Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[HondaPOD]

how Honda manages PU temperatures :
https://en.hondaracingf1.com/insights/K ... _Cool.html

[subcritical71]

not sure but the article is gone.....

Edit: fixed it for you, but where does it say it was ordered by the FIA, it only saying that the mapping was wrong and they only could fix that in the garage .... nothing about FIA

Max has just confirmed it in his standard Friday sit down with Dutch press: “The FIA ordered us to change something on the engine setting”. And “the reason they ordered us to change was because the throttle response was no longer matching the drivers input, which is required by the rules”

heard it to, and sorry for doubting you....
although i find it strange that the FIA interfers in the mapping, because as far as i know these is up to the teams themselves .... not sure what to think, maybe someone with more technical inside could answer this question

Lots of discussion starting around page 1040 of this thread already. What is interesting is the use of the word throttle. If you search for that in the 2019 technical regulations it is not defined and there are no rules around it. In fact there is not even a regulation which specifies that a throttle is required unless it is buried in a TD that we don’t get to see.

[subcritical71]

Here is the rule Red Bull most likely ran afoul of;

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via
a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

[Pyrone89]

not sure but the article is gone.....

Edit: fixed it for you, but where does it say it was ordered by the FIA, it only saying that the mapping was wrong and they only could fix that in the garage .... nothing about FIA

Max has just confirmed it in his standard Friday sit down with Dutch press: “The FIA ordered us to change something on the engine setting”. And “the reason they ordered us to change was because the throttle response was no longer matching the drivers input, which is required by the rules”

heard it to, and sorry for doubting you....
although i find it strange that the FIA interfers in the mapping, because as far as i know these is up to the teams themselves .... not sure what to think, maybe someone with more technical inside could answer this question

No worries, now give me those +1’s

[Capharol]

Max has just confirmed it in his standard Friday sit down with Dutch press: “The FIA ordered us to change something on the engine setting”. And “the reason they ordered us to change was because the throttle response was no longer matching the drivers input, which is required by the rules”

heard it to, and sorry for doubting you....
although i find it strange that the FIA interfers in the mapping, because as far as i know these is up to the teams themselves .... not sure what to think, maybe someone with more technical inside could answer this question

No worries, now give me those +1’s

done my friend

Here is the rule Red Bull most likely ran afoul of;

5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via
a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.

thank you

[Pyrone89]

Still problems with lag as reported by Max. It cost him the preferred starting tyre. He now has to start on softs.

[63l8qrrfy6]

On the Verstappen forum Schummie01 (who is trusted over there, but I cant verify it) says Honda have a special cooling fluid that is ahead of the competition allowing them to detune less in warm weather. Maybe Wazari can confirm this

I don't think so. Honda does use a "waterless" coolant formulated for them but I would think the other manufacturers are all using a similar coolant so I don't think it would that far ahead of the others if at all.

Strange, I haven't heard of a waterless coolant that has anywhere near the specific heat capacity of water.
The fact that it does not boil close to 200 C is of little benefit in an aluminium cylinder head - at that temperature you have already lost most of the fatigue strength.

[restless]

Still problems with lag as reported by Max. It cost him the preferred starting tyre. He now has to start on softs.

Maybe the mapping problem yesterday is related?
Eg Honda tried to remedy whatever the issue, but it broke the FIA ruling and was caught...

[Pyrone89]

Still problems with lag as reported by Max. It cost him the preferred starting tyre. He now has to start on softs.

Maybe the mapping problem yesterday is related?
Eg Honda tried to remedy whatever the issue, but it broke the FIA ruling and was caught...

You might be onto something

[godlameroso]

On the Verstappen forum Schummie01 (who is trusted over there, but I cant verify it) says Honda have a special cooling fluid that is ahead of the competition allowing them to detune less in warm weather. Maybe Wazari can confirm this

I don't think so. Honda does use a "waterless" coolant formulated for them but I would think the other manufacturers are all using a similar coolant so I don't think it would that far ahead of the others if at all.

Strange, I haven't heard of a waterless coolant that has anywhere near the specific heat capacity of water.
The fact that it does not boil close to 200 C is of little benefit in an aluminium cylinder head - at that temperature you have already lost most of the fatigue strength.

200c? That's extremely hot for any coolant. Maybe nuclear reactors have water at that temperature. These cars have a 110 maybe 120c coolant temps.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I don't think so. Honda does use a "waterless" coolant formulated for them but I would think the other manufacturers are all using a similar coolant so I don't think it would that far ahead of the others if at all.

