A couple of years ago one of the team managers was asked about the saving that would be seen from the new cost cuting measure to be incorporated the next year. His answer was that it wouldn't matter, as they would just spend the money somewhere else.

 

Of course a 90* V-10 is odd-fire, but I think packaging has been the driving force in V-angle. Renault went to 100+* to try to get a lower CG, but couldn't make the engine work as well mostly due to plumbing. Their 72* or maybe it's 90* V-10 is up on power, but the virtually complete redesign resulted in a CG height within about an inch of the wide-angle engine.

So how about eliminating all that top-heavy OHC stuff and go to pushrods?

Ever notice that an LS1 or LS7 is narrower, lower and less top heavy than a 4.6L Northstar? Oh, and a tad lighter. The pushrod C6R benefits from that configuration...and a lot of development work prior to LeMans.

 

C6R engine bay:
http://www.carchaos.com/chevrolet/ch...c6r_engine.jpg
(edit)Smaller image that loads faster:
http://www.engine-power.com/img/spec...tte_c6r_08.jpg

Now THATs what I call an engine!

Northstar:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-20...8-1280x960.jpg

The northstar I believe is nearly as large with the engine cover as the C6R's engine is with that gigantic manifold setup. But as that huge manifold (4pc? 5pc?) isnt metal, it doesnt carry a lot of weight with it, where the heads on the northstar carry a lot of weight.

I'd like to see the manifold removed and taken apart, I bet its quite interesting to see in person.

 

I agree about the rule changes not dropping costs.Not gonna be a Cup style 42 car grid anytime soon, but does it really matter? that would triple the number of passes per race to, uh, 9.
As far as turbos go.....open wheel guys lose their minds when they get boost. when Indy was in the turbo era-late 80s/90s???-, Hondas fabled 1.8L turbo motors were reputed to put out 1100 or so horse in qualifying trim, at around 3 bar boost that is a the only honda I would not call rice.

i think theyll keep it NA--look how hard it is to keep even a moderate tech level class even between NA/various power adder motors [pro mod, street car racing, mustang racing, etc..] with the resources and brain power these guys have, I think you would have one team with a perfect motor setup smoking everyone, grumbling from others, that combo banned; another team/motor setup becomes dominant,grumbling, that combo banned.......etcetc.
But that wouldnt be far from todays racing I guess, although now Ferrari is not king of the hill anymore there is much more competition and teams with chances=better racing.One can only watch Schuey win by 3 laps so many times.

As far as pushrods,i think theres just no way they could mojo a setup to hang at that rpm.To my knowledge some of the very small cu. in. pushrod V8 IHRA classes are going to 13/14000 rpm, but thats a drag motor.[correct me?]
Pro Stock is at what ,10500? and i dont think its gone up for a few years.

 

What you're stating here makes sense if their straight line sprints don't benefit
from more top speed.

Increasing the ratio will pad the torque that may have been lost from the
longer stroke. If the mechanical grip and downforce are keeping the tires
planted, then there's still room to play with the gearing.

Is F1 allowed to use electronics for traction control, or only data logging?

Are the teams able to change gearing for different tracks?

For instance, a track with several long straight sections might require a
slightly lower ratio, whereas a slinky track might want a higher ratio to help
accelerate out of the turns?

 

Don't equate torque to stroke length. Equate it to displacement and breathing ability. Long stroke engines make more torque because they are BIGGER.
Almost everything. Electronics software is where F1 excells, and if you want to hide something in the software (and pay your programmers enough), FIA can't find it. Maybe this would be a job for Mindgame. No uploading of stuff from pits (or factory!) to car during the race. That used to happen, I believe.

Yeah, all seven trans ratios and final drive. Hard to believe they can't tailor the gears for the track. Shoot, they can tailor the torque curve to the track, just like NASCAR. Ferrari (5 years ago) controlled the individual banks of cylinder's throttle plate opening by delaying one bank momentarily to shape the torque curve and keep traction. I assume that was a variable they could dial in.

