Honda F1 project leader Yusuke Hasegawa has outlined a number of reasons why Honda has been struggling so badly in the beginning of the 2017 Formula One season. He confirmed that lots of problems were not discovered while running on the dynamo meter.
For those who still believe oil burning is a thing:
Assume the car burns 0.9l of oil (300km race, 0.3l/km) per race and assume a team somehow manages to formulate an oil blend with the same heating values as fuel (say 45MJ/kg) which the FIA somehow fails to notice. Say 50 laps per race, 100s per lap gives roughly 6.5kW available in this fuel/oil per lap at 800kg/m^3 oil density.
Now say this can be converted with some 25% efficiency given than it can only find its way into the combustion chamber by going past the rings and hence will burn very poorly. That's about 2 horsepower.
Do you still think this is something that can be exploited ?
Seems like solid proof to me. The flipside is: your calculation applies to previous seasons too.
Since the issue is the ratio of *usable energy* vs *mass of the extra oil*, consuming 5l of oil won't show any benefits over 0.9l. You'd still struggle to break even on laptime either way. This was just as true in 2016 as it is today. Burning oil for its energy content has never made sense.
...Yet they clearly did it anyway. Oil consumption in the last year of the V8s was ~0.2l/100km if I remember, so the gobs Merc were using in '16 clearly weren't from natural consequence. Some other mechanism was in play that made over-consuming oil advantageous despite the extra weight.
"Oil burning as a delivery system for illegal fuel additives" has always been the far more likely explanation. Accomplishing that with only 0.3l/100 km would take some super-clever chemistry, but it's probably no longer an impossible scenario. It's most likely achievable.
What does oil do when mixed with gasoline? What are the physical properties of gasoline mixed with oil? Ever tuned a rotary? They consume a lot of oil, it's in the nature of the engine. The consequence of oil mixed with gasoline does both good and bad things with those engines, can you tell me what that is?
For those who still believe oil burning is a thing:
Assume the car burns 0.9l of oil (300km race, 0.3l/km) per race and assume a team somehow manages to formulate an oil blend with the same heating values as fuel (say 45MJ/kg) which the FIA somehow fails to notice. Say 50 laps per race, 100s per lap gives roughly 6.5kW available in this fuel/oil per lap at 800kg/m^3 oil density.
Now say this can be converted with some 25% efficiency given than it can only find its way into the combustion chamber by going past the rings and hence will burn very poorly. That's about 2 horsepower.
Do you still think this is something that can be exploited ?
Seems like solid proof to me. The flipside is: your calculation applies to previous seasons too.
Since the issue is the ratio of *usable energy* vs *mass of the extra oil*, consuming 5l of oil won't show any benefits over 0.9l. You'd still struggle to break even on laptime either way. This was just as true in 2016 as it is today. Burning oil for its energy content has never made sense.
...Yet they clearly did it anyway. Oil consumption in the last year of the V8s was ~0.2l/100km if I remember, so the gobs Merc were using in '16 clearly weren't from natural consequence. Some other mechanism was in play that made over-consuming oil advantageous despite the extra weight.
"Oil burning as a delivery system for illegal fuel additives" has always been the far more likely explanation. Accomplishing that with only 0.3l/100 km would take some super-clever chemistry, but it's probably no longer an impossible scenario. It's most likely achievable.
You are forgetting that:
A. They were allowed to return the blowby to the turbo inlet. This meant that the oil could be well mixed with the air and so would burn much better.
B. Oil composition was unregulated. For what we know they could have used rocket fuel for oil and FIA would not have batted an eyelid.
C. If used for a qualy lap the mass penalty would have probably been tiny compared to potential benefits.
Going back to the N/A era, Honda say that in 2003 their qualy engine oil consumption was over 3l/100km and 1l/100 km during race. By 2006 they managed to achieve 0.66l/100km.
Keep in mind these engines had less than half the cylinder pressure of turbo engines, about 4 times less mileage and never knocked!
Current engines experience higher ring temperatures, pressures and are required to last much longer. This means that over the life of the engine the rings lose a very significant chunk of their tangential force. I am actually surprised they manage to achieve the current levels of oil consumption.
Isn't combustion what gives the rings their tangential force? Occasional detonation which these engines have to endure create incredible amounts of force. If teams are using steel pistons, then it is the ring force and skirt friction on the cylinder wall, that becomes a limiting factor for dealing with detonation. Now, if you have to live with detonation, why not try to harness that incredible power which is inevitable and have to deal with anyway?
Now the regulations stipulate a lower octane limit, but what does oil do to that octane limit?
What does detonation do to the drive line? Probably caught out Red Bull on race 1.
No help wanted. I just think this kind of speculation belongs in a different type of forum.
Speculation? Maybe you need to call yourself as naive instead of mine as speculation. There are enough cases those show us fia can't or intentionaly don't police some teams. Ferrari case and it's result, oil burning things, mercedes rear suspension which is visible one of they did with das system and we dont know unvisibles (the matter is this suspension passed from fia until some team pointed it) Racing Point case; they were guilty for taking mercedes parts and data and especially parts after rule change but mercedes is inocent before racing point found guilty. If buying/getting it is illegal selling/giving is also illegal. This has only one meaning. Fia determined not give any penalty to Mercedes from very beginning.
