29-09-2016, 21:29
Lo he copiado de un foro de autosport
Hasegawa interview article on a jp car magazine called CarTop (on sale 26 Aug)
the interview conducted on 4th August at Sakura
------- Looks like this season is seeing progress compared to last season which was the first year of participation.
I consider that our efforts have materialized, but result is everything, so it's not the level we are satisfied with.
-------- It's F1 that you are competing in.
That's right. While we are able to follow the steps we are aiming for, we consider that podium and victory are the ultimate goal, so still long way to go. Fernando getting 7th in all sessions at Hungary was nice, but at the same time the gap to the top 3 has become explicit, so I was disappointed.
-------- At the timing of the opening race, going through to Q3 regularly was the objective.
It's quite tough to reach Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and also Williams, but we must come ahead of the rest solidly, that was what it was about. The feeling I was having during winter testing was that we should be able to manage to achieve that as long as we can finish the race without engine breaking down, but it turned out that FI and STR were strong, besides Haas showed good performance more than we expected.
-------- Joined by a new team, situation was that it's not easy to come inside top 10?
It was Chinese GP when we realized that situation. With all cars finishing the race, our position was 12th and 13th. At China, it has become clear that we cannot continue doing it like this.
------- You must take whatever measure possible, otherwise you cannot even score points.
We've been working on 3 themes - power, reliability and regeneration at turbo. Reliability is important, but you go nowhere if you only chase reliability. Therefore, we changed our way of fighting after Chinese GP.
Regarding turbo, since the beginning of the season we have been aiming to bring it to the level where we can make full deployment. It was Canada GP that we managed to achieve that. There, we have reached respectable level regarding energy recovery, then moved on to the next theme which is to work on the engine itself. Actually we wanted to introduce it at Austria, but finally we applied the modification of induction system and airbox at Silverstone. In that sense, we introduced PU update merely twice, turbo at Canada and induction at Silverstone. So, rather than upgrade, we have been pouring our efforts into how and to what extent we can extract performance out of what we've got at hands while maintaining the level of reliability.
----------- You realized the need for change at China, so what exactly did you do as a measure, and how?
As for power settings such as combustion timing, there are 2 patterns/modes, for qualify and for race. Since the issue of lacking power has become evident at China, we considered to use this power setting of quali mode for the race too as much as possible.
------------ Compared to the race in which you have to drive long distance, qualifying is about one lap attack so you can use it a bit excessively. So it's about how much/long you can use it in that way. But if performance changes, reliability becomes concern.
For example suppose its full mileage is 4,000km, qualifying is no more than 100km per event, so at first you only think about using quali mode for like mere 500km. Then you want to use it bit longer, so next you check whether it's possible to extend the period to 1,500km. Then go on to evaluate the possibility of extending that to 2,000km next. You tackle with it and raise its limit gradually like that. You can know how much it can be used on design paper, but you have to confirm that actually on dyno. It was Russian GP where we were able to apply that.
------------- ie to drive the whole race on quali mode
We ran almost all distance at full power setting.
------------- then next you have to raise reliability of engine
it's already designed with certain margin in order for actual use, so it's about how much or to what extent you can shed the margin.
----------- Improvement is conducted by using limited number of tokens, I imagine that you look at the season as a whole and consider how and when to distribute and use tokens.
I can say that the final strategy of token has not been decided yet. Firstly we come up with and check whatever options/weapons that seem to have good prospect of improving reliability, power, etc, then go on to verify/confirm actual outcomes, before thinking about which one to select/utilize. We think about token for the first time ever at that point, like "it's possible to put this thing within token frame, isn't it". First and foremost you give anything a try no matter what, then if you are able to obtain good result, you move on to focus on that.
----------- Many things are being trialed in parallel irrespective of token, that's quite a task.
--------- Any intention to renew the initial objective of regular Q3?
That's impossible (laughs). It might be possible to change top10 into top8, but atm top 3 is out of reach.
--------- It's essential to maintain the current form, right?
Hungary's 7th is the best possible position we could wish for and achieve, I think. It's 7th with no one in the top 3 retiring. Besides, we could get 7th because it was Hungary, but at Hockenheim 8th was all we could do. It's too soon to change it to "7th rather than 10th" yet. With our current form, we cannot yet say we can definitely come inside top 10 regularly. Especially next races at Spa and Monza, it's tough.