 

It would be interesting to see open wheeled race cars use gas-turbine engines. With the amount of development capital they apply to building these cars it would only be a matter of time before that technology trickled into our daily drivers....of course, gas prices suck now, what if you had to fill up with 114 octane jet fuel?

 

OK fine, you win again! Jon - 29, Tino - 0

Let's get away from F1 and talk about GM small block for a second.

Please tell me the stroke in this example provides more torque.

302 CID: 4.000" bore x 3.000" stroke

305 CID: 3.735" bore x 3.480" stroke

We'll bore the 302 and make it a 4.030" piston = 306.13 CID.

Loosely speaking, combustion pressure (over surface area of the piston) * stroke = torque

So...if each motor had 1000 PSI of combustion pressure, my garage
mechanic math says the 305 makes more torque by nearly 8%.

Back to F1 talk.

 

They did that in the '70s. My boss owns one of the STP turbine Indy cars (as well as several other cool cars if you check the link). He usually runs it on kerosene. Chrysler also had a concept car that had a turbine engine. They let ~100 civilians drive them for a month.

I think there is a video of him driving it on the site. It sounds awesome.
http://www.avonaero.com/indycar.htm

Dustin

 

I agree totally but the pushrods don't take too well to 20,000 rpm. Other than that it's all good and that's why I still love the regular american engines like the new LS1!

 

Hmmm...

I don't necessarily agree with your equation for torque, but assuming it works, I can't agree with your "garage mechanic math."

Surface area of the piston * stroke is the formula for displacement, isn't it?

If you do the numbers correctly you get the 306.13 and 305.03 cubic inches, and the 306.13 has about .36% advantage, exactly it's displacement advantage.

30-love?

 

Re-serve!

I can't let this one slide, it goes against all my garage theory and that's not good.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, with my example.

Have a read here, second paragraph were he talks about stroke length for
additional leverage.

http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_somuchtorque.cfm

 

Good article, and a good explanation of how turbo diesels make lots of low rpm torque. Not much of it applies to high rpm (over 4000!) NA gasoline engines, however. The bits about higher piston speed, higher average velocity and higher acceleration/deceleration are significant. All these things are losses or require stronger and usually heavier, parts.

We are concerned about brake torque and brake hp, or the torque & power that makes it to the flywheel. Indicated torque & power is what the engine produces internally from the combustion process and what I think you are picturing in your mind. From indicated, you need to subtract friction and pumping losses to get brake. Additionally if the engine is accelerating, as most high rpm gas engines are in most conditions, rotating inertia also subtracts from the indicated power.

If you just look at strokes and think indicated (or potential) torque & power without factoring in the losses noted above, long strokes look like the way to make torque, at least at lower rpm. As rpm increases, losses mount and diminishing returns sets in.

In the real world as opposed to theory (garage or otherwise), the amount of air the (NA gas) engine pumps is the biggest factor in determining the torque & power it develops. Here more bore area usually allows more valve area which usually means more VE. This is especially true in very high speed engines.

Don't forget gears. A diesel putting out 600 lb-ft at 3000 rpm (343 hp) puts the same amount of torque to the wheels (at a given speed) as a 300 lb-ft engine @ 6000 rpm (343 hp), or a 100 lb-ft @ 18000 rpm (343 hp) engine.

Keep thinking, Tino, but look at all that is happening. Just be careful with your math!

 

Alright, 30-Love.

After playing around with some more math, I see that surface area x stroke
pretty much equals the same pressure at the crank centerline no matter
what the crank arm length vs. bore ratio...as long as the displacement was
equal.

When I used all decimals places instead of rounding off, the pressure at the
crank centerline was indentical if I varied the bore to equal 305 CID with a 3.00
crank.

I think the bore was 4.023", giving a total surface area of 12.7112 sq./in. * 1000 PSI * 3.00"
= ~ 38133

The 305 has surface area of 10.9564 sq./in. * 1000 PSI * 3.48"
= ~ 38128

You are officially my mentor whether you like it or not.

 

Hey, it's a tough job...but someone has to do it!