renault F1 video

i know this isnt advanced tech material, but i thought that since F1 stuff is discussed here alot i would post this for some to see.

i like how the gas is injected into the motor...never really seen anything like that before!

right click/save as (http://a1204.v67532.c6753.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1204/6753/4017d069/medcost.download.akamai.com/6753/viry_rs24/viry_rs24_220.wmv)

that is some down shifting right there. it sounds like they put load on the engine so i guess they're testing reliablity?
BTW does anyone know how much those guys get paid?
http://scarbsf1.com/BMW_P83/
and to keep this from being a vid post check out the variations for the rotors
http://scarbsf1.com/scarbsF1-2002/weda0082.jpg
http://scarbsf1.com/scarbsF1-2002/tuea0012.jpg
http://scarbsf1.com/scarbsF1-2002/weda0050.jpg

that is some down shifting right there. it sounds like they put load on the engine so i guess they're testing reliablity?
BTW does anyone know how much those guys get paid?
http://scarbsf1.com/BMW_P83/
and to keep this from being a vid post check out the variations for the rotors
http://scarbsf1.com/scarbsF1-2002/weda0082.jpg
http://scarbsf1.com/scarbsF1-2002/tuea0012.jpg
http://scarbsf1.com/scarbsF1-2002/weda0050.jpg

Neat video. I hadn't heen that before. Thanks.

It's a dyno run programmed to simulate a particular track. Good chance it is a durability test if the engine and drivetrain. I'm surprised that there is no airbox being used. Some teams actually have a dyno under a windtunnel so that they can put the airbox in the tunnel to duplicate track airflow into the engine. (Ferrari)

Those BMW P83 specs can be used to calculate bore, stroke and rod length of that engine.

I've seen it before, but it's pretty cool. What's amazing is that the technology is not revolutionary, just evolutionary. Any gearhead could take that motor apart and put it back together. The coolest image is the condensation over the intake horns, if that's what it is. Can anyone explain what exactly is going on there?

Rich

and people say that "TBI" fuel injection sucks :D

I've seen it before, but it's pretty cool. What's amazing is that the technology is not revolutionary, just evolutionary. Any gearhead could take that motor apart and put it back together. The coolest image is the condensation over the intake horns, if that's what it is. Can anyone explain what exactly is going on there?

Rich


my best guess is its sucking air so hard, its actually stretching/expanding it and coolng it (think opposite of forced induction). thats just a guess though.

intake runners have condensation on a lot of very hi-perf motors

I believe that in order to be a "TBI" system, the throttle body and injectors have to feed more than one cylinder. This is more akin to a "TPI" or more correctly an "MPI" which covers all these types.
I haven't seen this before and must admit I'm surprised that the injectors are above the throttle plates. Also that hey're using a single injector manifold for all ten cylinders. The exhaust appears to be a "tri-y" type and the primaries are a lot longer then I would have expected.
With the new engine requirements for next year you'll probably be seeing a lot more technical info on these V10's.

That was badass:)

You can't tell from that video, but the intake "trumpets" as they call them vary in height with rpm to alter the torque curve.

I believe that in order to be a "TBI" system, the throttle body and injectors have to feed more than one cylinder. This is more akin to a "TPI" or more correctly an "MPI" which covers all these types.
I haven't seen this before and must admit I'm surprised that the injectors are above the throttle plates. Also that hey're using a single injector manifold for all ten cylinders. The exhaust appears to be a "tri-y" type and the primaries are a lot longer then I would have expected.
With the new engine requirements for next year you'll probably be seeing a lot more technical info on these V10's.

Thoughts:

I'm not sure that there are any throttle plates. If there are, perhaps they are only used for low rpm putting around, and are wide open under full power from maybe 12,000 to 18-19,000. BMW 7 series doesn't use throttle plates. If you can control the valve lift and/or timing, you can "throttle" the engine that way in the power band.

They are not tri-y headers. They are 5 into 1 with cylinders probably entering the collector arranged in firing order to get a vortex in the collector which might help control spanwise flow under the wing where the collectors dump.
Look at the size of the collector compared to the primaries. There's got to be some real velocity at the output of the collector.

Primaries are quite large for a 300 cc cylinder, like maybe 60 mm (2-3/8) with steps. Of course each cylinder is producing 85 hp or more which is like a 680-700 hp V8.

My guess is that we won't be seeing much of the nitty gritty tech info on F1 engines. Shoot, how many valves are they using? I'd REALLY like to know valve timing and flow numbers. How about piston mass? Maybe under 200 gms with a piston the diameter of a 5.7 LS1?

If they go to 2.4L in '06 or ?, my guess is that most will stay with 300 cc cylinders. Some might go to 240 cc and 10 cylinders to get more rpm, but maybe not. That's what makes it so interesting.

Just my $.02.

[QUOTE=OldSStroker]Neat video. I hadn't heen that before. Thanks.

Some teams actually have a dyno under a windtunnel so that they can put the airbox in the tunnel to duplicate track airflow into the engine. (Ferrari)
QUOTE]
WITH $800,000,000, THERE ISN'T MUCH YOU DONT DO!

Wow that was awesome!!

The coolest image is the condensation over the intake horns, if that's what it is. Can anyone explain what exactly is going on there?

Rich


I think that's atomized fuel from the injectors you see there.

On another note, whay can't I save this video?

Edit: Wouldn't save with Firefox, worked with IE.

no clue why you cant save it..

i didnt think this would go over so well in here...figured it would be moved to the lounge or something!

the inconel headers are beautiful!! :bow:

http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Inconel_article/ferrari_inconel.jpg

the inconel headers are beautiful!! :bow:

http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Inconel_article/ferrari_inconel.jpg

.....and about 2-3 times more $$$$$. But then again if you can save the weight there in the pipes you can put it someplace else.

F1 guys have had qualifing headers that couldn't go more than 2 laps in anger because they were so thin walled. Now NASCAR boys have Inconel headers which can are much thinner but my god are they $$$$$ $7,000 for a set of headers?

