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.
