F1technical.net

Rumours about version 2.5 maybe as soon as Baku;

source; http://f1sokuho.mopita.com/pc/free/inde ... 60&tt=1170

Rough translation;

Honda decided against introducing a 'spec 3' with upgraded combustion chamber at Canada. Hasegawa wants to introduce as soon as possible but not making promises as to when.
Author speculates it's hard to think drastic improvements can be made in 2 weeks till Baku, so the author thinks its reasonable to think at the earliest Austria, if not Belgium.
Hasegawa is quoted saying "the ICE for Baku may not be entirely the same spec as Canada and will have some kind of new parts. Whether it'll be the step 3 or step 2.5, we don't know." ICE used at Canada was the engine used at Spain and Monaco, but some changes were made outside of FIA's seal.
Author speculates that if the Monaco engine was step 2, the engine at Canada could be called step 2.1 (and seems to think upgrades, if any, for Baku would be for increasing drivability and reliability, not power... which I think is logical). And the author thinks Baku engine may be any iteration between step 2.2 to step 2.9.
Author thinks another reason to bring even any small incremental upgrades to Baku is, although Honda hasn't had results showing that the step 3 upgrades are ready for GP, to lessen resentment from Zak Brown and to take full advantage of the abolishment of tokens.

I don't get their logic. They are having failures on a race by race basis, they are going to start taking penalties on a race by race basis.

Introduce the bloody updates. If it's slow and blows up after a lap, work needs doing, we knew that anyway; if it's fast but fragile, yay, progress; if it's slow but reliable, yay, progress. It's like they want McLaren to invoke the performance clauses in their contract, or even like they want to fail and get out soon.

Personally, I think they just are out of their depth with this sort of highly complex formula. I have no doubt they would eventually get it, but I do doubt they can before the next formula is introduced.

If they rush the updates will only make the engine more unreliable. It's hard to imagine how but it's probably the truth.

FW17 wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2017, 18:19

Some interesting insight regarding Engine testing from Toni Cuquerella (Ex-Ferrari Engineer)

.
.
.
.

http://www.elconfide...rcedes_1398887/

Thanks for sharing

Your link does not work, here is the original spanish version
http://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/ ... s_1398887/

Joseki wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 11:13

If they rush the updates will only make the engine more unreliable. It's hard to imagine how but it's probably the truth.

Really? It appears that their problems don't stem from bench testing, it's when the engine is in the car being driven on a real circuit where the problems appear. So, if they're unable to simulate in car forces on the bench, then why not get it in the car and measure in car?

This season is already a loss, so might as well develop heavily and come back stronger next season. At least appearing to actually do something will satisfy McLaren a lot more than wobbly update schedules and lipservice. If they just showed willing to develop, it would make a lot of important people a lot happier.

[quote=MrPotatoHead]......a 90 degree V6 with straight crank pins will always be an odd fire engine and will inherently be vibration prone.[/quote]
(sorry gg, your tip doesn't seem to work on my old school PC)

well, it depends what is meant by vibration prone ......
90 deg is actually a magic angle that tends to give minimal vibration, notionally only 120 deg would be better)
(eg a 90 deg V6 could in effect have 1 crankpin as eg some V4 Honda engines eg in Moto GP in effect do)

ie the so-called external vibration (that which eg the user feels with a solid-mounted engine) is minimal
because counterweighting local to each crankpin will give full cancellation of all engine frequency inertia forces
(leaving only the small forces at twice etc engine frequency, these are cancelled with the 240 deg crank leaving only a couple)

and remember many F1 and F2 races have been won by 'true' (ie 3 throw/pin V6s) Honda engines with more vibratory 80 deg V angles
these having force and couple vibration at engine frequency (in addition to the smaller vibrations as above)

ok the concept that engines aggregrate internal loads to give external vibration only if the aggregate is non-zero is an ideal


if we mean so-called internal vibration eg mainly the effects that produce crankshaft torsional vibration .....

yes the 90 deg is no magic angle - it's merely less bad than eg 60 or 65 deg but worse than eg 120 deg (Cosworth and earlier Ferrari turbos)
(Ferraris famous old 65 deg NA engines of course had 6 pins, though I have in the past wrongly said otherwise)

the uneven firing (of the 90 deg) at current F1s very high gas loads will 'surely' give high torsional loadings
but this is no higher than eg the old F1 (90 deg or 80 deg) turbo V6s
anyway a higher-revving NA or lightly-boosted (Indy ?) 90 deg V6 could have similar torsional effects from high unevenly-spaced inertial loadings

so the crankshaft designer's job (designing to the limits of the crank material) is harder, but he/she should be able to design around this
probably by designing these engines to have more 'no-go' rpm zones than similar non-F1 engines do

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 12:17

MrPotatoHead wrote:......a 90 degree V6 with straight crank pins will always be an odd fire engine and will inherently be vibration prone.