It is general approach if somebody has crime past from something and he is in court again from same kind of thing this is not proof of he did it again but strong indication.
I don't want to insult anyone but I think everyone who think the fia act fair is naive thinking.
These teams showed how they are working and fia showed how not policing them.
For those who still believe oil burning is a thing:
Assume the car burns 0.9l of oil (300km race, 0.3l/km) per race and assume a team somehow manages to formulate an oil blend with the same heating values as fuel (say 45MJ/kg) which the FIA somehow fails to notice. Say 50 laps per race, 100s per lap gives roughly 6.5kW available in this fuel/oil per lap at 800kg/m^3 oil density.
Now say this can be converted with some 25% efficiency given than it can only find its way into the combustion chamber by going past the rings and hence will burn very poorly. That's about 2 horsepower.
Do you still think this is something that can be exploited ?
Seems like solid proof to me. The flipside is: your calculation applies to previous seasons too.
Since the issue is the ratio of *usable energy* vs *mass of the extra oil*, consuming 5l of oil won't show any benefits over 0.9l. You'd still struggle to break even on laptime either way. This was just as true in 2016 as it is today. Burning oil for its energy content has never made sense.
...Yet they clearly did it anyway. Oil consumption in the last year of the V8s was ~0.2l/100km if I remember, so the gobs Merc were using in '16 clearly weren't from natural consequence. Some other mechanism was in play that made over-consuming oil advantageous despite the extra weight.
"Oil burning as a delivery system for illegal fuel additives" has always been the far more likely explanation. Accomplishing that with only 0.3l/100 km would take some super-clever chemistry, but it's probably no longer an impossible scenario. It's most likely achievable.
What does oil do when mixed with gasoline? What are the physical properties of gasoline mixed with oil? Ever tuned a rotary? They consume a lot of oil, it's in the nature of the engine. The consequence of oil mixed with gasoline does both good and bad things with those engines, can you tell me what that is?
I can't believe how they think it is just normal lubrication oil and commenting accordng to that.
Current engines experience higher ring temperatures, pressures and are required to last much longer. This means that over the life of the engine the rings lose a very significant chunk of their tangential force. I am actually surprised they manage to achieve the current levels of oil consumption.
Isn't combustion what gives the rings their tangential force? Occasional detonation which these engines have to endure create incredible amounts of force. If teams are using steel pistons, then it is the ring force and skirt friction on the cylinder wall, that becomes a limiting factor for dealing with detonation. Now, if you have to live with detonation, why not try to harness that incredible power which is inevitable and have to deal with anyway?
Now the regulations stipulate a lower octane limit, but what does oil do to that octane limit?
What does detonation do to the drive line? Probably caught out Red Bull on race 1.
The tangential force has 2 components: the force exerted by the cylinder pressure on the ring and the elastic force created by compressing the ring in the bore. It is the latter that is partially lost during the life of the engine.
Knock will often unsettle the first 2 rings leading to high blowby and oil consumption. Not even the oil ring is safe, I've seen oil ring springs broken by severe knock too.
The driveline frequency is very low (below 100 Hz) compared to the knock frequency (well above 1kHz) so it does not react. If you were to measure the torsional oscillations of the crank or something rigidly connected to it then you could see the knock signature. However by the time you get to the gearbox which typically has a compliant input shaft the high knock frequency is filtered out.
Red Bull says its preferred option for Formula 1 engines in 2022 is to take over the Honda project and run the power units itself.
With Honda having announced that it is to quit F1 at the end of 2021, Red Bull is having to weigh up what it does for a power supply longer term.
While Renault could be forced to supply Red Bull with engines as part of F1’s sporting regulations, the team's motorsport advisor Helmut Marko says that the Milton Keynes outfit is actually eyeing another option.
It says that, providing the FIA agrees to an engine freeze from the start of 2022, which means Red Bull would not have to worry with developing the power unit, then it could take over the entire Honda project.
Marko suggests that factory space available near its factory, plus the close proximity of Honda's current UK facilities, make such an option realistic.
Speaking to German channel Sport1, Marko said: “It’s a very complex subject. Just as complex as these engines are.
“We would favour, provided the talks with Honda are positive, that we take over the IP rights and everything that is necessary, to then prepare and deploy the engines ourselves in Milton Keynes.
Red Bull says its preferred option for Formula 1 engines in 2022 is to take over the Honda project and run the power units itself.
With Honda having announced that it is to quit F1 at the end of 2021, Red Bull is having to weigh up what it does for a power supply longer term.
While Renault could be forced to supply Red Bull with engines as part of F1’s sporting regulations, the team's motorsport advisor Helmut Marko says that the Milton Keynes outfit is actually eyeing another option.
It says that, providing the FIA agrees to an engine freeze from the start of 2022, which means Red Bull would not have to worry with developing the power unit, then it could take over the entire Honda project.