Same guy in this article (http://circletrack.com/howto/82886/) is a pretty dam good header guy.

http://www.profabrication.com/

Bret

Damn, speed sure costs $$$$. $7,000 headers, holy schiznit! Nice links, thanks Bret (you must also be up early today?). I also like your pithy quotes. The valve spring/canary one is really great.

Rich

I also like your pithy quotes. The valve spring/canary one is really great.

Rich

Thanks. Bret and I read a lot of the same stuff.

As for Inconel, you can use about 1/3 to 1/2 less wall thickness than 304 stainless for endurance headers. That's maybe 20-30 lbs less on a Cup car hanging just behind the front wheels so they can put the weight where it does more good. F1 qualifying engines used about .015 wall Inconel tubing. I can't imagine how difficult it is to build headers from that.

Even using a boost bender, bending .015 Inconel is an extraordinary challenge. A boost bender can work magic with pipes, but .015? Amazing.

.015????


holy smoke!!

Even using a boost bender, bending .015 Inconel is an extraordinary challenge. A boost bender can work magic with pipes, but .015? Amazing.

I would guess they are not bending .015 wall tubing. Here's a possible solution:

Imagine a cut-apart torque converter. Each half looks like a bundt pan (for you cooks/bakers out there) or 1/2 of a hollow torus, or half of a hollowed out bagel. You could draw (not sketch, but form in 3 dimensions) such a shape on a press from .015 sheet. Inconel would still be tough, but doable.

Now trim out the inside and outside and Tig weld two together. You now have a ring of tubing, or a hollow torus, which you can slice into any degree of bend you need. You could have different size ones, of course. If you ever see fabricated headers with weld seams on the outside and inside of the bends, they may have been fabricated this way. Of course the real artisans will probably grind and polish the welds. :)

For some of the thicker tubes (over .030!) they may be mandrel bending. There are $500,000 benders available.




Almost anything is possible given enough money and talent.

FOR THOSE OF you w/ difficulty visualizing .015'', its about 3-4 peices of paper depending on thickness. I always go for the thinner stuff. F-1 style paperwork. cant get bogged down by paperwork!

FOR THOSE OF you w/ difficulty visualizing .015'', its about 3-4 peices of paper depending on thickness.

Or ten RCHs. ;)

No, I won't elaborate.

Or ten RCHs. ;)

No, I won't elaborate.


could you please elaborate?

are those thicker, or thinner, than BCH's? :confused: :p

its hard to imagine making headers out of material that is 1/64 of an inch thick!

..... Now NASCAR boys have Inconel headers which can are much thinner but my god are they $$$$$ $7,000 for a set of headers?


Bret

speaking of high prices, check out the price at the bottom of the page! this is for an NSX!!! 13 big ones... :bow:

http://www.scienceofspeed.com/products/exhaust_airflow_products/NSX/Fujitsubo/headers/

speaking of high prices, check out the price at the bottom of the page! this is for an NSX!!! 13 big ones... :bow:

http://www.scienceofspeed.com/products/exhaust_airflow_products/NSX/Fujitsubo/headers/
$13,000?

I'm convinced you could have custom 1 off tuned headers made for that price!

are those thicker, or thinner, than BCH's? :confused: :p

Interesting story:

In engineering school,a metrology lab project was to determine sizes. One would assume lighter would be smaller. I was assigned to measurement, not data gathering probably because I was geeky and not a Greek.

Anyhow, data gatherers were unable to obtain any REAL BCHs. The obvious sources did not have matching "collars and cuffs" as the Brits say.

Our data showed the mean RCH was .0015 in. diameter. No other sample was found to have a smaller mean size. From the very small sample of REAL BCHs obtaied, .0016 was the best estimate of mean BCH size.

We therefore adopted a standard that one RCH = .0015 inches. I probably still have a copy of the lab report. That was more than 40 years ago,so it's probably "yellowed" by now. Fitting, huh?

heh, damn those greeks and their walls (pun intended)


LCA

I would guess they are not bending .015 wall tubing. Here's a possible solution:

Imagine a cut-apart torque converter. Each half looks like a bundt pan (for you cooks/bakers out there) or 1/2 of a hollow torus, or half of a hollowed out bagel. You could draw (not sketch, but form in 3 dimensions) such a shape on a press from .015 sheet. Inconel would still be tough, but doable.

Now trim out the inside and outside and Tig weld two together. You now have a ring of tubing, or a hollow torus, which you can slice into any degree of bend you need. You could have different size ones, of course. If you ever see fabricated headers with weld seams on the outside and inside of the bends, they may have been fabricated this way. Of course the real artisans will probably grind and polish the welds. :)

For some of the thicker tubes (over .030!) they may be mandrel bending. There are $500,000 benders available.




Almost anything is possible given enough money and talent.


I can imagine this method, but not the cost. Tooling is expensive.

You mention those benders. I've seen them in action. We have a couple. They can take fairly thin-walled material and put 1D bends in it (not .015 though). The requirements for that are well beyond just having a mandrel. You actually have to move material to the back of the bend as you're bending it. It's fascinating to see it compared to a normal mandrel bender.

Interesting story:

In engineering school,a metrology lab project was to determine sizes. One would assume lighter would be smaller. I was assigned to measurement, not data gathering probably because I was geeky and not a Greek.

Anyhow, data gatherers were unable to obtain any REAL BCHs. The obvious sources did not have matching "collars and cuffs" as the Brits say.

Our data showed the mean RCH was .0015 in. diameter. No other sample was found to have a smaller mean size. From the very small sample of REAL BCHs obtaied, .0016 was the best estimate of mean BCH size.

We therefore adopted a standard that one RCH = .0015 inches. I probably still have a copy of the lab report. That was more than 40 years ago,so it's probably "yellowed" by now. Fitting, huh?


i'd like to have been part of that project!! :D

Damn, speed sure costs $$$$. $7,000 headers, holy schiznit! Nice links, thanks Bret (you must also be up early today?). I also like your pithy quotes. The valve spring/canary one is really great.