(sorry gg, your tip doesn't seem to work on my old school PC)

well, it depends what is meant by vibration prone ......
90 deg is actually a magic angle that tends to give minimal vibration, notionally only 120 deg would be better)
(a 90 deg V6 could loosely speaking have 1 crankpin as eg some V4 Honda engines eg in Moto GP loosely speaking do)

ie the so-called external vibration (that which eg the user feels with a solid-mounted engine) is minimal
because counterweighting local to each crankpin will give full cancellation of all engine frequency inertia forces
(leaving only the small forces at twice etc engine frequency, these are cancelled with the 240 deg crank leaving only a couple)

many F1 and F2 races have been won by 'true' (ie 3 throw/pin V6s) Honda engines with more vibratory 80 deg V angles
these having force and couple vibration at engine frequency (in addition to the smaller vibrations as above)


if we mean so-called internal vibration eg mainly the effects that produce crankshaft torsional vibration .....

yes the 90 deg is no magic angle - it's merely less bad than eg 60 or 65 deg but worse than eg 120 deg (Cosworth and earlier Ferrari turbos)
(Ferraris famous old 65 deg NA engines of course had 6 pins, though I have in the past wrongly said otherwise)

the uneven firing (of the 90 deg) at current F1s very high gas loads will 'surely' give high torsional loadings
but this is no higher than eg the old F1 (90 deg or 80 deg) turbo V6s
anyway a higher-revving NA or lightly-boosted (Indy ?) 90 deg V6 could have similar torsional effects from high unevenly-spaced inertial loadings

so the crankshaft designer's job (designing to the limits of the crank material) is harder, but he/she should be able to design around this
probably by designing these engines to have more 'no-go' rpm zones than similar non-F1 engines do

A 90 degree V6 only runs smoothly with offset crank pins - as is done in most (all modern) road cars.
Straight crank pins give you an odd fire situation with 90 - 150 - 90 - 150 - 90 - 150 firing intervals.
Not smooth at all.

To me it sounds like the vibration problems they have are a combination of the inherent odd fire engine vibrations, the potential TJI combustion oscillations, any drivetrain / suspensions induced vibrations and the harmonic resonant frequency responses of the engine and chassis combination.

So without simulating all of these in a dyno cell I imagine they will have a hard time being able to reconcile the track conditions and the dyno conditions.

'a 90 deg V6 only runs smoothly with offset crankpins'

what does 'smoothly' mean here ?
are you saying that such an (even-firing) engine has no torsional vibration of the crankshaft ?
if so then we must believe that the usual 4 cylinder inline engine also has no torsional vibration

even-firing 90 deg V6s and GP-winning somewhat uneven-firing 90 deg V6s are all energised by 6 explosions at intervals within any 2 revs
these explosions (being high frequency impulses) will all excite torsional vibrations particularly at various multiples of crankshaft natural frequency

the even/uneven firing is a lower frequency difference and doesn't necessarily make a huge difference to the overall situation
100 years ago the Liberty 45 deg V12 aero engine was suspect because of the inherent uneven firing due to the 45 deg angle
the designers beefed up the crankshaft and it didn't have crank failure in engines delivered to customers (active in WW1 or later)
there was also in US home service a 45 deg Liberty V8 (firing more unevenly than the V12 of course) - it also seemed ok crankshaftwise

And conventional wisdom would tell you that there's no benefit or use in having a unique firing order, that there's no gains to be had.

Being stuck with a 90 150 arrangement means the 150 intervals have more time to establish the combustion environment than the 90 degree ones. That's certainly something you'd never notice with a single cylinder design, but you would see it on the dyno. Maybe there's some chess like thinking involved in making these engines work as intended while being crippled by the regulations.

seezung wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 10:18

Rumours about version 2.5 maybe as soon as Baku;

source; http://f1sokuho.mopita.com/pc/free/inde ... 60&tt=1170

Rough translation;

Honda decided against introducing a 'spec 3' with upgraded combustion chamber at Canada. Hasegawa wants to introduce as soon as possible but not making promises as to when.
Author speculates it's hard to think drastic improvements can be made in 2 weeks till Baku, so the author thinks its reasonable to think at the earliest Austria, if not Belgium.
Hasegawa is quoted saying "the ICE for Baku may not be entirely the same spec as Canada and will have some kind of new parts. Whether it'll be the step 3 or step 2.5, we don't know." ICE used at Canada was the engine used at Spain and Monaco, but some changes were made outside of FIA's seal.
Author speculates that if the Monaco engine was step 2, the engine at Canada could be called step 2.1 (and seems to think upgrades, if any, for Baku would be for increasing drivability and reliability, not power... which I think is logical). And the author thinks Baku engine may be any iteration between step 2.2 to step 2.9.
Author thinks another reason to bring even any small incremental upgrades to Baku is, although Honda hasn't had results showing that the step 3 upgrades are ready for GP, to lessen resentment from Zak Brown and to take full advantage of the abolishment of tokens.