--------- You just made remark "reliability is at good level, so it's power for next", but if you up the power, reliability issue might re-emerge, that should be concern.
Even then we've had many retirements after all. This season we have retired 7 times already. That includes Fernando accident at Australia, but there are troubles on car side as well, so in terms of reliability as a whole team, there's long way to go. Mercedes has only one retirement for that friendly crash at Spain, that's it. In that sense, we haven't sorted out mechanical problem yet. At the same time, you have to up the performance. You have to go aggressive otherwise it's impossible to raise your level, but if performance increases, durability gets severe too, so we are still at the stage where we have to tackle and work hard.
---------- Something like podium all of sudden would not happen, i think.
That's impossible. For the last 2 races or so Williams is struggling, so we at least have desire to surpass Williams. We'd like to achieve performance of 4th best as a constructor. First half of the season has just ended, so if in the 2nd half we can collect same amount of points Williams has collected so far, we can finish the constructors championship at 4th. Raising positions in WCC as a race team rather than technician is essential, so, we have to think of what we must do in order to achieve results of 7th and 8th for every race, I think.
------------ pecking order in the first half of the season is, top 3 followed by Williams, Force India and STR, then Mclaren positioned in 7th. For the past 2 races specifically, mclaren honda is placed on 4th. If you can keep and carry current form/trend into 2nd half, perhaps.
We'd like to come 4th or 5th in WCC standing at the point of the season finale, but it's difficult with our current state of performance. We must raise one more step.
----------- Currently you are able to sort out ERS, and the issue is engine itself, you just explained. I thought engine was a thing of the past in a sense and sort of area that has been done through already.
The performance gap in engine power, which equals fuel consumption as well, is huge.
------------ The reason why Mercedes could establish their advantage by starting development for 2014 reg from very early on is because the performance in engine itself, rather than ERS, contributes a lot?
I think so. MGU-H and K is significant area in the new regulation, but you are only able to deploy 4MJ/lap. In other words, we are able to use the max power of 120kW at its full almost.
----------- Regulation is tight, so within that confinement all makers are able to reach the max level, so what contributes/differentiate the performance the most is engine itself, you mean?
When KERS came out at first, it was 60kW and 400kJ/lap iirc, it was very small amount anyway, so compared to that, current ERS has become quite bigger. However last year we were not able to reach even that level (note: seems referring to 2009 level), so we were running out of deployment at half distance point of the uphill section of Austria. Compared to that, we progressed quite a bit. Note tho, that it's not that we surpassed others, but we just caught up finally.
------------ engine itself means direct injection technology?
Combustion efficiency is at extremely high level. Especially the competition of how much horse power you extract within the fuel flow restriction of 100kg/h is showing itself directly in the form of performance/power differences b/w makers.
--------- Normally fuel energy conversion rate is around 30%, but it is said that it's near 50% in F1 engines.
You cannot tell about the percentage explicitly, or rather cannot know it precisely, but it is reaching the level that is significantly higher than that of production model engine. In F1 engine you use full throttle range mostly. You don't use it partially much, but combustion efficiency is very high. If you include exhaust recovery energy, combustion efficiency exceeds 50%.
--------- I'm hearing that top end power is the issue?
Certainly regarding drive-ability, for example turbo lag, you can use electricity a bit to make "e boost", so it's not being a big problem. So, simply we are lacking peak power.
-------- Are you working on any solution for it already?
Of course. Fundamentally, development of race engine is almost about development of power. So I want to achieve/introduce/etc as soon as possible.
--------- before Suzuka? (laughs)
You don't even need to wait until Suzuka, we'd like to introduce for the next race at Spa if possible. At this moment I cannot say we will definitely introduce because we have not finished confirmation/validation of reliability etc yet. When will it be introduced, it's me who want to know the most (laughs).
---------- What is the problem coming from power difference?
The speed difference. For example we were slower by 10km/h at Hockenheim and 15km/h slower at Azerbaijan. There, car's drag and engine power are contributing factors so it might not be all about engine power alone unconditionally, but even then there is no point in saying "car's drag is at fault" or "engine power is at fault". For us, increasing power increases top speed, so, fine, why not achieve the kind of power that can eliminate the speed difference, that's what we are thinking like. Mclaren Honda is a team, so if it is clear that it can be covered by engine side, why not do it, that's what we are thinking about it.