Rich



yeah they also have 18k dollar oil pans

yeah they also have 18k dollar oil pans
18k for a pan!? WTF? What is it made of! it cant be that thin. our motor which is nowhere near F1 sucked up our oil pan. The thing looked like a rib cage!

maybe you mean oil system? an 18k dry sump seems more believeable

If they go to 2.4L in '06 or ?, my guess is that most will stay with 300 cc cylinders. Some might go to 240 cc and 10 cylinders to get more rpm, but maybe not. That's what makes it so interesting.

Just my $.02.

2.4L F1 Motors would cause a few changes.....

You can either stick with the 300cc cylinders in a V8 arrangement which will have a shorter motor since it's a 90 deg V.

You could have a V10 but then you are narrowing the V angle of the motor back to 72 degs. Renault tried that wide angle V10 and the motor was junk, as soon as the went back to the traditional 72 Deg V in 2004 the car was much faster, same thing when they were fast before in the mid 90's with Schumacher.

More cylinders means a smaller piston and shorter stoke if you reduce the displacement, which would allow higher RPM. So who knows which way they will go. Obviously the smaller bore has the benefit of less piston mass but also less cylinder head breathing. Then again lower power levels seen with the less displacement can use a lighter piston too, so if they do lower the displacement we should see 19,000-20,000rpm motors in time easy.

Bret

18k for a pan!? WTF? What is it made of! it cant be that thin. our motor which is nowhere near F1 sucked up our oil pan. The thing looked like a rib cage!

maybe you mean oil system? an 18k dry sump seems more believeable



no i mean for just the pan not the whole system

no i mean for just the pan not the whole system

Ok but why? Who makes it?

I get why a Inconel set of headers is so much but not a $18K pan.

Ok but why? Who makes it?

I get why a Inconel set of headers is so much but not a $18K pan.
as far as i know, all those oil pands do is cover the crank and keep oil from dripping. Its a dry sump pan :confused: I've seen tons.

2.4L F1 Motors would cause a few changes.....

You could have a V10 but then you are narrowing the V angle of the motor back to 72 degs. Renault tried that wide angle V10 and the motor was junk, as soon as the went back to the traditional 72 Deg V in 2004 the car was much faster, same thing when they were fast before in the mid 90's with Schumacher.

Bret
does this have to do with the stress on the crank? cause at those RPMs i can see the crank getting stretched. So wouldn't it be more efficient to get the V angle as small as possible without effecting the intaketoo much. cause with 10cyl i would think that they could change up the firing order and make the crank move like a wave and take advantage of it...then you could take the inner 4 main caps and instead of having them tight with bearings you could give them a 1/2 inch freespace for the radius allowing them to be in contact with the mains at high rpm. or how about removing those 4 mains all together. the main-less engine :lol: is this possible or am i insane?

does this have to do with the stress on the crank? cause at those RPMs i can see the crank getting stretched. So wouldn't it be more efficient to get the V angle as small as possible without effecting the intaketoo much. cause with 10cyl i would think that they could change up the firing order and make the crank move like a wave and take advantage of it...then you could take the inner 4 main caps and instead of having them tight with bearings you could give them a 1/2 inch freespace for the radius allowing them to be in contact with the mains at high rpm. or how about removing those 4 mains all together. the main-less engine :lol: is this possible or am i insane?

Actually it a simple thing thats used in any V engine. The number of cylinders divides into 720 for a even firing order.

So you come out at 90 degs on a V8 and V16, 72 degs on a V10, 60 degs on a V12 and V6.

There are 90 deg V6's but they have even and odd fire cranks to keep the stress down.

The Renault F1 engine that was a wide angle had a very low center of gravity and it also had very bad crank harmonics that I don't think they could ever fix.

Bret

while were on the subject:
what makes an I6 so glorious? Why to the (cant think of the terms right now, i think turkey made me dumb) waves get cancled out.

does this have to do with the stress on the crank? cause at those RPMs i can see the crank getting stretched. So wouldn't it be more efficient to get the V angle as small as possible without effecting the intaketoo much. cause with 10cyl i would think that they could change up the firing order and make the crank move like a wave and take advantage of it...then you could take the inner 4 main caps and instead of having them tight with bearings you could give them a 1/2 inch freespace for the radius allowing them to be in contact with the mains at high rpm. or how about removing those 4 mains all together. the main-less engine :lol: is this possible or am i insane?


I beleive Mr. Krause said somewhere that one of the cardindal rules of racing was to not run over your own crankshaft (when asked about a rediculious number for a stock motor to hold).

That rule follows the "make sure you have a crankshaft" rule


no mains? how do you plan on getting the crank in the engine :p

not exactly slip fit material there :D

I beleive Mr. Krause said somewhere that one of the cardindal rules of racing was to not run over your own crankshaft (when asked about a rediculious number for a stock motor to hold).

That rule follows the "make sure you have a crankshaft" rule


no mains? how do you plan on getting the crank in the engine :p

not exactly slip fit material there :D

there would be 2 mains, one on each end.

while were on the subject:
what makes an I6 so glorious? Why to the (cant think of the terms right now, i think turkey made me dumb) waves get cancled out.

Don't know about "glorious" but an I6 is inherently balanced and has a main bearing on either side of every rod (except for older ones which didn't have 7 mains). They make pretty good production car/truck engines, but not so good racecar engines where packaging is an issue. A high CG hurts also.

The model T Ford had 3 mains, and a flimsy forged crank and about 20 hp at about 2000-2400 rpm. Guys still break these cranks. Flathead Ford V8 also had 3. Ol' Henry wasn't one to spend any money where he didn't have to. :)

77 you definitely want as many main bearings as you can fit in. The more mains the better for crankshaft bending control. Probably torsional bending is harder on a crank than "beaming", or bending due to power and inertia loads. With only 2 mains (vs 5 possible), the crank would have a VERY short life at any significant rpm. Shoot you'd probably have to use shorter compression height pistons in the 4 center cylinders of a V8 to keep the pistons from smacking the heads as the crank bent at higher rpm. ;)

I'm not sure how the F1 guys deal with the uneven firing of their 90* and other non-72* spacing. IMO, the Renault 106-110* (whatever it actually was) was done for a lower CG and other packaging/aero/chassis reasons, and not for more power. I believe they had some intake runner/plenum issues because the banks were so far apart. The video at the beginning of this thread shows the newer engine with what looks like 72* V.

