F1technical.net

hemichromis wrote:Talking about a 'performance advantage'?

This could be a similar layout to now but much better or more likely a split turbo of some description.
I'm really hoping that they can match mercedes in power off the bat and sort out reliability through the season.

I think we also need to remember that Honda did not have TJI last year whereas all other teams did.
I am very hopeful

Yes, if you take into consideration the limitation of their deployment capability and the lack of TJI, the Honda PU did a decent job, no wonder many of the competitors really praised their progress during last season, so overall I'm very hopeful as well but I expect some troubles as well in the early part of the season.

Sounds broken...

GoranF1 wrote:Sounds broken...

Lots of resonance, I wouldn't say broken, I'd say it almost sounds like frequencies cancelling out, almost sounds as if it's running on 3 cylinders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN5gchDsA00

godlameroso wrote:

GoranF1 wrote:Sounds broken...

Lots of resonance, I wouldn't say broken, I'd say it almost sounds like frequencies cancelling out, almost sounds as if it's running on 3 cylinders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN5gchDsA00

I heard racing engines are designed to be optimal at high revs so on low they tend to sound "broken" a bit.

GoranF1 wrote: I heard racing engines are designed to be optimal at high revs so on low the tend to sound "broken" a bit.

Piston slap from the layout?

It does sound rough.

godlameroso wrote:

GoranF1 wrote:Sounds broken...

Lots of resonance, I wouldn't say broken, I'd say it almost sounds like frequencies cancelling out, almost sounds as if it's running on 3 cylinders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN5gchDsA00

I suspect they didn't push the PU all that much, left it in the low rev range and likely didn't have all cylinders firing but just enough to keep it ticking over for the purposes of the audio file. More of a PR "Look we have the PU in the MCL32 and it works" to keep up with other teams PR machines. Unless Honda release their own video of the PU, I suspect we won't get to hear the PU properly until testing begins.

Would there be any benefit to operating the V6 as an I3 or V4 or V-twin? i.e. Dividing the fuel flow allowance through fewer cylinders? More fuel & higher charge per cylinder. Furthermore: dummy pistons and valves to minimize losses to the unused cylinders.

Craigy wrote:

GoranF1 wrote: I heard racing engines are designed to be optimal at high revs so on low the tend to sound "broken" a bit.

Piston slap from the layout?

It does sound rough.

The clearance between cylinder and piston is so small that there's little chance that's piston slap. In fact the clearances are so tight that the engine has to be fed hot oil intravenously. If you were to cold start these engines they'd seize pretty fast.

cyclic cylinder cutting maybe ? cutting 2 cyls per bank at open throttle ?

An engine fire up without revving the engine. Its a bit weak...Sounds more like a failed fire up attempt to be honest. Hopefully the 2017 Honda can surprise us positively.

completely different sound than 2016 PU , they should already implemented whatever pre ignition technology they wanted to do previously

2016 vs 2017

roon wrote:Would there be any benefit to operating the V6 as an I3 or V4 or V-twin? i.e. Dividing the fuel flow allowance through fewer cylinders? More fuel & higher charge per cylinder. Furthermore: dummy pistons and valves to minimize losses to the unused cylinders.

Food for thought; How can we make the crankshaft as short as possible? Could this affect resonance?

Everything on schedule. Lot's of testing and work...............

Wazari wrote:

roon wrote:Would there be any benefit to operating the V6 as an I3 or V4 or V-twin? i.e. Dividing the fuel flow allowance through fewer cylinders? More fuel & higher charge per cylinder. Furthermore: dummy pistons and valves to minimize losses to the unused cylinders.

Food for thought; How can we make the crankshaft as short as possible? Could this affect resonance?

Everything on schedule. Lot's of testing and work...............

Join the piston connecting rods together. Shared conrod big-ends, or some other form of linkage to allow opposing cylinders to occupy the same plane. No offset of the cylinders between banks. Voila: shorter crank, shorter block, and you still satisfy the three crank throw rule. Regulations regarding connecting rod design are pretty open aside from material specifications.

Edit: regarding resonance, if opposing cylinders are operating in the same plane, there would be no "twisting" moment, or yaw, about the vertical axis. When the pistons are offset, as is commonly the case when two pistons share the same throw, there would be a twisting force seen by the crank throw as it pushes and pulls on the connecting rods. A co-planar cylinder layout would eliminate this and perhaps improve journal wear & reduce resonant frequencies which might result from a minutely warping crankshaft throw. Which would have further durability benefits for the rest of the assembly. The pistons themselves should also see some reduced side-loading, so perhaps there are some frictional benefits as well.