Strange, I haven't heard of a waterless coolant that has anywhere near the specific heat capacity of water.
The fact that it does not boil close to 200 C is of little benefit in an aluminium cylinder head - at that temperature you have already lost most of the fatigue strength.

200c? That's extremely hot for any coolant. Maybe nuclear reactors have water at that temperature. These cars have a 110 maybe 120c coolant temps.

Honda were at 130 C in 2008 (https://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-File ... 2e_all.pdf page 52) but bear in mind that this is just the bulk water temperature. The cylinder head water jacket walls can be much much hotter that this and the only thing preventing boiling is pressure and flowrate.

Actually nucleate boiling is desirable since the bubble motion enhances heat transfer. The only problems appear when film boiling occurs.

Off the top of my head some waterless coolants boil at 190°C (can't remember what pressure). But my point is that it's definitely better to run 130°C water and be on the verge of boiling rather that run 160°C waterless coolant and be very safe from boiling but crack cylinder heads because the aluminium fatigue strength plummets with temperature.

Note that the numbers are made up but they do illustrate what you'd expect to see if they were to decrease the heat capacity of the coolant for the same volume and heat rejection.

[godlameroso]

Strange, I haven't heard of a waterless coolant that has anywhere near the specific heat capacity of water.
The fact that it does not boil close to 200 C is of little benefit in an aluminium cylinder head - at that temperature you have already lost most of the fatigue strength.

200c? That's extremely hot for any coolant. Maybe nuclear reactors have water at that temperature. These cars have a 110 maybe 120c coolant temps.

Honda were at 130 C in 2008 (https://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-File ... 2e_all.pdf page 52) but bear in mind that this is just the bulk water temperature. The cylinder head water jacket walls can be much much hotter that this and the only thing preventing boiling is pressure and flowrate.

Actually nucleate boiling is desirable since the bubble motion enhances heat transfer. The only problems appear when film boiling occurs.

Off the top of my head some waterless coolants boil at 190°C (can't remember what pressure). But my point is that it's definitely better to run 130°C water and be on the verge of boiling rather that run 160°C waterless coolant and be very safe from boiling but crack cylinder heads because the aluminium fatigue strength plummets with temperature.

Note that the numbers are made up but they do illustrate what you'd expect to see if they were to decrease the heat capacity of the coolant for the same volume and heat rejection.

A big aspect of cooling isn't just the coolant's ability to absorb and transfer heat, also the heat exchangers, pumps, the aforementioned coolant jackets, the circulation efficiency of the system. So perhaps even if the waterless coolant isn't as good as water is at removing heat, combined with a variety of factors it may be good enough. Perhaps these coolants also have other benefits such as lower density than water, and by extension less weight. The ability to use perhaps thinner tubing due to lower working pressures, there are many things to consider.

[63l8qrrfy6]

A big aspect of cooling isn't just the coolant's ability to absorb and transfer heat...

I would disagree with this - the biggest aspect of the cooling system IS cooling things

A big aspect of cooling isn't just the coolant's ability to absorb and transfer heat, also the heat exchangers, pumps, the aforementioned coolant jackets, the circulation efficiency of the system. So perhaps even if the waterless coolant isn't as good as water is at removing heat, combined with a variety of factors it may be good enough. Perhaps these coolants also have other benefits such as lower density than water, and by extension less weight. The ability to use perhaps thinner tubing due to lower working pressures, there are many things to consider.

So Evans appear to have some partnership with Honda:
http://www.evanscoolants.co.uk/PDS/4pp_ ... ol_180.pdf

Quick look at their top waterless coolant spec sheet (https://www.evanscoolant.com/Customer-C ... i_perf.pdf) reveals that it has significantly lower heat capacity compared to water, higher density and higher viscosity which means it takes more pump power to move around.

[godlameroso]

Viscosity is measured at -40c I think the viscosity of water is a little higher than the Evan's coolant at -40c.

[HPD]

Still problems with lag as reported by Max. It cost him the preferred starting tyre. He now has to start on softs.

Maybe the mapping problem yesterday is related?
Eg Honda tried to remedy whatever the issue, but it broke the FIA ruling and was caught...

They're just pushing more than they can, it's fine for Honda. You have to take a risk, sometimes it works another no

"We were perhaps a bit too optimistic with the engine maps and performance. The engine could not stand that. We had to restart the box. This is only in style, "said Marko. As a result, the Honda technicians had to reduce the engine power by one stage. That cost a bit of lap time in the last race.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... ockenheim/