Can somone analyse this sound?
Currently working on itPlatinumZealot wrote:Can somone analyse this sound?
I know there is alot of obsession over max hp figures, but arent these engines more limited in efficiency? E.g. More effective use of the amount of available fuel and and maximizing power at a given flow as well as harvesting energy is more important (over the duration of an entire lap and race) than outright top and max hp figures?ringo wrote:I would take 2016 Mercedes power any day of the week.
That is competitive power even by the 2017 engine standards. I know for sure the 2017 mercedes doesn't have 20 or 30 hp more than last year's engine, so if honda has 20hp less that is actually not a bad position to be in.
HP is directly linked to Efficiency with the new rules. The ONLY reason why Mercedes has the best engine is because they are the most efficient ones. That's why everyone is chasing them. They make the most out of a drop of fuel. max HP is the most important thing. The effiency isn't something we're looking after directly, it's just the thing you have to maximise to get what you really want: powerPhil wrote:I know there is alot of obsession over max hp figures, but arent these engines more limited in efficiency? E.g. More effective use of the amount of available fuel and and maximizing power at a given flow as well as harvesting energy is more important (over the duration of an entire lap and race) than outright top and max hp figures?ringo wrote:I would take 2016 Mercedes power any day of the week.
That is competitive power even by the 2017 engine standards. I know for sure the 2017 mercedes doesn't have 20 or 30 hp more than last year's engine, so if honda has 20hp less that is actually not a bad position to be in.
I was under the assumption this is where Mercedes nailed it and Honda was struggling?
There is another video in car thread.glenntws wrote:So, I think I found some interesting things... I don't know what your opinion is towards that, but I'm confident the following ideas are right.
The ignition order 1-2-3-4-5-6 (or 1-3-2-4-6-5) was used in last years engine. Analyzing the engine sound example (the tweet that's shown here) from last year brought following results after using a small piece of it @6.1secs:
The engine was running at 13,300rpm.
There was a bit interference in the first ignition, very high interference in the second, about no interference in the third one.
Spacing frequency curves between 1-2 and 2-3 ignitions are about the same. Between 3-1 there's a deep curve, possibly signalizing a back switch to the other bank.
With that, we can be sure first ignition is on one bank, the second and third ones are on the other bank.
The sound analysis shows a spacing of ~320° between 1-2, ~260° between 2-3, ~150° between 3-1.
Remember the timings I've told you some pages ago about the 1-2-3-4-5-6 order?
1 - 120° - 2 - 120° - 3 - 210° - 4 - 120° - 5 - 120° - 6 - 30° - 1
Now, think about cutting out 1,3,5.... What intervals do you get?
2 - 330° - 4 - 240° - 6 - 150°
With a (more classical and normal) ignition order of 1-4-3-6-2-5 you can't achieve this sound. It's only possible with going through one bank and then through the other one (1-2-3-4-5-6 / 1-3-2-4-6-5).
Here's a pic showing what I mean: http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170226/soto83cn.png
I also showed you a little analysis of the engine sound teaser and it seemed the new engine uses 1-2-3-4-5-6. I'm currently working hard to get the most info out of what we have actually, but this can take some time.
RA616H's Analysis was done fast because it's not as important, while RA617H's sound is what we need to decrypt. That's why I could have maybe done some mistakes, if anyone of you knows something better just give it to us
Where did he say this? Also - what do you imply when you talk about a mercedes style turbo? The Honda PU does have the MGU-h between the turbine and the compressor.hemichromis wrote:IS there any confirmation that we have a Mercedes style turbo here?
Hasegawa says the turbocharger has been lowered, if the compressor was still in the Vee that would mean that it would need to shrink. For 2016 season they made the turbo bigger but had to raise it to achieve that.
Ok. Thanks far that.glenntws wrote:So, I think I found some interesting things... I don't know what your opinion is towards that, but I'm confident the following ideas are right.
The ignition order 1-2-3-4-5-6 (or 1-3-2-4-6-5) was used in last years engine. Analyzing the engine sound example (the tweet that's shown here) from last year brought following results after using a small piece of it @6.1secs:
The engine was running at 13,300rpm.
There was a bit interference in the first ignition, very high interference in the second, about no interference in the third one.
Spacing frequency curves between 1-2 and 2-3 ignitions are about the same. Between 3-1 there's a deep curve, possibly signalizing a back switch to the other bank.
With that, we can be sure first ignition is on one bank, the second and third ones are on the other bank.
The sound analysis shows a spacing of ~320° between 1-2, ~260° between 2-3, ~150° between 3-1.
Remember the timings I've told you some pages ago about the 1-2-3-4-5-6 order?
1 - 120° - 2 - 120° - 3 - 210° - 4 - 120° - 5 - 120° - 6 - 30° - 1
Now, think about cutting out 1,3,5.... What intervals do you get?
2 - 330° - 4 - 240° - 6 - 150°
With a (more classical and normal) ignition order of 1-4-3-6-2-5 you can't achieve this sound. It's only possible with going through one bank and then through the other one (1-2-3-4-5-6 / 1-3-2-4-6-5).
Here's a pic showing what I mean: http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170226/soto83cn.png
I also showed you a little analysis of the engine sound teaser and it seemed the new engine uses 1-2-3-4-5-6. I'm currently working hard to get the most info out of what we have actually, but this can take some time.
RA616H's Analysis was done fast because it's not as important, while RA617H's sound is what we need to decrypt. That's why I could have maybe done some mistakes, if anyone of you knows something better just give it to us
No problem with that. When talking about 1-2-3 , I mean the ignition events themself and not the cylinder numbers. That's why I said later, that the firing events 1-2-3 can be connected to the cylinders 2-4-6.PlatinumZealot wrote:Ok. Thanks far that.glenntws wrote:So, I think I found some interesting things... I don't know what your opinion is towards that, but I'm confident the following ideas are right.
The ignition order 1-2-3-4-5-6 (or 1-3-2-4-6-5) was used in last years engine. Analyzing the engine sound example (the tweet that's shown here) from last year brought following results after using a small piece of it @6.1secs:
The engine was running at 13,300rpm.
There was a bit interference in the first ignition, very high interference in the second, about no interference in the third one.
Spacing frequency curves between 1-2 and 2-3 ignitions are about the same. Between 3-1 there's a deep curve, possibly signalizing a back switch to the other bank.
With that, we can be sure first ignition is on one bank, the second and third ones are on the other bank.
The sound analysis shows a spacing of ~320° between 1-2, ~260° between 2-3, ~150° between 3-1.
Remember the timings I've told you some pages ago about the 1-2-3-4-5-6 order?
1 - 120° - 2 - 120° - 3 - 210° - 4 - 120° - 5 - 120° - 6 - 30° - 1
Now, think about cutting out 1,3,5.... What intervals do you get?
2 - 330° - 4 - 240° - 6 - 150°
With a (more classical and normal) ignition order of 1-4-3-6-2-5 you can't achieve this sound. It's only possible with going through one bank and then through the other one (1-2-3-4-5-6 / 1-3-2-4-6-5).
Here's a pic showing what I mean: http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170226/soto83cn.png
I also showed you a little analysis of the engine sound teaser and it seemed the new engine uses 1-2-3-4-5-6. I'm currently working hard to get the most info out of what we have actually, but this can take some time.
RA616H's Analysis was done fast because it's not as important, while RA617H's sound is what we need to decrypt. That's why I could have maybe done some mistakes, if anyone of you knows something better just give it to us
Why did you assume that cylinders 4, 5 and 6 were not involved in that sound recording?
Also how do you account for engine speed variations?
Just making sure we have a scientific basis for discussion.
