Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[hollus]

Explains the problem with the electronics, 300 x 60 = 18000

[FW17]

Explains the problem with the electronics, 300 x 60 = 18000

It will be a wonder if a turbo engine revs that high even without fuel limit

[gruntguru]

Interesting point. The rpm limit is actually redundant. As long as fuel flow is capped at 100 kg/hr, there is no advantage in revving higher with falling power.

OTOH there is nothing inherent to a turbo engine that restrains it from high rpm. It just happens that the turbo is usually sized for a broad power band in the region where the engine wants to breathe.

[hollus]

The rules say 15000 max.

[J.A.W.]

The rules also dictate poppet valves,
& they tend to struggle a bit..
Mechanically & flow-wise, with ultra high rpm & with high boost pressures pushing against them..

[gruntguru]

The rpm limit is actually redundant.

[langwadt]

Explains the problem with the electronics, 300 x 60 = 18000

it could be interpreted in many ways; 6 pistons so 3000, or 6/2 combustions so 6000

or maybe it is just nonsense invented by the ad company..

[McLobby]

300 BPS per piston on 8 cylinders = 18.000 rpm

300 BPS per piston on 6 cylinders = 15.000 rpm

Just a guess based on analogy, I don't know engines....

[hurril]

300 BPS per piston on 8 cylinders = 18.000 rpm

300 BPS per piston on 6 cylinders = 15.000 rpm

Just a guess based on analogy, I don't know engines....

Surely the cylinder count is not relevant? The one cylinder frequency still has to make one revolution per arrival at a given endpoint.

[Farfar]

With 12.000 rpm we have 200 per esconde. Means 100 BPS for each cilinder. If Honda's engine fires 2 cilinder satélite time 100 x 3 = 300BPS

[PlatinumZealot]

https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/55 ... 00/photo/1

That is the one cylinder engine they have on the test bench. Note the singular "piston."

[ian_s]

with the talk about raising the RPM limit and upping the power output for 2017, it makes sense to try and design your engine to cope now so you don't have to change much later on.

[the EDGE]

with the talk about raising the RPM limit and upping the power output for 2017, it makes sense to try and design your engine to cope now so you don't have to change much later on.

Not if it compromises the current engine, you design the best package for the time then think about 2017 engines when AND IF it's agreed to increase rpm

[bonjon1979]

with the talk about raising the RPM limit and upping the power output for 2017, it makes sense to try and design your engine to cope now so you don't have to change much later on.

Not if it compromises the current engine, you design the best package for the time then think about 2017 engines when AND IF it's agreed to increase rpm

Already they don't use all the RPM available to them. It's the fuel flow that's the limiting factor.

[riff_raff]

Not if it compromises the current engine, you design the best package for the time then think about 2017 engines when AND IF it's agreed to increase rpm

With regards to higher rpms, the turbocharger actually helps a bit. The turbine provides a bit of exhaust backpressure on the pistons as they travel past TDC on the exhaust stroke, which reduces the max inertia forces on the piston/conrod/crank/bearings/etc.