FWIW, "running over your own crank" often comes about because of block strength (or lack of same). Sometimes the whole, unbroken crank falls out.

You definitely have to finish to win! There is always a balance between weight/strength/cost/reliability that must be struck and there is a big role for "art" in all of this "science". If it all could be reduced to an equation, all the motors would be the same and "perfect". That is to say that they would blow up just as the car crossed the finish line. Of course, in that respect maybe those "low tech" fuel cars come closest to the ideal. While I know they rebuild F1 engines after each race, they are very reliable and always seem to have couple of extra laps in them when needed. I think a fuel car is really finished after a run. Another few revs, and a major "oil pan failure" would almost certainly occur.

I have been reading a book about the WWI naval battles between Englind and Germany. They had a different philosophy about dreadnought (giant armored battleship) construction. The Germans felt that the first rule of battleship design was to keep it floating, as a sunken ship couldn't fight! Accordingly, they built them with very thick (heavy) armor. This compromised the mass that could be devoted to armament and propulsion. So, they were slower and outgunned compared to comparable British ships. The Brits went for light armor and consequently their ships were more heavily armed, faster, and more manuverable. Even though they fought a climactic battle at Jutland in 1916 it was never clear who got it right. Too many variables involved.

This is only peripherally related to engine design, one just reminded me of the other. A street motor need to be like one of those German ships while a race car more like the British. Hmm, weren't Lotus race cars fast but flimsy? What about German race cars?

Rich

You definitely have to finish to win! There is always a balance between weight/strength/cost/reliability that must be struck and there is a big role for "art" in all of this "science". If it all could be reduced to an equation, all the motors would be the same and "perfect". That is to say that they would blow up just as the car crossed the finish line. Of course, in that respect maybe those "low tech" fuel cars come closest to the ideal. While I know they rebuild F1 engines after each race, they are very reliable and always seem to have couple of extra laps in them when needed. I think a fuel car is really finished after a run. Another few revs, and a major "oil pan failure" would almost certainly occur.

I have been reading a book about the WWI naval battles between Englind and Germany. They had a different philosophy about dreadnought (giant armored battleship) construction. The Germans felt that the first rule of battleship design was to keep it floating, as a sunken ship couldn't fight! Accordingly, they built them with very thick (heavy) armor. This compromised the mass that could be devoted to armament and propulsion. So, they were slower and outgunned compared to comparable British ships. The Brits went for light armor and consequently their ships were more heavily armed, faster, and more manuverable. Even though they fought a climactic battle at Jutland in 1916 it was never clear who got it right. Too many variables involved.

This is only peripherally related to engine design, one just reminded me of the other. A street motor need to be like one of those German ships while a race car more like the British. Hmm, weren't Lotus race cars fast but flimsy? What about German race cars?

Rich

Great post!

Didn't the Brits get the Bismark because they hit the rudder and disabled her?

Yep, race engines need to get to the end of the race in one piece..plus a little extra for the burnout. It's the "One Horse Shay" theory of design. I believe Colin Chapman said something like "if a part doesn't break once in a while, it's too strong and probably too heavy."

Old German race cars were often complex to the extreme. Mark Donahue's book The Unfair Advantage has a couple of good chapters about working with Porsche, especially when he and Penske first met up with them.
It's a great read.

as far as i know, all those oil pands do is cover the crank and keep oil from dripping. Its a dry sump pan :confused: I've seen tons.

An F1 pan is probably 1) structural 2) heavily involved in the undercar aerodynamics and 3) made from unobtanium :) or other exotic material.

F1 engines seem to have five almost individual crankcases; each pair of cylinders has a bulkhead that extends to the bottom of the pan. Some of the techinques used to construct these pans are pretty much state of the art.

FWIW, my guess is that $18,000 for a F1 oil pan is WAY low, perhaps by an order of magnitude.

An F1 pan is probably 1) structural 2) heavily involved in the undercar aerodynamics and 3) made from unobtanium :) or other exotic material.

F1 engines seem to have five almost individual crankcases; each pair of cylinders has a bulkhead that extends to the bottom of the pan. Some of the techinques used to construct these pans are pretty much state of the art.

FWIW, my guess is that $18,000 for a F1 oil pan is WAY low, perhaps by an order of magnitude.

JB I think he's talking about a Cup oil pan, F1 might be understandable, but Cup?

You definitely have to finish to win! There is always a balance between weight/strength/cost/reliability that must be struck and there is a big role for "art" in all of this "science". If it all could be reduced to an equation, all the motors would be the same and "perfect". That is to say that they would blow up just as the car crossed the finish line. Of course, in that respect maybe those "low tech" fuel cars come closest to the ideal. While I know they rebuild F1 engines after each race, they are very reliable and always seem to have couple of extra laps in them when needed. I think a fuel car is really finished after a run. Another few revs, and a major "oil pan failure" would almost certainly occur.

I have been reading a book about the WWI naval battles between Englind and Germany. They had a different philosophy about dreadnought (giant armored battleship) construction. The Germans felt that the first rule of battleship design was to keep it floating, as a sunken ship couldn't fight! Accordingly, they built them with very thick (heavy) armor. This compromised the mass that could be devoted to armament and propulsion. So, they were slower and outgunned compared to comparable British ships. The Brits went for light armor and consequently their ships were more heavily armed, faster, and more manuverable. Even though they fought a climactic battle at Jutland in 1916 it was never clear who got it right. Too many variables involved.

This is only peripherally related to engine design, one just reminded me of the other. A street motor need to be like one of those German ships while a race car more like the British. Hmm, weren't Lotus race cars fast but flimsy? What about German race cars?

Rich


i woulud personally be for the lighter one.

speed is an excellent defense as is agility.

besides, you can have 2 boats for the same metal!

i guess its barry sanders vs walter payton kinda deal. although i hate to resort to football. what a terrible "sport"

JB I think he's talking about a Cup oil pan, F1 might be understandable, but Cup?

Yeah, I see that now.

$18,000 for a Cup pan. Hmmm... what if you were to line the botttom with a few hundred pounds of heavy metal (tungsten). Might help the CG. Price seems about right. :)

yeah im sorry i am talking about like nascar stuff ....

yeah im sorry i am talking about like nascar stuff ....

