F1technical.net

GoranF1 wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 13:32

by Spa/Silvestone Alonso will sign a contract whit another team....i know this is Honda PU thread, just saying.

First and best option is staying where he is and coming engine updates may give him something to decide. Second is Renault. If he leave, when we think his carier we can say mclaren is wc next year

restless wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 14:19

Wazari wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 01:03

Just to clarify Honda is not opposed to "outside" help and consultants; it is welcomed. Getting outside help is another matter.

Thanks, but... can you clarify... the line above seems to contradict itself

One would assume that Honda would be open to outside help but the "outside help" may not be wanting to help Honda. I am sure they will get it right soon enough, especially now tokens are no more, Honda have huge resources and drive, so it'll be only a matter of time. Will Alonso leave too early, like he did with Ferrari, one has to wonder.

dren wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 13:39

I haven't payed attention to on-boards of RPM metering. Can anyone share the RPMs the PUs are running down the straights?

From China, it was ~10800 to ~12500 under full load. Haven't seen any onboards after that of the McLaren in qualifying.

Ferrari comes the closest to that spinning from ~10500 to ~12000.

Nuvolari wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 14:35

dren wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 13:39

I haven't payed attention to on-boards of RPM metering. Can anyone share the RPMs the PUs are running down the straights?

From China, it was ~10800 to ~12500 under full load. Haven't seen any onboards after that of the McLaren in qualifying.

Ferrari comes the closest to that spinning from ~10500 to ~12000.

Thanks Nuvolari!

Thank God Wazari-san posted and this thread started the constructive Technical discussion again (as expected by a technical forum).

Joseki wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 14:22

Fascinating how every time the Honda PU is having problems is because they tried something different from the others and failed miserably.

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 3 utilizzando Tapatalk

What Merc and Ferrari are doing to put out so much power is totally unknown, but you can be sure it is not anywhere close to conventional.

The reason they have been successful is because they have created a good baseline in 2014 and 2015 respectively had have been able to modify and improve one area at a time. Honda should have taken this approach, they felt it would take longer so have gone with revolutions than evolution.

From a purely semantic point of view, revolutions lead you right back where you started

FW17 wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 15:17

Joseki wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 14:22

Fascinating how every time the Honda PU is having problems is because they tried something different from the others and failed miserably.

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 3 utilizzando Tapatalk

What Merc and Ferrari are doing to put out so much power is totally unknown, but you can be sure it is not anywhere close to conventional.

The reason they have been successful is because they have created a good baseline in 2014 and 2015 respectively had have been able to modify and improve one area at a time. Honda should have taken this approach, they felt it would take longer so have gone with revolutions than evolution.

They weren't limited with compressor sizing by design. Honda was. It also sounds like Honda greatly improved the weight and center of mass with the new unit. That has to have a knock on effect with the chassis performance Mclaren is touting.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 15:19

From a purely semantic point of view, revolutions lead you right back where you started

OT alert....
Reminds me of this line from Under Siege
https://youtu.be/jwTLOwV9k1c?t=2m49s

I can't find it in the regulations, so maybe I am delusional, but I thought they stated only one injection of fuel per cycle. Am I wrong, and can there be multiple injections?

At higher engine speeds, we should see higher piston speeds, and perhaps better turbulent mixing if main fuel mix is injected prior or during the combustion stroke. Then a pre-chamber injection just prior to ignition for the jets. I think somebody drew a design that had the piston crown forming the pre-chamber.

Less fuel and less air at higher engine speeds with higher piston speeds might mix better? Perhaps even leaner running can happen if knocking is reduced from the better mixing.

dren wrote: ↑

05 May 2017, 16:11

I can't find it in the regulations, so maybe I am delusional, but I thought they stated only one injection of fuel per cycle. Am I wrong, and can there be multiple injections?

It's me again.

Technical Regulations Article 5.11.1 wrote:Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition coil and single spark plug per cylinder. No more than five sparks per cylinder per engine cycle are permitted.

The use of plasma, laser or other high frequency ignition techniques is forbidden.

Only approved ignition coils may be used and the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

No mention of injections, only 'sparks'...

One injector can be designed and can be placed to inject main chamber and then pre-chamber

5.10.2 There may only be one direct injector per cylinder and no injectors are permitted upstream of the intake valves or downstream of the exhaust valves. Only approved parts may be used and the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

Pop quiz hotshot: why is combustion in spark ignition more efficient at higher piston speeds?

Dual anchor - Ferrari seem to have a less discrete (more continuous) operating window for their injector.

Wazari san, i wanna ask two question. Firstly Which one is more ambitious, HCCI, HLSI, or turbulent jet chamber?
And second, HCCI has no room in racing engine, am i right?