Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

@Ghost and @Stivala

Too long to respond in detail.
I am gonna leave this here courtesy of Garrett :

Notice there are no clutch mechanisms.

https://www.garrettmotion.com/electric- ... t-e-turbo/

https://www.garrettmotion.com/wp-conten ... 30x500.jpg

Guys remember the turbochargers speed is not as variable and inefficient as in street cars. We want it to maintain a certain speed range to be in boost as much as possible. So the increased moment of inertia is not that detrimental as you might think. In fact a clutch might be heavier and prone to wear and thus failure.

.....
I mean no offence here but I don't think you're grasping what is being discussed so we'll agree to just drop it so this thread doesn't grow 20 pages.
What I will say is what you posted has no relevance to the system that is employed in Formula 1 and is also not restricted by a set of regulations that prevent certain operations.
ie. The use of a clutch is driven by the restrictive regulations and the ingenuity of the engineers to compensate for that and find away around said rules.

Garrett states that this technology is used in formula 1.

I can link the video of the actual Garret rep saying that if you like. Why resist? Lol

I recall that you have been a MGUH "clutch" promoter ever since hybrid regulations were finalized in 2013 so I understand your disbelief.

Lol cheers for the offer, but I'm good. And that's fine that Garrett say that, but I hope you are aware they are referring to the use of an "electric turbo" in principle in F1, not that specific design (Garrett are not partnered in F1 with anyone) and that turbo mentioned is not even remotely similar to what is actually used in Formula 1.. It's marketing mate, in the same way Mercedes says their EQC SUV uses F1 technology... lol sure the battery tech is POTENTIALLY derived from it, but it's not the same in any of the 4 dimensions. Another one, here in Australia, Shell advertise their high octane road fuels available at service stations with "as used by the Ferrari Formula 1 team"... yeah well.. no. Even Renault have say their Megane RS is derived from F1 technology.... No lol.

So rather than "why resist", how about, why be so basic? Lol. I'm confused at your disbelief when you use sparsely related road car examples as evidence to the contrary...

Recall I'm a clutch believe since 2013? I certainly hope not mostly because I joined this forum in 2017 and my first mention of a clutch being possibly in use was late last year in response to Max complaining about turbo lag out of corners and Honda's high altitude dominance?

Anyway, carry on.

[GhostF1]

“The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched”.
The MGU-H being an electrical motor can of course be ‘decoupled’ electrically from the exhaust turbine, in which case the MGU-H electrically decoupled rotating part which is coupled to the exhaust turbine is still rotated by the exhaust turbine.
The advantage of having the MGU-H clutched to the exhaust turbine is the ability of eliminating the electrically decoupled rotating part from having to rotate with the exhaust turbine.
I believe that all four power unites employ a clutch between turbine and MGU-H because where there is an advantage nobody is going to skip-it.

Very small inertia advantage (which is easily overcome by motoring the assembly with the MGUH) versus a significant reliability risk and a small weight penalty.

I don't believe any of the teams are using a clutch.

Just a question.

Hypothetically if you, for whatever reason, needed turbine speed to exceed 125,000rpm, how would you accomplish this with the current rules and regulations?

[GhostF1]

Twin spool design legal???
Compressor and turbine turning different speed than MGU-H and C/turbine wouldn't be limited to 125,000?

What we are doing on our research project using Honda's F1 Split Turbo design as base/starting point for our turbo charger.

Unfortunately not. Regulations state the assembly must be geared 1:1 but also stipulates the MGU-H CAN BE clutched.

[gruntguru]

“The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched”.
The MGU-H being an electrical motor can of course be ‘decoupled’ electrically from the exhaust turbine, in which case the MGU-H electrically decoupled rotating part which is coupled to the exhaust turbine is still rotated by the exhaust turbine.
The advantage of having the MGU-H clutched to the exhaust turbine is the ability of eliminating the electrically decoupled rotating part from having to rotate with the exhaust turbine.
I believe that all four power unites employ a clutch between turbine and MGU-H because where there is an advantage nobody is going to skip-it.

Very small inertia advantage (which is easily overcome by motoring the assembly with the MGUH) versus a significant reliability risk and a small weight penalty.

I don't believe any of the teams are using a clutch.

Just a question.
Hypothetically if you, for whatever reason, needed turbine speed to exceed 125,000rpm, how would you accomplish this with the current rules and regulations?