Me, too.

There is so much those guys do that we don't know about...and maybe NASCAR doesn't know about. Every once in awhile somebody in the industry says something in conversation, and a year or so later the results of that are banned. You wonder how long it was being used.

NASCAR traction control is very interesting to me.

Me, too.

There is so much those guys do that we don't know about...and maybe NASCAR doesn't know about. Every once in awhile somebody in the industry says something in conversation, and a year or so later the results of that are banned. You wonder how long it was being used.

NASCAR traction control is very interesting to me.
friend of mine is an ex nascar guy. he happened to imply strongly they are definately using that stuff :o

Yep fran was talking NASCAR. The pans are also divided into seperate individual cylinder pairs. I guess they are pretty expensive right now!

This is some of what I've read.
According to several sources, "F1 engines are not made from any exotic materials". I guess this depends on your definition of exotic?

The rule for next year, 06, is V8 config., the last I read.

Towards the end of last year Renault did change from the 110*? engine to the 72* because of the problems mentioned.

Didn't Ferrari have a flat 16, boxer engine? And I thought I remembered Brahbam or someone having an "H" 16?

As for the F1 engine oil pans, they are an integrated part of the engine, not just stuck on, and must be extremely strong, as does the entire engine. As it is the main component of the chassis with the drivers shell attached to the front and the rear suspension, wing, etc. attached to the rear.

Never thought about "not", having any throttles! This stuff really makes you think outside of the "box".

All F1 cars come in under the required weight, so that the engineers can add it to the chassis where needed.

Here are some quick specs from the 2000 Ferrari Tipo 049 engine. Who know's what the hell they're using now!

Configuration: 90-degree V-10
Displacement: 2997cc
Bore: 96mm
Stroke: 41.4mm
Compression: 12.0:1
Length: 615mm
Width: 597.6mm
Height: 365.5mm
Weight: Less than 234 pounds
Valvetrain: DOHC with pneumatic valvesprings; 4 valves per cylinder
Valve angle: 25 degrees in transverse section; 6 degrees in logitudinal section
Fuel: FIA-spec Shell fuel
Fuel system: Magneti Marelli digital fuel injection; one injector/cylinder; 10 bar
Ignition: Magneti Marelli coil-on-plug
Oil scavenging: 11 pumps operating at 35.5% of engine rpm; 1 at 32.5%
Block: Investment-cast aluminum, 7-percent silicon
Liners: Wet; aluminum/Nickasil coated
Heads: Sand-cast aluminum
Crank: Vacuum-cast extruded billet steel; six main bearings
Valves: 40.4mm titanium intake; 33mm titanium exhaust w/ceramic coating
Pistons: Mahle forged aluminum
Rods: Titanium

Output: 817hp w/o air scoop; 866hp w/air scoop at 17,500 rpm
Torque: 253 lb/ft at 15,500 rpm
BMEP at peak power: 13.4 bar
BMEP at peak torque: 14.2 bar
Mean piston speed at 18,000 rpm: 81.36 feet/second
Max piston acceleration: 8,890 grams

All quoted information is from this book:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0768013410/103-9594962-8847841?v=glance

If you're into this sort of thing, you need to get it! It covers not just engines, but the entire car. The pictures are just astonishing too. Astonishing because the parts of the motor are so similar to what we're used to seeing, but at the same time so different. For example, the piston skirts are almost non-existent. Picture a JE Flyweight piston on crack and you get the idea. There's just enough material to support the rings, and that's it.

Hey, my car has more hp (and a TON more torque) than an F1 motor! And what in the heck is "vacuum-cast extruded billet steel"???

Rich

If you're into this sort of thing, you need to get it! It covers not just engines, but the entire car. The pictures are just astonishing too. Astonishing because the parts of the motor are so similar to what we're used to seeing, but at the same time so different. For example, the piston skirts are almost non-existent. Picture a JE Flyweight piston on crack and you get the idea. There's just enough material to support the rings, and that's it.

I especially like the "delayed throttle". When the driver goes to Wide Open Throttle (WOT) with the pedal, the throttles on one bank are delayed going to WOT behind the other bank by a number of degrees, I think. That amount could be variable. The effect would be to lower the torque in the midrange as the revs come up, like out of a slow corner probably as part of the traction control. IOW, by programming the delay you effectively shape the torque curve dynamically! Damn, I like that.

When the throttle is closed the next time, the system resets and the next time the delay is used, the opposite bank delays. Sweet.

Witha a 3.780" bore and 1.630" stroke, and maybe a 3.3" rod, there's not much room for a piston skirt.

Hey, my car has more hp (and a TON more torque) than an F1 motor! And what in the heck is "vacuum-cast extruded billet steel"???

Rich

If your engine makes peak power at 6500 vs. 17,500 for the F1, and you were both geared for 140 mph at power peak, the F1 engined car would have about 2.7 times more gear ratio to multiply the torque. So, assuming the same tire diameter, and the same hp, the wheel torque at power peak would be equal. Even with different tire diameters, hp peak at the same speed means the same thrust force at the tire.

I'll bet the F1 drivetrain has a lower % loss than a 9 inch. :)

As for peak torque, the 2.7x more gear still applies, so that's more like 680 lb-ft at the equivalent vehicle speed. Curiously, 15,500 rpm / 2.7 is about 57-5800 rpm torque peak. I don't recall yours, Rich, but that may be close.

Of course F1 uses 7 speed transmissions, so they keep the engine in a reasonable rpm band.



As far as "vacuum-cast extruded billet steel", there's a chance that's a misnomer. Aerospace grade steels are vacuum melted, rather than in air, to keep impurities out. Usually they are also remelted in a vacuum or "double vacuum" melted. Steel starts out as a cast ingot, so that could be the meaning of vacuum cast. Stuff like turbine wheels are also vacuum cast from aerospace alloys, but they aren't "billets" or bars, they are near-final shapes.

Typically steel isn't extruded, but it is either hot or cold "rolled" to shape it into a bar or cold "drawn" thru a die. The steel sizes used for cranks (even small diameter F1 cranks) are typically rolled. Extruding, which is similar to "drawing" is used for non-ferrous metals like aluminum.