------------ this season has 21 rounds and the number of remaining races is 9 now.
We'd like to increase the engine output bit more, but even then I think we will struggle a lot at high speed tracks like Monza and Spa. As for the other tracks, there are some tracks that are relatively slow speed like Singapore and Mexico, so I think we can aim for 4th best throughout the season.
------------- Result at Hungaroring was good thanks partly to its resurfaced smooth tarmac. Among similarly slow speed tracks, Singapore's track condition is bad in particular, but I imagine relatively slow speed tracks are still better for you
That's so obvious (laughs). Having said that, I don't think we will be totally hopeless at power circuits. Of course top 3 is exception, it's about where we will stand against Force India, STR and Williams, but I'm not thinking like we will be nowhere at Spa at all. Just that we will be having tough time.
----------- Do you think you can keep upward momentum of Hungary and Hockenheim for 2nd half as well?
It's difficult to foresee Williams position though.
----------- At Germany, Alonso made comment that fuel consumption was tough.
It was extremely severe (laughs). What's largely different from previous F1 is that there is fuel flow restriction. That you have more power from the same fuel amount means that fuel consumption is good. Ours, lacking power, isn't good at fuel consumption, that's how it is like. It's not "power is lacking so it's good on fuel consumption in turn", but it's kind of reverse. Mercedes has good power and good fuel consumption as well. Aiming for power up = fuel consumption improves, that's what it is.
------------ In other words, their combustion efficiency is superior, so it's engine itself that's essential?
That's correct. However Mercedes's absolute speed is faster for that amount (of engine advantage), so if lap time increases, fuel consumption gets worse, hence they must be having similar issue, at different dimension/stage to ours.
------------ Back to previous topic, but how do you know the difference in deployment?
When deployment runs out at straight, brake light turns on. 120kW power runs out, so as a result the car makes considerable deceleration as if it's braking, so it's designed like that in order to prevent collision. Therefore drivers can tell it like "mine lasted longer", or "competitor's ran out first". Also if you look at GPS data, the car speed drops suddenly.
------------- it's such simple thing (laughs). By the way, regarding current pecking order of engine power, Mercedes is on top, I think.
Next comes Ferrari. Then Renault. Honda is at 4th, I think.
-------------- how about as ICE as separate unit?
I think that's how it is for stand-alone ICE. There is not much difference for electric side of the thing. Of course it's not just about pure power, so you cannot tell for certain if you start taking into consideration and comparing all the elements like size and weight, but at least in terms of speed difference, we were occupying the bottom 2 positions of 21st and 22nd at Hockenheim, so. From that point of view, "recover that deficiency with engine power", that's our strategy.
-------------- How likely is the strategy to be realized?
It is difficult but we have no choice but to do it. Just staying defeated here is unacceptable/impossible for/as Honda.
------------- Lastly, internal driver battle is going on at Merc. Red Bull as well, youngest winner Max Verstappen vs Daniel Ricciardo is going on, Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen are competing against each other at Ferrari even though they are not having feud. Mclaren Honda duo is good friends each other, but will there be discord between the two if/once starting to compete for the top positions, I wonder.
I'd like it to be that way as soon as possible (laughs)
==================================
Ask Hasegawa Vol.08 @Spa
http://www.as-web.jp...rts/shotsspafri
2016.08.30
---------- So could you take good rest during summer break?
yes! I took break for about 1 week
----------- Could you please explain about HCCI concisely? Also, are sort of technologies like HCCI actually being used in today's power unit of F1? (reader's Q)
well, that's difficult!
----------- I dont understand it at all.....
To put it in Japanese, it means premixture compress self ignition combustion. Calling burning gasoline like diesel engine as HCCI.
------------ So literally it compresses to ignite?
That's right. As a result of that, burn fuel in very lean condition to increase combustion efficiency is the basic concept. It is said that in current F1 Merc, Renault etc are using it, but it's not certain actually. However, F1 engine is equipped with spark plugs, so strictly speaking it's not compressed self ignition, so it's not HCCI. Something close to it, called semi-HCCI, but....it's not certain whether it's actually being used or not.
--------- How about Honda?
Of course we are conducting research, but not adopting/using it.
it's been 10 years since people started talking about HCCI. Its definition is rather difficult, but it's not used much actually.