The MGUH is limited to 125k rpm but the compressor and turbine can operate at any speed. The gear ratio between the MGUH and the turbo shaft can be any value but must be fixed. The compressor must run at the same speed as the turbine.

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a shaft assembly parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre plane. The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft
assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same
angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU‐H) may be directly coupled to it. The
shaft may not be mechanically linked to any other device.

5.2.4 The MGU‐H must be solely mechanically linked to the pressure charging system. This
mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.
The rotational speed of the MGU‐H may not exceed 125,000rpm.

[GhostF1]

Very small inertia advantage (which is easily overcome by motoring the assembly with the MGUH) versus a significant reliability risk and a small weight penalty.

I don't believe any of the teams are using a clutch.

Just a question.
Hypothetically if you, for whatever reason, needed turbine speed to exceed 125,000rpm, how would you accomplish this with the current rules and regulations?

The MGUH is limited to 125k rpm but the compressor and turbine can operate at any speed. The gear ratio between the MGUH and the turbo shaft can be any value but must be fixed. The compressor must run at the same speed as the turbine.

5.1.6 Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a
sole single stage exhaust turbine by a shaft assembly parallel to the engine crankshaft and
within 25mm of the car centre plane. The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft
assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same
angular velocity, an electrical motor generator (MGU‐H) may be directly coupled to it. The
shaft may not be mechanically linked to any other device.

5.2.4 The MGU‐H must be solely mechanically linked to the pressure charging system. This
mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched.
The rotational speed of the MGU‐H may not exceed 125,000rpm.

So you would say they are over-gearing the turbo/compressor compared to the MGU-H (e.g 4 rotations for turbo/comp, 1 for MGU-H). Look, it makes sense and probably what they were doing early on but it's a pretty inefficient and limiting way to handle it, not particularly forward thinking either. If geared perfectly as such the maximum estimated turbo operating speed target for the season (my guess would be Mexico or Brazil) would ensure the MGU-H's 125,000rpm limit is never exceeded no matter the conditions (altitude/temperature/track etc), then you've really only got two scenarios.
1) You are measurably under utilising the MGU-H's potential at any time you are running the turbo lower than maximum rpm. (Turbo performance favoured gearing)

2) The MGU-H is at peak operating efficiency (max RPM) at the detriment to turbo performance. (MGU-H performance favoured gearing). I suppose gearing it as such they ignore the higher altitude circuits and focus on the majority of the season is an option (side note.. I believe it's what Merc does and they not clutch the MGU-H after comments made in Brazil where they conceded, and I quote "our architecture does not allow the necessary adjustments to compensate for altitude that our rivals (Honda) obviously have")

Both these scenarios lack the major advantage a clutch-like mechanism would bring if they get it right for all variables that affect PU performance, saying "nah too hard basket" cannot be the mindset at this level, especially now manufacturers know they are keeping the same PU formula for at least another 5 years.

[saviour stivala]

“The MGU-H must be solely mechanically linked to the pressure charging system. This mechanical link must be of fixed speed ratio to the exhaust turbine and may be clutched”.
The MGU-H being an electrical motor can of course be ‘decoupled’ electrically from the exhaust turbine, in which case the MGU-H electrically decoupled rotating part which is coupled to the exhaust turbine is still rotated by the exhaust turbine.
The advantage of having the MGU-H clutched to the exhaust turbine is the ability of eliminating the electrically decoupled rotating part from having to rotate with the exhaust turbine.
I believe that all four power unites employ a clutch between turbine and MGU-H because where there is an advantage nobody is going to skip-it.

Very small inertia advantage (which is easily overcome by motoring the assembly with the MGUH) versus a significant reliability risk and a small weight penalty.

I don't believe any of the teams are using a clutch.

I believe all four power unit manufacturers (and not 'ANY' of the teams) use a clutch.

[PlatinumZealot]

Oh transparent one, why do you suppose the turbchargers are spinning close to 120k rpms?

When the formula began in 2014 guys like Ferrari and Renault had very small turbochargers. They realised they predictions were totally wrong and they were in a total different mode of operation to what Mercedes were doing so they had to increase the size drastically the following year.

They were smaller and lets say maxed out at 125k,(i doubt it) thhen imagine bigger, more efficient turbochargers... They are supposed to push more air at lower rpms, and they are supposed to push even more air because the blade design is more efficient too. So one can logically surmise that these turbos aren't operating near 125krpm typically.

