|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
4 May 2005, 13:06 (Ref:1292833) | #1 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,043
|
V8 impact?
I know much has been already speculated concerning the V8 returning to F1. Honda's version is fast right out of the box, I would assume all versions will be lighter and more fuel efficient. It's certain that we will get more than a few surprises; there is much speculation already that the Japanese manufacturers may reign and will be tough to beat. After reading the following article, it got me to thinking that the V8 engine rule will change F1 in many ways:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14730.html |
|
|
4 May 2005, 13:27 (Ref:1292844) | #2 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 80
|
itv are saying that it was 4 seconds a lap slower. I'd expect the smaller/lighter package will help the aeor of the cars immensly - maybe they will be slower down the straights and faster round the corners
|
||
|
4 May 2005, 13:53 (Ref:1292857) | #3 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
There are changes to the chassis/aero rules next year too.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
4 May 2005, 13:54 (Ref:1292859) | #4 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
That story suggests that the V8 was the fastest car of the day...
|
|
|
4 May 2005, 14:42 (Ref:1292885) | #5 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 148
|
Aren't Minardi planning to run a V10 - rev-limited ?
Anybody else know about this ? Rob |
||
__________________
Grand Prix Diary |
4 May 2005, 14:44 (Ref:1292886) | #6 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
4 May 2005, 14:44 (Ref:1292887) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,010
|
Wonder why Geoff Willis says "In some ways more similar to a MotoGP engine than an actual F1 V10...?"
What else has been changed in the engine department rules? Obviously they're 600cc smaller and 2 cylinders down, but what else is different if anything I wonder... |
||
__________________
Keep living the dream! |
4 May 2005, 16:52 (Ref:1292978) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,575
|
Smaller engine = huuge RPM I think! Cosworths V8 has been reported to produce over 20,000 RPM! Thats where the Moto GP comparison may come from.
|
||
__________________
#teamyorkshire |
4 May 2005, 16:58 (Ref:1292984) | #9 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 May 2005, 17:17 (Ref:1292999) | #10 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
The rev. rise comes from the reduction in cc not cylinders. Generally the higher the number of cyclinders the higher the max rpm (for the same cc). So a V10 should rev more than a V8 of the same size. Here we have a drop from 3.5l to 2.4l (and a decade of development).
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
4 May 2005, 17:25 (Ref:1293006) | #11 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 May 2005, 17:45 (Ref:1293031) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Yes, but a V8 produces less power thus has lower RPM's.
|
|
|
4 May 2005, 17:53 (Ref:1293038) | #13 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 May 2005, 18:23 (Ref:1293069) | #14 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
So could my 50cc 2-stroke Honda NSR...
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 01:08 (Ref:1293311) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,313
|
My 2c
A V8 will make more torque than a V10 or V12 of the same capacity due to the area the combustion flame front will hit in relation to piston size, IE larger bore more surface area however due to the heavier rotating mass the revs will be lower. V10 or V12 of the same capacity has to rev higher to make up for the lack of torque which it can due to a lighter rotating mass IE smaller pistons and rods. HP = Torque X RPM / 5252 800HP = 233ftlbs X 18000 RPM / 5252 approx 800HP = 280ftlbs X 15000 RPM / 5252 approx 2 different ways to achieve the same result |
||
__________________
Ignorance is the easy way out, and the easy way out is rarely the best. Fighting ignorance takes dedication, desire, and effort. |
5 May 2005, 08:34 (Ref:1293479) | #16 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
As I understand it, it is the shorter crankshaft which gives the potential for higher rpm than the V10. Power is a product partly of higher rpm, so it is not right to say that a lower volume=less power=lower rpm. Total power will not rival the current engines, but power per cc will be higher.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 08:52 (Ref:1293486) | #17 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
The higher rpm comes from a lower crankshaft, rods, and piston weight as it is this weight that needs to be accelerated. An engine of the same size, but with more cylinders should rev more due to the individual piston weight.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
5 May 2005, 08:56 (Ref:1293493) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Do the 2006 engines have a regulatory minimum weight?
|
||
|
5 May 2005, 08:59 (Ref:1293496) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Quote:
|
||
|
5 May 2005, 09:04 (Ref:1293500) | #20 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,037
|
That is because the new engines are smaller not because they are V8 though. A V12 of the same size revs higher than a V8, as I understand.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
5 May 2005, 09:43 (Ref:1293515) | #21 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
That is the conventional wisdom - but there again conventional wisdom ten or less years ago had it that the rev ceiling in F1 would be about 15,000 rpm! Generally it is true that the smaller the pistons and valvegear the higher the rpm potential, but that wisdom assumes that you haven't already run into the ceiling for another reason, such as the harmonics in the (long) crank.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 15:08 (Ref:1293759) | #22 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Also,98mm max bore,compulsary 90 degree V angle,4 valves per cylinder and much more. Plus, as far as i'm aware,they have to last for six races! |
||
|
5 May 2005, 18:45 (Ref:1293881) | #23 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
And no, the engines must last two race weekends. |
|||
|
5 May 2005, 18:53 (Ref:1293890) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,332
|
Maybe I'm out to lunch, but I thought that F1 had pretty much reached the point that being able to control the movement of the valves was actually what was putting an upper limit on rpm???
|
||
__________________
Juliette Bravo! Juliette Bravo!!!! |
6 May 2005, 09:13 (Ref:1294203) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IRL Trying to Come to Canada - Impact on CC | Snrub | ChampCar World Series | 75 | 13 Mar 2005 23:20 |
Jordan driver announcements & impact of new FIA funds (merged) | slicktoast | Formula One | 53 | 3 Jan 2004 23:45 |
Will De La Rosa make a Impact? | SH0077 | Formula One | 21 | 21 Apr 2001 22:53 |
Question about FWD, RWD, 4WD and their impact on cornering. | Sharky | Road Car Forum | 4 | 11 Sep 2000 20:11 |