealot]

That graph is at lamda = 1. My common senss tell me the graph title is a typo.

The graph title (% NOx Reduction over Baseline SI (lambda=1)) simply means "% NOx Reduction over Baseline SI".

The "(lambda=1)" is just telling us that the baseline SI engine readings were taken at lambda=1.

Why do my posts always get misinterpretted?

I know the readings were taken at lamvda = 1.. Which is what i was saying. It is only a small window of lamda. I was telling him to look to the graph on the right for the overall picture.

Also note that the title "percentage reduction" is a misleading title for the graph. It should just be "percentage"
Check the other graphs to see why i say this.

[PlatinumZealot]

That's very unfair to say that. You can always deduce down to the engine still has cylinders, pistons and spark plugs and that's hardly innovating anything. Whether something has its root from road tech or invented on the track, it is what limit they push the tech to makes it a pinnacle series.

The car manufactures R&D exists first and foremost to try to turn it into a product someday and make profit. Therefore it hardly really matter if any tech started from road or track.

F1 is hardly the pinnacle of technology if they don't innovate anything anymore. They just throw piles of money on old concepts to optimize them for high power output. It's little short of over-engineered obsolescent technology by now.

The only thing new-ish in the past several years is adding a motor to the turbine of a turbocharger. And this was forced by regulation.

Even that is and old concept. Nothing new in that.
The management if these systems and the efficiency and optimazation of materials is what I was say is new.

[godlameroso]

That's very unfair to say that. You can always deduce down to the engine still has cylinders, pistons and spark plugs and that's hardly innovating anything. Whether something has its root from road tech or invented on the track, it is what limit they push the tech to makes it a pinnacle series.

The car manufactures R&D exists first and foremost to try to turn it into a product someday and make profit. Therefore it hardly really matter if any tech started from road or track.

F1 is hardly the pinnacle of technology if they don't innovate anything anymore. They just throw piles of money on old concepts to optimize them for high power output. It's little short of over-engineered obsolescent technology by now.

The only thing new-ish in the past several years is adding a motor to the turbine of a turbocharger. And this was forced by regulation.

Even that is and old concept. Nothing new in that.
The management if these systems and the efficiency and optimazation of materials is what I was say is new.

Even though the control systems are archaic bits from the late 90's. We depend so much on computers, to model combustion behavior, to predict and develop recovery strategies, when to deploy, etc. Even the fuel blends depend on computers being able to predict and model chemical reactions. Perhaps this was intentionally done in order to waste more resources, because if they had a better standardized ECU the performance of the power units would really show. Since the ECU is so limited you have to engineer work arounds that compensate for it's lack of function. I wonder how many resources go to waste on that in the hopes of having a "level" playing field.

I wonder what would be the result of a standardized ECU with technology from 10 years ago, vs one from 20 years ago that is currently in use.

[taperoo2k]

It's about 1.5gb of data per 300km or so that's transmitted from the car to the pits via the ECU if I remember correctly. If the FIA were to ask for a more modern ECU that uses the latest advancements in chipset and processor design then the amount of data transmitted would likely increase significantly, meaning the top teams and manufacturers could afford the necessary processing power (and high speed internet connections) to mine the data properly to find useful pieces of information.

People moaning about F1 not being at the pinnacle of technology, should look at the way the manufacturers and teams use data to shape development. McLaren is using it's experience in F1 to help the NHS in the UK - https://www.mclaren.com/appliedtechnolo ... ealthcare/

On the whole it looks like Honda appears to be on the verge of getting everything lined up properly to produce a decent PU. Which is all I've wanted to see from the outset.