My best guess is that what the author meant, was that (double) vacuum melted and rolled alloy steel bars (billets) are used to manufacture the crankshaft. This is consistent with how many/most highend cranks are being produced. No mention is made of the alloy or heat treatment, which is the key.

My $.02

Hey, my car has more hp (and a TON more torque) than an F1 motor! And what in the heck is "vacuum-cast extruded billet steel"???

Rich

You just now figured this out:D?

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/index.asp?fileid=2C94C6B8-CD38-4B64-9429-066D7ABBC4AD

Have a new video for the collection.

Bret

Holy christ, you could fry an elephant on those headers!

If my exhaust was glowing that much, I'd be running for the hills.

I wonder if that engine was loaded? There seems to be a connection
on the left rear axle, but I can't be sure. It sure spooled up in a hurry.

How about that balance. The chassis barely moves as the engine cycles.

Insert jaw drop smiley here > :eek:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/index.asp?fileid=2C94C6B8-CD38-4B64-9429-066D7ABBC4AD

Have a new video for the collection.

Bret


That is so cool!!


-john

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/index.asp?fileid=2C94C6B8-CD38-4B64-9429-066D7ABBC4AD

Have a new video for the collection.

Bret

damnit! i was just going to add that to this thread...oh well, im always late!

what exactly are they doing? are they breaking it in or....???

No clue, but I love the headers getting that red and the flames coming out of them.

Bret

What are pneumatic valvesprings?

And the high valve angle seems surprising to me?

Anyone know if it is true that a mechanical engineering degree is required to work for an F1 team? Or know the requirements? Cant imagine how awesome it would be to work on one of those and at the same time travel around the world to some of the most exotic places for free.

What are pneumatic valvesprings?

And the high valve angle seems surprising to me?

Anyone know if it is true that a mechanical engineering degree is required to work for an F1 team? Or know the requirements? Cant imagine how awesome it would be to work on one of those and at the same time travel around the world to some of the most exotic places for free.

Think of a small airbag with a hole in the middle in place of a valvespring. Pressurize it with nitrogen and it's a pneumatic valvespring... Now, eliminate the rubber airbag and have an upper lower cups which telescope into each other. Put a seal, similar to an o-ring between them.

That's very basic, but it should give you the idea.

Now how about controlling the pressure inside the pneumatic valvespring (PS), say varying it with rpm? There is very little mass moving, and the PS either has few reasonant frequencies like a metal spring, it has vitually unlimited stroke, and it's rate is controllable. It really doesn't have a cycling rate (rpm ) limit.

My guess is the pit crews for F1 have very few engineers doing the grunt work. If you were a Honda engineer, there's a small chance you might get to work on the F1 team, but of the many hundreds (or is that thousands) of people involved, very few get to travel with the team.

High valve angle? Not sure what you mean. Intake and exhaust valves are on opposite sides of cylinder.

The throttle response is unbe****inglievable.

Rich

yes it is!

It says 25* intake valve angle. Seems high unless its totally different than what Im used to in SBC being 23* the least performance oriented angle.

Crazy sweet valvespring technology. I want some, I have this bundle of cash laying around that I dont know what to do with :D

It's a pent roof chamber..... So think of a Hemi type setup where the valves aren't angled the same way away in the bore they are on opposite sides.

Remember you can do anything with a blank sheet of paper!

Bret

Got it...

Anybody else have problems with the video Bret just posted freezing but the sound continues to play?

The throttle response is unbe****inglievable.

Rich

Some of that comes from extremely low rotating inertia and virtually no flywheel. The ones that have a flywheel attached to the crank have a clutch diameter smaller than an ob doc's "10 cm" magic number. (I'm getting an interesting visual here.)

I haven't figured out how they launch so well.

That is so wrong.......

The ones that have a flywheel attached to the crank have a clutch diameter smaller than an ob doc's "10 cm" magic number. (I'm getting an interesting visual here.)

Then again after Rich's post about the 293 girls of CZ28 collection.... I don't know which one is worse.... but then again I'm not related to Rich!

Bret

That is so wrong

Is he a frustrated saw bones? :D

Rich

Is he a frustrated saw bones? :D

Rich

Sorta. Never could get past "blood and guts" however.

Orthopaedic Biomechanics was a possibility, but it didn't really exist in '61, and all those ObGyn guys did was talk about their work, not cars. :)

FWIW, the best docs I've met have a good basic understanding of things mechanical. It's a narrow view, I know, but understanding "how the world works" helps in every profession and almost every situation I've encountered in life. That's the ME in me speaking out. Ever wonder why mechanical engineers (MEs) have such a big ego? Shoot, we even use our degree to inflate the ego. You Medical Deities don't do that of course.

Well, people do have a big advantage over machines - they heal. But OTOH a 5-axis CNC machine never sued anybody ;)

Rich

Well, people do have a big advantage over machines - they heal. But OTOH a 5-axis CNC machine never sued anybody ;)

Rich
OTOH, if the programmer or operator of the CNC screws up you might lose a part. Oh well, make another one. If you screw up in your work, Rich, or don't work fast enough, or make an incorrect diagnosis, you might lose a patient.

Big difference...HUGE difference.

Imagine Boyd Coddington (American Hot Rod) or even Paul, Sr. as your lead trauma doc. The mind reels!

fuel for thought
the thing wraps like an electric drill...reminds me more of a pit stop than the engine :lol:
http://www.angeltowns2.net//smele/video/f1.wmv

edit: this may be the same video from earlier in the thread, the other link is down so i'm not for sure
and with the budget they have i have a question about the headers. with all that money couldn't they just use a metal with a really low melting point, fill the tube of .015 thick metal with it and cap the ends, take it into a giant freezer, let it cool into maliable metal, and then bend the headers?

fuel for thought
the thing wraps like an electric drill...reminds me more of a pit stop than the engine :lol:
http://www.angeltowns2.net//smele/video/f1.wmv

edit: this may be the same video from earlier in the thread, the other link is down so i'm not for sure
and with the budget they have i have a question about the headers. with all that money couldn't they just use a metal with a really low melting point, fill the tube of .015 thick metal with it and cap the ends, take it into a giant freezer, let it cool into maliable metal, and then bend the headers?