I did some quick calcs in this thread here and IIRC estimated rpm was around 85k rpm at full boost. These are big wheels so they dont need to spin that fast to push the required amount of air.

Regards to any clutch.. I havent even dared to think about how ypu would get a clutch on that thing (split turbochrger). Just never even thought I would need to imagine it. But i will give it a shot.

Stivala said sprag clutch.
How does this work when you switch directions from generator mode to motor mode?
We know that honda does "extra harvest" rapidly oscillating from generator mode to motor mode.. Can your clutch react fast enough without burning up?

What about stress concentrations? And whipping effect (vibrations) of a disk like mass (the clutch) on a long slender shaft at tens of thousands of rpm?

[gruntguru]

If geared perfectly as such the maximum estimated turbo operating speed target for the season (my guess would be Mexico or Brazil) would ensure the MGU-H's 125,000rpm limit is never exceeded no matter the conditions (altitude/temperature/track etc), then you've really only got two scenarios.
1) You are measurably under utilising the MGU-H's potential at any time you are running the turbo lower than maximum rpm. (Turbo performance favoured gearing)

2) The MGU-H is at peak operating efficiency (max RPM) at the detriment to turbo performance. (MGU-H performance favoured gearing). I suppose gearing it as such they ignore the higher altitude circuits and focus on the majority of the season is an option (side note.. I believe it's what Merc does and they not clutch the MGU-H after comments made in Brazil where they conceded, and I quote "our architecture does not allow the necessary adjustments to compensate for altitude that our rivals (Honda) obviously have")

Both these scenarios lack the major advantage a clutch-like mechanism would bring if they get it right for all variables that affect PU performance, saying "nah too hard basket" cannot be the mindset at this level, especially now manufacturers know they are keeping the same PU formula for at least another 5 years.

1) The electric machine would be sized to cover the power requirements whether motoring or generating, over a wide speed range. ie no disadvantage in running MGUH at different rpm at different tracks.

2) Merc would have been referring to an inability to operate at a high enough PR with high enough compressor and/or turbine efficiency at Brazil. Probably just a different choice of turbomachinery to Honda. Alternatively a different combustion architecture unable to run a richer AFR at Brazil without greater performance loss than Honda.

[saviour stivala]

Oh transparent one, why do you suppose the turbchargers are spinning close to 120k rpms?

When the formula began in 2014 guys like Ferrari and Renault had very small turbochargers. They realised they predictions were totally wrong and they were in a total different mode of operation to what Mercedes were doing so they had to increase the size drastically the following year.

They were smaller and lets say maxed out at 125k,(i doubt it) thhen imagine bigger, more efficient turbochargers... They are supposed to push more air at lower rpms, and they are supposed to push even more air because the blade design is more efficient too. So one can logically surmise that these turbos aren't operating near 125krpm typically.

I did some quick calcs in this thread here and IIRC estimated rpm was around 85k rpm at full boost. These are big wheels so they dont need to spin that fast to push the required amount of air.

Regards to any clutch.. I havent even dared to think about how ypu would get a clutch on that thing (split turbochrger). Just never even thought I would need to imagine it. But i will give it a shot.

Stivala said sprag clutch.
How does this work when you switch directions from generator mode to motor mode?
We know that honda does "extra harvest" rapidly oscillating from generator mode to motor mode.. Can your clutch react fast enough without burning up?

What about stress concentrations? And whipping effect (vibrations) of a disk like mass (the clutch) on a long slender shaft at tens of thousands of rpm?

Why if I may ask an MGU-H will need to change direction (I am assuming you mean direction of rotation) when ‘changing’ from motor mode to harvesting mode?.

[GhostF1]

Oh transparent one, why do you suppose the turbchargers are spinning close to 120k rpms? None of us are informed enough to make claims they aren't. Most of what I'm suggesting on here are coming from certain regulations manufacturers could circumvent to find a gain. I am not vain enough to be certain I'm right, but theories and debates are what breed creativity

When the formula began in 2014 guys like Ferrari and Renault had very small turbochargers. They realised they predictions were totally wrong and they were in a total different mode of operation to what Mercedes were doing so they had to increase the size drastically the following year. Honda went through the same scenario in 2015 trying the axial compressor, then in 2016 realising it needed a bigger one so raised its position in the V and then 2017, just extending it outside either end of the block.