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/203432...-v/page-38
Hasegawa interview article on a jp car magazine called CarTop (on sale 26 Aug)
the interview conducted on 4th August at Sakura
------- Looks like this season is seeing progress compared to last season which was the first year of participation.
I consider that our efforts have materialized, but result is everything, so it's not the level we are satisfied with.
-------- It's F1 that you are competing in.
That's right. While we are able to follow the steps we are aiming for, we consider that podium and victory are the ultimate goal, so still long way to go. Fernando getting 7th in all sessions at Hungary was nice, but at the same time the gap to the top 3 has become explicit, so I was disappointed.
-------- At the timing of the opening race, going through to Q3 regularly was the objective.
It's quite tough to reach Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and also Williams, but we must come ahead of the rest solidly, that was what it was about. The feeling I was having during winter testing was that we should be able to manage to achieve that as long as we can finish the race without engine breaking down, but it turned out that FI and STR were strong, besides Haas showed good performance more than we expected.
-------- Joined by a new team, situation was that it's not easy to come inside top 10?
It was Chinese GP when we realized that situation. With all cars finishing the race, our position was 12th and 13th. At China, it has become clear that we cannot continue doing it like this.
------- You must take whatever measure possible, otherwise you cannot even score points.
We've been working on 3 themes - power, reliability and regeneration at turbo. Reliability is important, but you go nowhere if you only chase reliability. Therefore, we changed our way of fighting after Chinese GP.
Regarding turbo, since the beginning of the season we have been aiming to bring it to the level where we can make full deployment. It was Canada GP that we managed to achieve that. There, we have reached respectable level regarding energy recovery, then moved on to the next theme which is to work on the engine itself. Actually we wanted to introduce it at Austria, but finally we applied the modification of induction system and airbox at Silverstone. In that sense, we introduced PU update merely twice, turbo at Canada and induction at Silverstone. So, rather than upgrade, we have been pouring our efforts into how and to what extent we can extract performance out of what we've got at hands while maintaining the level of reliability.
----------- You realized the need for change at China, so what exactly did you do as a measure, and how?
As for power settings such as combustion timing, there are 2 patterns/modes, for qualify and for race. Since the issue of lacking power has become evident at China, we considered to use this power setting of quali mode for the race too as much as possible.
------------ Compared to the race in which you have to drive long distance, qualifying is about one lap attack so you can use it a bit excessively. So it's about how much/long you can use it in that way. But if performance changes, reliability becomes concern.
For example suppose its full mileage is 4,000km, qualifying is no more than 100km per event, so at first you only think about using quali mode for like mere 500km. Then you want to use it bit longer, so next you check whether it's possible to extend the period to 1,500km. Then go on to evaluate the possibility of extending that to 2,000km next. You tackle with it and raise its limit gradually like that. You can know how much it can be used on design paper, but you have to confirm that actually on dyno. It was Russian GP where we were able to apply that.
------------- ie to drive the whole race on quali mode
We ran almost all distance at full power setting.
------------- then next you have to raise reliability of engine
it's already designed with certain margin in order for actual use, so it's about how much or to what extent you can shed the margin.
----------- Improvement is conducted by using limited number of tokens, I imagine that you look at the season as a whole and consider how and when to distribute and use tokens.
I can say that the final strategy of token has not been decided yet. Firstly we come up with and check whatever options/weapons that seem to have good prospect of improving reliability, power, etc, then go on to verify/confirm actual outcomes, before thinking about which one to select/utilize. We think about token for the first time ever at that point, like "it's possible to put this thing within token frame, isn't it". First and foremost you give anything a try no matter what, then if you are able to obtain good result, you move on to focus on that.
----------- Many things are being trialed in parallel irrespective of token, that's quite a task.
--------- Any intention to renew the initial objective of regular Q3?
That's impossible (laughs). It might be possible to change top10 into top8, but atm top 3 is out of reach.
--------- It's essential to maintain the current form, right?
Hungary's 7th is the best possible position we could wish for and achieve, I think. It's 7th with no one in the top 3 retiring. Besides, we could get 7th because it was Hungary, but at Hockenheim 8th was all we could do. It's too soon to change it to "7th rather than 10th" yet. With our current form, we cannot yet say we can definitely come inside top 10 regularly. Especially next races at Spa and Monza, it's tough.