If the metal has that low of a melting point after they bend them into headers and use them wouldnt they just melt of the car??


-john

Pretty much....

They make those headers out of Inconel and it's really thin and holds up to lots-o-heat.

Bret

If the metal has that low of a melting point after they bend them into headers and use them wouldnt they just melt of the car??


-john
i mean have the outside metal whatever you want the headers to be made out of, fill it with a special metal with a low melting point. then put it in a giant freezer (big enough to work in). the liquid metal inside of the .015 tubing would turn into maliable metal. in the freezer you could bend it. then take it out of the freezer and allow that special metal (with a low melting point, hopefully a little above room temperature) to melt out of the thin walled bent tubing.
i'm just pulling this out of no where, but to this 19 yr old it sounds more efficient, no welds, can be bent to any shape with the inside special metal supporting the header metal, and faster :) thought?

i mean have the outside metal whatever you want the headers to be made out of, fill it with a special metal with a low melting point. then put it in a giant freezer (big enough to work in). the liquid metal inside of the .015 tubing would turn into maliable metal. in the freezer you could bend it. then take it out of the freezer and allow that special metal (with a low melting point, hopefully a little above room temperature) to melt out of the thin walled bent tubing.
i'm just pulling this out of no where, but to this 19 yr old it sounds more efficient, no welds, can be bent to any shape with the inside special metal supporting the header metal, and faster :) thought?

Sorry, but things just don't work that way.

Inconel is usually the metal of choice for F1 (and Nextel Cup) headers because of it's ability to work at the high temps ecountered in thinner sections than other stainless steels, or plain steels.

FWIW, F1 headers are a little thicker than .015. The are probably around 0.5 mm to maybe .75 mm (.020-.030). When they were allowed qualifying engines they did use .015 thick tubing, but it could only last a few laps. Obviously the reason for the thinnest tubing is weight reduction. Same thing for Cup cars. Lighter headers allow putting the weight where it does the most good for handling.

There are a number of ways to fabricate the bends required, but that's another story. Low cost isn't one of the parameters.

Pretty much....

They make those headers out of Inconel and it's really thin and holds up to lots-o-heat.

Bret


Same material you can get for the Enzo exhaust ...... We have an Enzo here with a SS Fuchs system on it. Sounds... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Sorry, but things just don't work that way.

Inconel is usually the metal of choice for F1 (and Nextel Cup) headers because of it's ability to work at the high temps ecountered in thinner sections than other stainless steels, or plain steels.

FWIW, F1 headers are a little thicker than .015. The are probably around 0.5 mm to maybe .75 mm (.020-.030). When they were allowed qualifying engines they did use .015 thick tubing, but it could only last a few laps. Obviously the reason for the thinnest tubing is weight reduction. Same thing for Cup cars. Lighter headers allow putting the weight where it does the most good for handling.

There are a number of ways to fabricate the bends required, but that's another story. Low cost isn't one of the parameters.
Darn. I just figured the inside metal could support the tubing while it was being bent. :shame:

Darn. I just figured the inside metal could support the tubing while it was being bent. :shame:


Some folks have packed dry sand inside a tube, sealed the ends and used the sand to support the tube while it is bent. A backyard approach that can work.

With a VERY high-end mandrel bender you can bend even very thin, tough tubing succcesfully. There are other ways to get tight, smooth bends other than using tubing. How about hydroforming?

Last time I checked, Inconel headers for a Cup car were over $6000 per set. That might be low. For that price they usually come polished. :)

How about this thing

http://www.radicalextremesportscars.com/news_folder/v8stepsup/indexspec.php

Good noises.... http://www.radicalextremesportscars.com/news_folder/v8_sheruns/00004.MP3

Here is a pic of it... http://www.radicalextremesportscars.com/news_folder/v8_sheruns/Dscn0021.jpg

Yep that's what you get with 2 HayaBusa motors strapped together.... Now if someone wanted to make a 4.0L V8 out of two S2000 motors that were tuned up, 500hp easy.

Bret

thats pretty damn cool!

Here is another one to add to the mix

http://www.cosworth.com/

Bret

:death: 20002 :death:

I wonder if they will spin the new 2.4L V-8's any faster?

Rich

I wonder if they will spin the new 2.4L V-8's any faster?

Rich

My guess is YES!

With the shorter engine length they will be able to increase the bore and shorten the stroke some more and keep the 300 cc per cylinder. With larger bore and more valve area possible, they should be able to keep the same torque/L @ hp peak, which I estimate at 90-93 lb-ft/L. If they can push the peak hp rpm from about 17800-18000 where it appears to be now, even with 19-20K max rpm, to 21000, they should be pushing 900 hp! It might take them a year or so, but who knows...some of them might be there now.

I had heard from someone that I think its either BMW or Renault has been spinning the new 2.4 to 24k+ !!

Jon I thought that quote of yours was just some evil $hit to say to a MFer before you put a cap in his ass? (gotta love Pulp Fiction)

24K I wouldn't be suprised to see, but I would guess that they will not see that during the race but it's definately doable when you shorten the stroke and enlarge the bore on the motors to give the same overall length as the V10s with the 600cc smaller V8's

bret

Just wondering if you guys had seen this yet?

20,002 rpm's!! :bow:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/movies.asp

Just wondering if you guys had seen this yet?

20,002 rpm's!! :bow:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/movies.asp

Saw it a couple weeks ago . Interestingly, the original video had digital readout above the dials and the left most showed torque numbers. By freeze-framing, we were able to plot a torque and hp curve. Shortly thereafter Cosworth blanked out the digital numbers. Our saved copy has the numbers.

FWIW, with the new (2006) 2.4L V8 formula, 20000 won't be the top we see.

Good job guys! :bow:

Alright, '06 season is comin up, whos got some dirt on the new 2.4's?

I hear 750hp is the high end... works out to around 950hp in the V10's which Toyota and Honda admitted to at the end of last year.