They were smaller and lets say maxed out at 125k,(i doubt it) thhen imagine bigger, more efficient turbochargers... They are supposed to push more air at lower rpms, and they are supposed to push even more air because the blade design is more efficient too. So one can logically surmise that these turbos aren't operating near 125krpm typically. I understand that, but arguments could be made improvements in combustion concepts and fuel tech can also allow for higher boost/leaner burning, forcing teams to come up with innovations not initially thought to be possible

I did some quick calcs in this thread here and IIRC estimated rpm was around 85k rpm at full boost. These are big wheels so they dont need to spin that fast to push the required amount of air. At best, a long shot these calcs would be close to what they truly are, we have no actual data to go off except for assumed road car based information, combustion concepts and various other systems push it far and away from what I'm willing to quote as gospel, especially now we are in the 50-60% T.E range.

Regards to any clutch.. I havent even dared to think about how ypu would get a clutch on that thing (split turbochrger). Just never even thought I would need to imagine it. But i will give it a shot. The FIA seem to think it's feasible and allowable, and I am not willing to write any idea off that provides a gain, not sure why you are so vehemently opposed to the possibility which is all i'm suggesting

Stivala said sprag clutch.
How does this work when you switch directions from generator mode to motor mode?
We know that honda does "extra harvest" rapidly oscillating from generator mode to motor mode.. Can your clutch react fast enough without burning up? I can't comment for his suggestions

What about stress concentrations? And whipping effect (vibrations) of a disk like mass (the clutch) on a long slender shaft at tens of thousands of rpm? I think you're stuck on the idea this proposed clutch mechanism would be the same as a typical road car design..

[Bill]

Honda never had a axial compressor its illegal

[Bandit1216]

Oh transparent one, why do you suppose the turbchargers are spinning close to 120k rpms?

When the formula began in 2014 guys like Ferrari and Renault had very small turbochargers. They realised they predictions were totally wrong and they were in a total different mode of operation to what Mercedes were doing so they had to increase the size drastically the following year.

They were smaller and lets say maxed out at 125k,(i doubt it) thhen imagine bigger, more efficient turbochargers... They are supposed to push more air at lower rpms, and they are supposed to push even more air because the blade design is more efficient too. So one can logically surmise that these turbos aren't operating near 125krpm typically.

I did some quick calcs in this thread here and IIRC estimated rpm was around 85k rpm at full boost. These are big wheels so they dont need to spin that fast to push the required amount of air.

Regards to any clutch.. I havent even dared to think about how ypu would get a clutch on that thing (split turbochrger). Just never even thought I would need to imagine it. But i will give it a shot.

Stivala said sprag clutch.
How does this work when you switch directions from generator mode to motor mode?
We know that honda does "extra harvest" rapidly oscillating from generator mode to motor mode.. Can your clutch react fast enough without burning up?

What about stress concentrations? And whipping effect (vibrations) of a disk like mass (the clutch) on a long slender shaft at tens of thousands of rpm?

I will have to go with Platinum here. I also like to think of ways to clutch the whole thing, but I think a designer would rather lower the rpm of the thing as much as possible. Efficiency will increase. I'm working in marine diesels and have stand beside turbo's that get quite some volume to 3 bar at 8000 rpm, but they are rather big though. We all know one needs to bring a big but turbo to win at pikes peak.

Also the switching of 80 kW of electric power would be a hard thing as said by Tommy. I think it's quite safe to assume the mgu-h is brush less, so some seriously big and fast switching is to be done, which should be easier when the rpm is lower, right.

Perhaps we are also forgetting that RB was dominant at mexico with a Renault in the back, who was also said to have a big turbo. To me it would be most logical the one with the lowest nominal turbo speed, would be the one with best turbo on high altitude tracks.

@etusch. Not sure whether you are trolling, but when you find a way to isolate magnetic fields, please PM me. Together we will be billionaires, or vanish mysteriously.

[etusch]

If I were know .. but I don't know. I just wonder if it is possible. I have not much knowledge about it. But I am thinking about it if it is possible to have variable magnetism when needed with permanent magnet.

[Bandit1216]

If I were know .. but I don't know. I just wonder if it is possible. I have not much knowledge about it. But I am thinking about it if it is possible to have variable magnetism when needed with permanent magnet.

Not that I know off. If that was possible, we could make free energy engines. All who claim to have done so, are either complete fruit baskets or in jail.

[Tommy Cookers]

https://www.celeron.com/en/product./motors.htm
seems to show the limits of rpm vs power

magnetic bearings will be used
ie active control of bearing function to suppress whirling etc