--------- You just made remark "reliability is at good level, so it's power for next", but if you up the power, reliability issue might re-emerge, that should be concern.
Even then we've had many retirements after all. This season we have retired 7 times already. That includes Fernando accident at Australia, but there are troubles on car side as well, so in terms of reliability as a whole team, there's long way to go. Mercedes has only one retirement for that friendly crash at Spain, that's it. In that sense, we haven't sorted out mechanical problem yet. At the same time, you have to up the performance. You have to go aggressive otherwise it's impossible to raise your level, but if performance increases, durability gets severe too, so we are still at the stage where we have to tackle and work hard.
---------- Something like podium all of sudden would not happen, i think.
That's impossible. For the last 2 races or so Williams is struggling, so we at least have desire to surpass Williams. We'd like to achieve performance of 4th best as a constructor. First half of the season has just ended, so if in the 2nd half we can collect same amount of points Williams has collected so far, we can finish the constructors championship at 4th. Raising positions in WCC as a race team rather than technician is essential, so, we have to think of what we must do in order to achieve results of 7th and 8th for every race, I think.
------------ pecking order in the first half of the season is, top 3 followed by Williams, Force India and STR, then Mclaren positioned in 7th. For the past 2 races specifically, mclaren honda is placed on 4th. If you can keep and carry current form/trend into 2nd half, perhaps.
We'd like to come 4th or 5th in WCC standing at the point of the season finale, but it's difficult with our current state of performance. We must raise one more step.
----------- Currently you are able to sort out ERS, and the issue is engine itself, you just explained. I thought engine was a thing of the past in a sense and sort of area that has been done through already.
The performance gap in engine power, which equals fuel consumption as well, is huge.
------------ The reason why Mercedes could establish their advantage by starting development for 2014 reg from very early on is because the performance in engine itself, rather than ERS, contributes a lot?
I think so. MGU-H and K is significant area in the new regulation, but you are only able to deploy 4MJ/lap. In other words, we are able to use the max power of 120kW at its full almost.
----------- Regulation is tight, so within that confinement all makers are able to reach the max level, so what contributes/differentiate the performance the most is engine itself, you mean?
When KERS came out at first, it was 60kW and 400kJ/lap iirc, it was very small amount anyway, so compared to that, current ERS has become quite bigger. However last year we were not able to reach even that level (note: seems referring to 2009 level), so we were running out of deployment at half distance point of the uphill section of Austria. Compared to that, we progressed quite a bit. Note tho, that it's not that we surpassed others, but we just caught up finally.
------------ engine itself means direct injection technology?
Combustion efficiency is at extremely high level. Especially the competition of how much horse power you extract within the fuel flow restriction of 100kg/h is showing itself directly in the form of performance/power differences b/w makers.
--------- Normally fuel energy conversion rate is around 30%, but it is said that it's near 50% in F1 engines.
You cannot tell about the percentage explicitly, or rather cannot know it precisely, but it is reaching the level that is significantly higher than that of production model engine. In F1 engine you use full throttle range mostly. You don't use it partially much, but combustion efficiency is very high. If you include exhaust recovery energy, combustion efficiency exceeds 50%.
--------- I'm hearing that top end power is the issue?
Certainly regarding drive-ability, for example turbo lag, you can use electricity a bit to make "e boost", so it's not being a big problem. So, simply we are lacking peak power.
-------- Are you working on any solution for it already?
Of course. Fundamentally, development of race engine is almost about development of power. So I want to achieve/introduce/etc as soon as possible.
--------- before Suzuka? (laughs)
You don't even need to wait until Suzuka, we'd like to introduce for the next race at Spa if possible. At this moment I cannot say we will definitely introduce because we have not finished confirmation/validation of reliability etc yet. When will it be introduced, it's me who want to know the most (laughs).
---------- What is the problem coming from power difference?
The speed difference. For example we were slower by 10km/h at Hockenheim and 15km/h slower at Azerbaijan. There, car's drag and engine power are contributing factors so it might not be all about engine power alone unconditionally, but even then there is no point in saying "car's drag is at fault" or "engine power is at fault". For us, increasing power increases top speed, so, fine, why not achieve the kind of power that can eliminate the speed difference, that's what we are thinking like. Mclaren Honda is a team, so if it is clear that it can be covered by engine side, why not do it, that's what we are thinking about it.