Funny thing is that the 3.0L V-10s started out around 700hp too, but at a max speed of 16,000rpm, that was 1995. By 1997 they were in the 750hp range and increased another 1,000rpm. Unless the F1 guys find a miracle these motors aren't going to gain the RPM per year they did in the past. With the 96mm bore rule they are still going 19,000rpm, but even Toyota head engine boss Luca Mormorini thinks it's tough to go much over that with the 96mm bore rule.

The problem they have with them is the V8 setup... it's not as naturally balanced as the V10 (two inline 5 firing order) setup, so they have tons of problems with isolating components in the car from the shaking.

Looks like Ferrari is back in the game this year though!

Bret

P.S. Good Pulp Fiction quote in the sig... now where is your Bad Motherf#$ker wallet?

It will be interesting to see what happens. I dont think there is any way of holding down the F1 boys, every year it seems like they try to do something to knock down power, and they jump right back to the same levels. What were they making in the 80s with 2.5s and turbos, 1400-1500hp, then they go N/A and 10 years later theyre getting dang close to those levels with no boost, its quite amazing, sortof hard to fathom some of the stuff they come up with. I have a feeling within 5 years of 2.4s theyll be back up to 900+hp...I like how the FIA thought that taking it down a litre would help keep costs down...its probably going to do the opposite trying to get the power levels back up to what the cars/drivers are used to.

BTW I havent been keeping up really close with it, is Rossi going to be driving for Ferrari this year to replace Barrichello? Or is he still just behind the scenes training?

Jon

PS: I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a mother****er before you popped a cap in his ass

Nope Fellipe Massa from Sauber/Red Bull came over.... ya don't think that old Sauber/Ferrari setup had anything to do with it.

http://www.thescuderia.net/felipemassa.shtml

BTW the max bore is 98mm..... my bad.

http://www.planetf1.com/mediastore/Livery_less_cars_11_Jan_Jerez/_05_McLaren_de_la_Rosa.jpg

Gotta like the old school Mclaren colors.

Bret

Does anyone run 98mm bores right now?

Yep... almost all of them do. 96-98mm is the range every engine guy in F1 agrees they are at. Theissen(BMW), Kiuchi(Honda), White(Renault), Marmorini(Toyota) have all said that in interviews. Puts the strokes at 1.563-1.630"... Piston G's are right at 10,500-10,700 and speed is 5200 ft/min, right around 21,000-26,000 Nm for the piston mass they run 210-250g, not as high as a cup car though at 24,000 Nm with a 400g piston.... might be a better comparison with the rod, pin and ring mass but gotta think they are all close it total Nm since the deck heights on the cup blocks are much higher compared to the strokes and they have a 525g rule and F1 doesn't.

Bret

Are there rules preventing electric motors from varying the aerodynamics of the cars? A few exotic street cars have spoilers that will rise under braking, but I've never noticed it on F1 cars.
Also, if that was the case, what are the odds of them coming up with something similar to powerboat racing, where they try to get air under the boat on the straights to reduce weight?
I'm kind of suprised that they have never had a speed regulator on their cars. They could limit that, but not limit power as much, and have some really mean accelerating cars. :shrug:

I think a car that accelerates to 60 well under 3 seconds qualifies as a "Mean accelerating car" already.;) Adjustable aerodynamic braking shouldnt be much of a concern either since they pull over a G from aero-braking alone from top speeds. Top speeds arent that impressive anyway, 180s/190s isnt all that fast, not like they have a lot of huge straights to use a top speed anyway. Formula 1 is won in the S's not the straights.

I made a boobo in my last post, the 80's cars were 1.5s not 2.5s

Are there rules preventing electric motors from varying the aerodynamics of the cars? A few exotic street cars have spoilers that will rise under braking, but I've never noticed it on F1 cars.
Also, if that was the case, what are the odds of them coming up with something similar to powerboat racing, where they try to get air under the boat on the straights to reduce weight?
I'm kind of suprised that they have never had a speed regulator on their cars. They could limit that, but not limit power as much, and have some really mean accelerating cars. :shrug:

Any movable aero devices are outlawed.

With 950 or so hp in a 1300 lb car they need the downforce on the straights to keep from spinning the tires almost to top speed. They are probably the quickest accelerating race cars not on a drag strip.

At 180-200 mph, aero drag gives about 2.5 gs decel without braking. That's what surprised Jeff Gordon when he drove the F1 BMW a couple of years ago.

Regulating max speed isn't the problem. They keep adding downforce which makes the car quicker in all the twisty parts, but the induced drag which is the byproduct of downforce limits the max speed. Add power, add downforce, add more power, add more downforce...and the beat goes on.

Reducing engine size this year from 3.0L to 2.4L should knock off a couple hundred horses. They've already limited bore size (and effectively rpm) but soon max rpm will be limited to 19K.

I think a car that accelerates to 60 well under 3 seconds qualifies as a "Mean accelerating car" already.;) Adjustable aerodynamic braking shouldnt be much of a concern either since they pull over a G from aero-braking alone from top speeds. Top speeds arent that impressive anyway, 180s/190s isnt all that fast, not like they have a lot of huge straights to use a top speed anyway. Formula 1 is won in the S's not the straights.

I made a boobo in my last post, the 80's cars were 1.5s not 2.5s


Well, teams are working 24/7( literally) in the windtunnels to minimize the drag of the cars while retaining the downforce since almost all of the passing in f1 comes at the end of the straights due to one car having a higher top speed, moveable aerodynamic devices would be a HUGE advantage. In a recent exibition the BAR honda ran somewhere around 280mph(i forget exactly) on the salt flats because they took most of the wing off the car. Also, at Monza, the cars hit around 230mph last year, some even hit about 215 at the end of the straight in Indy. If anyone gets a chance to go to indy for the usgp sit at the end of the main straight during practice and to see these cars haul down from around 210 to 70 hitting the brakes at the 100 meter mark, it really is incredible. oh, and 0-100-0 in 5 seconds...:eek:

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2005/gen/f1-2005-gen-tm-1448.jpg

http://www.bonneville400.com/

http://www.sportnetwork.net/mainadmin/img/1691125685934.jpg