That is quite interesting. Thanks.
I should have read the 'however' bit more closely!
They are already OK to use (say) bio isooctane based on bio isobutanol a la Gevo/Total as part of the 5.75%
Is not a chemistry problem though... it is a mechanical problem. It's a temperature problem and 3 dimensional fluids dynamics problem. With the whole stratified injection thing - and God knows whatever pockets they put in the pistons... you could have multiple local AFRs at different times. Far from a chemistry problem. We here working these one dimesional A:F numbers does not add up to much.trinidefender wrote:Here is a question for those more versed in the chemistry side of fuel than me.
We are talking about stoichiometric and trying to figure out the most efficient a:f ratio. For normal road car petrol I know stoichiometry to be about 14.5:1 - 14.7:1. How much can the change in chemistry of these fuels affect stoichiometry. What I mean by that is what if the stoichiometric ratio for these fuels is 15.5:1.
If that were to be the case then the engines would be running more rich (or maybe less lean) than we thought. The opposite being true if the stoichiometric a:f ratio is lower than that of regular road car petrol.
It is a chemistry problem because different fuels will themselves have different stoichiometric values. Therefore it is just one more variable that people would have to include into their equations when trying to work out if these ICE units are running lean, rich or at stoichiometric.PlatinumZealot wrote:Is not a chemistry problem though... it is a mechanical problem. It's a temperature problem and 3 dimensional fluids dynamics problem. With the whole stratified injection thing - and God knows whatever pockets they put in the pistons... you could have multiple local AFRs at different times. Far from a chemistry problem. We here working these one dimesional A:F numbers does not add up to much.trinidefender wrote:Here is a question for those more versed in the chemistry side of fuel than me.
We are talking about stoichiometric and trying to figure out the most efficient a:f ratio. For normal road car petrol I know stoichiometry to be about 14.5:1 - 14.7:1. How much can the change in chemistry of these fuels affect stoichiometry. What I mean by that is what if the stoichiometric ratio for these fuels is 15.5:1.
If that were to be the case then the engines would be running more rich (or maybe less lean) than we thought. The opposite being true if the stoichiometric a:f ratio is lower than that of regular road car petrol.
AFAIK a gearing change is not allowed now...“Also the chassis side - in order to increase the power we have to change the set-up, especially the traction with the tyres and the gearing. It’s very important in order to be able to increase the power.”
They might** be allowed a gearing change since their engine is new. Just was not publicized perhaps.Abarth wrote:http://en.f1i.com/news/21205-honda-prep ... n-spa.html
If he talks about that much increase that it could potentially cause reliability and even powertrain problems, he's not talking about 2%, methinks.
The strange part is when he talks about gearing:AFAIK a gearing change is not allowed now...“Also the chassis side - in order to increase the power we have to change the set-up, especially the traction with the tyres and the gearing. It’s very important in order to be able to increase the power.”
I think it might be a little more complicated then that?Sixbarboost wrote:How can Honda be so down on power, don't they know how to build a 1.6 lightly boosted V6?
Don't get me wrong, I get that part, but with a fixed MGU-K power, I fid it odd that a power deficit from the ICE would be as much as 120 Hp according to Boullier. Honda is not exactly rookies with turbo engines?pgfpro wrote:I think it might be a little more complicated then that?Sixbarboost wrote:How can Honda be so down on power, don't they know how to build a 1.6 lightly boosted V6?