Stupid engine question

I must be thick because I still can't see why not- If each journal pair is split across banks, then at TDC wouldn't there be a set of six cylinders (3 each bank) going into a power stroke, while the opposite side of the crank would also have six cylinders (3 each bank) moving into compession... After 180d the first set would move into exhaust while the second set would move into power, 180d more and first set is in intake while second is in exhaust, 180 more and first is in compression, second in exhaust, and 180d more back to beginning.

Isn't that 4 strokes, 2 revs and symetrical side to side? What in this thinking is wrong?

Not challenging- just want to "get it"...

 

EDIT: That last cycle should be intake on the second cylinder set- not exhaust.

 

No, that's not wrong mathematically when it comes to providing equally-spaced and equal torque power pulses (so it meets that criteria), but there is no advantage to having more spread out intervals of huge flow, no flow, huge flow, no flow, etc. in neither the intake tract nor exhaust tract (if any cylinders share parts of those systems). Also, such a scheme would increase the peak forces/moments acting on the crankshaft and main bearings so these items would have to be beefier/heavier/more massive -- not an advantage.

This article has a more plausible explanation IMO where they say what F has done is make changes to reduce the windage losses of the crankshaft system (so they can get it up to higher RPM):

http://www.netcarshow.com/ferrari/2011-599_gto/

Many 599 GTO articles also state it uses the 599XX crankshaft like this one:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/impressions/2011-ferrari-599-gto

so if F had reinvented the wheel (or crankshaft ) on that model, I think it would've been more widely discussed.

Still willing to be proved wrong if someone can provide a MANUFACTURER'S drawing, photo, spec...

 

Thanks- It would be a thumper for sure- with 6 simultaneous power pulses every revolution- but not as bad as a Harley's every other rev either. Imagine that with 12? Bump the front wheels off the ground at idle...

Curious-

 

I don't see this. could be built this way but what is wrong with 3/3/3/3?

 

as you can see buy all the replies, not so stupid after all

clay