------------ this season has 21 rounds and the number of remaining races is 9 now.
We'd like to increase the engine output bit more, but even then I think we will struggle a lot at high speed tracks like Monza and Spa. As for the other tracks, there are some tracks that are relatively slow speed like Singapore and Mexico, so I think we can aim for 4th best throughout the season.
------------- Result at Hungaroring was good thanks partly to its resurfaced smooth tarmac. Among similarly slow speed tracks, Singapore's track condition is bad in particular, but I imagine relatively slow speed tracks are still better for you
That's so obvious (laughs). Having said that, I don't think we will be totally hopeless at power circuits. Of course top 3 is exception, it's about where we will stand against Force India, STR and Williams, but I'm not thinking like we will be nowhere at Spa at all. Just that we will be having tough time.
----------- Do you think you can keep upward momentum of Hungary and Hockenheim for 2nd half as well?
It's difficult to foresee Williams position though.
----------- At Germany, Alonso made comment that fuel consumption was tough.
It was extremely severe (laughs). What's largely different from previous F1 is that there is fuel flow restriction. That you have more power from the same fuel amount means that fuel consumption is good. Ours, lacking power, isn't good at fuel consumption, that's how it is like. It's not "power is lacking so it's good on fuel consumption in turn", but it's kind of reverse. Mercedes has good power and good fuel consumption as well. Aiming for power up = fuel consumption improves, that's what it is.
------------ In other words, their combustion efficiency is superior, so it's engine itself that's essential?
That's correct. However Mercedes's absolute speed is faster for that amount (of engine advantage), so if lap time increases, fuel consumption gets worse, hence they must be having similar issue, at different dimension/stage to ours.
------------ Back to previous topic, but how do you know the difference in deployment?
When deployment runs out at straight, brake light turns on. 120kW power runs out, so as a result the car makes considerable deceleration as if it's braking, so it's designed like that in order to prevent collision. Therefore drivers can tell it like "mine lasted longer", or "competitor's ran out first". Also if you look at GPS data, the car speed drops suddenly.
------------- it's such simple thing (laughs). By the way, regarding current pecking order of engine power, Mercedes is on top, I think.
Next comes Ferrari. Then Renault. Honda is at 4th, I think.
-------------- how about as ICE as separate unit?
I think that's how it is for stand-alone ICE. There is not much difference for electric side of the thing. Of course it's not just about pure power, so you cannot tell for certain if you start taking into consideration and comparing all the elements like size and weight, but at least in terms of speed difference, we were occupying the bottom 2 positions of 21st and 22nd at Hockenheim, so. From that point of view, "recover that deficiency with engine power", that's our strategy.
-------------- How likely is the strategy to be realized?
It is difficult but we have no choice but to do it. Just staying defeated here is unacceptable/impossible for/as Honda.
------------- Lastly, internal driver battle is going on at Merc. Red Bull as well, youngest winner Max Verstappen vs Daniel Ricciardo is going on, Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen are competing against each other at Ferrari even though they are not having feud. Mclaren Honda duo is good friends each other, but will there be discord between the two if/once starting to compete for the top positions, I wonder.
I'd like it to be that way as soon as possible (laughs)
==================================
Ask Hasegawa Vol.08 @Spa
http://www.as-web.jp...rts/shotsspafri
2016.08.30
---------- So could you take good rest during summer break?
yes! I took break for about 1 week
----------- Could you please explain about HCCI concisely? Also, are sort of technologies like HCCI actually being used in today's power unit of F1? (reader's Q)
well, that's difficult!
----------- I dont understand it at all.....
To put it in Japanese, it means premixture compress self ignition combustion. Calling burning gasoline like diesel engine as HCCI.
------------ So literally it compresses to ignite?
That's right. As a result of that, burn fuel in very lean condition to increase combustion efficiency is the basic concept. It is said that in current F1 Merc, Renault etc are using it, but it's not certain actually. However, F1 engine is equipped with spark plugs, so strictly speaking it's not compressed self ignition, so it's not HCCI. Something close to it, called semi-HCCI, but....it's not certain whether it's actually being used or not.
--------- How about Honda?
Of course we are conducting research, but not adopting/using it.
it's been 10 years since people started talking about HCCI. Its definition is rather difficult, but it's not used much actually.
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/203432...-v/page-38
Fernando es de otro planeta