During these last 3 years of Honda whit Mclaren i am realy sick and fed up whit updates that are:
" increasing drivability and reliability, not power"

GoranF1 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:41

seezung wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 10:18

Rumours about version 2.5 maybe as soon as Baku;

source; http://f1sokuho.mopita.com/pc/free/inde ... 60&tt=1170

Rough translation;

Honda decided against introducing a 'spec 3' with upgraded combustion chamber at Canada. Hasegawa wants to introduce as soon as possible but not making promises as to when.
Author speculates it's hard to think drastic improvements can be made in 2 weeks till Baku, so the author thinks its reasonable to think at the earliest Austria, if not Belgium.
Hasegawa is quoted saying "the ICE for Baku may not be entirely the same spec as Canada and will have some kind of new parts. Whether it'll be the step 3 or step 2.5, we don't know." ICE used at Canada was the engine used at Spain and Monaco, but some changes were made outside of FIA's seal.
Author speculates that if the Monaco engine was step 2, the engine at Canada could be called step 2.1 (and seems to think upgrades, if any, for Baku would be for increasing drivability and reliability, not power... which I think is logical). And the author thinks Baku engine may be any iteration between step 2.2 to step 2.9.
Author thinks another reason to bring even any small incremental upgrades to Baku is, although Honda hasn't had results showing that the step 3 upgrades are ready for GP, to lessen resentment from Zak Brown and to take full advantage of the abolishment of tokens.

During these last 3 years of Honda whit Mclaren i am realy sick and fed up whit updates that are:
" increasing drivability and reliability, not power"

It's more of a speculation by the author tbh. If it brings 10kw or so like it did it at Spain, it should still be helpful. I believe another 15-20kw will put McLaren in the best of rest category.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:17

And conventional wisdom would tell you that there's no benefit or use in having a unique firing order, that there's no gains to be had.

I would think there is a gain in strength in the crankshaft by having 3 pins rather than having 6 by offset pins?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:17

Being stuck with a 90 150 arrangement means the 150 intervals have more time to establish the combustion environment than the 90 degree ones. That's certainly something you'd never notice with a single cylinder design, but you would see it on the dyno. Maybe there's some chess like thinking involved in making these engines work as intended while being crippled by the regulations.

Huh?

Surely the "time to establish the combustion environment" is the same for all cylinders? ie starting from when the intake valves open.

wuzak wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2017, 00:25

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:17

And conventional wisdom would tell you that there's no benefit or use in having a unique firing order, that there's no gains to be had.

I would think there is a gain in strength in the crankshaft by having 3 pins rather than having 6 by offset pins?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:17

Being stuck with a 90 150 arrangement means the 150 intervals have more time to establish the combustion environment than the 90 degree ones. That's certainly something you'd never notice with a single cylinder design, but you would see it on the dyno. Maybe there's some chess like thinking involved in making these engines work as intended while being crippled by the regulations.

Huh?

Surely the "time to establish the combustion environment" is the same for all cylinders? ie starting from when the intake valves open.

I think he miss-thunk a little but there is a tiny point related to what we online might think is the problem. Maybe godlameroso is referring to vibrations or interferences otherwise from the other cylinders and that the 150-side, in that sense, is a little closer and thus has less time. On the other hand - that pertains to the time before the ignition. What if the exhaust stroke is what's interfered with, then the 150-bank has it better and the 90 worse.

wuzak wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2017, 00:25

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:17

And conventional wisdom would tell you that there's no benefit or use in having a unique firing order, that there's no gains to be had.

I would think there is a gain in strength in the crankshaft by having 3 pins rather than having 6 by offset pins?

godlameroso wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2017, 23:17

Being stuck with a 90 150 arrangement means the 150 intervals have more time to establish the combustion environment than the 90 degree ones. That's certainly something you'd never notice with a single cylinder design, but you would see it on the dyno. Maybe there's some chess like thinking involved in making these engines work as intended while being crippled by the regulations.

Huh?

Surely the "time to establish the combustion environment" is the same for all cylinders? ie starting from when the intake valves open.

Not allowed to use offset pins.

If you want to get pedantic time to establish the combustion environment starts at EVO immediately after the power stroke, IVO is when you introduce the mixture. That's what I meant by chess like thinking.

I'm willing to bet they use much longer duration and higher lift on exhaust than the intake valves.

hurril wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2017, 01:14

I think he miss-thunk a little but there is a tiny point related to what we online might think is the problem. Maybe godlameroso is referring to vibrations or interferences otherwise from the other cylinders and that the 150-side, in that sense, is a little closer and thus has less time. On the other hand - that pertains to the time before the ignition. What if the exhaust stroke is what's interfered with, then the 150-bank has it better and the 90 worse.

I would think that the intake system would be, as much as possible, split into 2 x 3 cylinder units, as is the exhaust. In that manner the spacing between cylinders would be 240° for all of them.