Marko suggests that factory space available near its factory, plus the close proximity of Honda's current UK facilities, make such an option realistic.
Speaking to German channel Sport1, Marko said: “It’s a very complex subject. Just as complex as these engines are.
“We would favour, provided the talks with Honda are positive, that we take over the IP rights and everything that is necessary, to then prepare and deploy the engines ourselves in Milton Keynes.
Honda spends 2021 only running the spec that is frozen for that year? That wouldn't make sense, their Super GT engine uses a similar combustion process minus E-turbo. I believe Honda will continue developing until the end of 2021 with the aim of the following year, only reason why Red Bull would take over the power unit for 2022. If Honda is leaving them with a competitive power unit for 2022, then with left overs from the budge cap and the fact that in season development is essentially frozen, Red Bull could run and develop certain aspects of the power unit through 2022. This is of course assuming the power units will be frozen entirely by 2023. Or if any development does happen it would be a pooled development for a standardized part. That the manufacturers agree to develop a specific part of the power unit, that part becomes a standardized part usable by all manufacturers and the cost of R&D and manufacturing, and testing, and implementing that part becomes a pooled and distributed investment. The IP for said part can be leveraged by all teams if for example said part is made by a common supplier, for example fuel injectors. Piston wrist pins, or crank or rod bearings.
If a team doesn't want others using certain components then they are forbidden from being upgraded or changed. If they do, then others get to learn what they want to upgrade, and the part can only be upgraded if other manufacturers agree, then all manufacturers pool their resources to develop said part, and reap the benefits. That way power units still develop but in a much more controlled fashion. It will stop teams from making large scale changes to the power unit, as not all components may contribute to the performance of each manufacturer in the same way. This will make teams reluctant to agree to any change to things that make their power unit unique, but will stop them from developing their unique component to the point of giving them an unfair advantage.
It hasn't been revealed what the material is, just that it was newly developed specifically for the Honda F1 PU in partnership with Honda. Since it is an exclusive technology it likely won't be available for an outside company to acquire. But that doesn't mean they can't receive engine blocks that have been prepared and finished by the Honda factory in Kumamoto. RBT can pay for their services, just they won't have the existing development team available to continue developing a 2022/23 PU. RedBull probably won't be buying IP like plating technology that belongs to an outside company. They would need the PU specs frozen to continue using them and Honda would likely need to prepare a PU that is optimized for future biofuel and ethanol etc. Ferrari and Shell have been working on this and likely wouldn't want the development frozen, but if what is said is true and Honda have been able to bring forward the 2022 PU developed for 10% biofuel then at least RBT may have access to a PU that will br ready for the 2022 technical regulations.
I guess it's conventional process, but special technique, ingredients, steps?
600Hv which this plating is supposedly capable of is practically martensite.
Or in other words aluminum plating that has the same physical toughness as tool steel, or cutlery steel.
600 HV is not even close to being suitable for a cylinder bore. The typical CrN coated piston rings come in at about 1750 HV give or take. If you were to run these in a high speed high BMEP engine they would tear through a 600 HV bore in no time.
The toughness of material is a measure of how much energy it absorbs before breaking so I'm not sure how that is relevant. All hard coatings are very brittle so they have very poor toughness. Typical aluminium has very good toughness on its own since it is very ductile with some grades easily exceeding 10% elongation before failure.
I guess it's conventional process, but special technique, ingredients, steps?
600Hv which this plating is supposedly capable of is practically martensite.
Or in other words aluminum plating that has the same physical toughness as tool steel, or cutlery steel.
600 HV is not even close to being suitable for a cylinder bore. The typical CrN coated piston rings come in at about 1750 HV give or take. If you were to run these in a high speed high BMEP engine they would tear through a 600 HV bore in no time.
The toughness of material is a measure of how much energy it absorbs before breaking so I'm not sure how that is relevant. All hard coatings are very brittle so they have very poor toughness. Typical aluminium has very good toughness on its own since it is very ductile with some grades easily exceeding 10% elongation before failure.
Yay you learned why they used Al to join boost pipes! Yeah rings top out at 1250 but you're right it would wear through the bore in no time. Typically that always happens when you run an engine without oil.
I guess it's conventional process, but special technique, ingredients, steps?
600Hv which this plating is supposedly capable of is practically martensite.
Or in other words aluminum plating that has the same physical toughness as tool steel, or cutlery steel.
600 HV is not even close to being suitable for a cylinder bore. The typical CrN coated piston rings come in at about 1750 HV give or take. If you were to run these in a high speed high BMEP engine they would tear through a 600 HV bore in no time.
The toughness of material is a measure of how much energy it absorbs before breaking so I'm not sure how that is relevant. All hard coatings are very brittle so they have very poor toughness. Typical aluminium has very good toughness on its own since it is very ductile with some grades easily exceeding 10% elongation before failure.
Yay you learned why they used Al to join boost pipes! Yeah rings top out at 1250 but you're right it would wear through the bore in no time. Typically that always happens when you run an engine without oil.
I would not presume these PDFs represent what "kumasei mekki" is that was developed in partnership with Honda F1.
