descartesfool

Just heard it said that all the new F1 V-8 engines including the Honda one that are actually functioning are running in excess of 20,000 RPM and expected to be in the 23,000 RPM range by the time they run in anger next year.

Now that is fast!

FlyZlow

Unbelievable. That is really mind boggling. If I calculated it right, at 23k RPM, each piston has to fire every 0.005 seconds. That gives you a little over a thousanth of a second to complete each stroke. It's incredible that all of those working parts can move that fast, especially given their size versus a 600cc sportbike or something. It's amazing that you can even get enough fuel in the cylinder in that short amount of time.

RynoDyno312

So fast they can't even use regular valvesprings--have to use pneumatics

descartesfool

From some of Renault's engineering staff:

"Rob White, Technical Director (Engine)

“A path of 1 engine for 2 week-ends from 2005, followed by a change to 2.4L V-8s from 2006 is feasible and is widely supported. At the beginning, there will be a performance loss associated with the longer life 2-race engines. Of course we will all work hard to recover the deficit, but the rate of engine performance development will be reduced relative to the current engines, which is consistent with the FIA objectives.

“For the future, to achieve a step decrease in power, of the order of 200hp, a capacity reduction is needed. 2.4L V-8s will remain unique and spectacular engines. They will not be like F1 V-8s of the past or like other racing V-8s based on road car engines. F1 engines to this spec will still be high revving, ultra-high output, with no equal in other series.” (9 July)

Pat Symonds, Executive Director of Engineering
“Logically, because of the rate of development and the technology involved, the only sure-fire way of getting the power down is to reduce the capacity. We identified in the Technical Working Group some while ago that 700hp was the sort of target we needed to aim for to maintain safety. A 2.4-litre engine is going to give around that sort of power, it makes sense to make it a V8, it gives the same basic cylinder size as a current V10. These are going to be high-tech V8s… little engines that are going to run at 19,000 or 20,000rpm, they are going to be sophisticated, they are going to be exciting. And is the guy in the grandstand going to really know it is a 2.4 V8 rather than a 3-litre V10? I suspect not.” (FIA Conference, 9 July)"

And this about Cosworth:

"Cosworth runs at 20,000rpm!
Cosworth Racing says that it regularly runs its 2,4-litre V8 development engine for next year at 20,000rpm, while the current V10 is running to 19,000rpm. While this does not necessarily mean that the new engines will produce more horsepower than the current 3-litre V10s it will mean that power outputs will not be anywhere near as small as the regulations are designed to make them.
In part this is due to the fact that the crankshaft of the new engines are shorter than those being used at the moment and that means that they have less problems with torsional twisting.

The cost of development of the new 2.4-litre V8s has been huge."

Want2race

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FlyZlow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Unbelievable. That is really mind boggling. If I calculated it right, at 23k RPM, each piston has to fire every 0.005 seconds. That gives you a little over a thousanth of a second to complete each stroke. It's incredible that all of those working parts can move that fast, especially given their size versus a 600cc sportbike or something. It's amazing that you can even get enough fuel in the cylinder in that short amount of time. </TD></TR></TABLE>


Whats more amazing is think about the G forces! That Rod when it goes from a down stroke to an upstroke is subjected to over 1000g's!

94accordsedan

Thats f*cking nuts. I am beginning to think losing 2 cylinders may not make them sound as crappy.

Oh and will they be a direct swap into my Honda street ka?

Johnny Mac

So much for seeing any cost reduction in F1 any time soon. Actually, I think the two-race motors ending up requiring more money, more testing, and more engineering sophistication. Oh well, Bernie meant well.

phat-S

Actually they have said it was indeed a savings of roughly $1.5mm per car per race going to one motor. Its not just the development (a sunk cost) but the on-going support and the required spares needed per car per race that amounts to the considerable savings.

Jowee

Holy cow, it gives me the chills just revving up to 9,500. I can't imagine how it'll feel to go to 20.

Honda318dx

I think RC cars/planes do 35,000 RPM. If I remember right

FlyZlow

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Honda318dx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think RC cars/planes do 35,000 RPM. If I remember right</TD></TR></TABLE>

Are those electric or piston motors? It's easy to spin electric motors to insane speeds because there aren't any parts that have to change direction.

I haven't really followed Formula 1, so I don't know the basis of a lot of these rule changes, but it makes me wonder why they would make teams develop entirely new engine platforms to reduce horsepower rather than somehow restricting airflow or computer limiting the current engines. It seems like they've been on a cost savings kick lately and it seems like those options would be WAY cheaper than developing an entirely new motor.

EK4civichatch

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Honda318dx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think RC cars/planes do 35,000 RPM. If I remember right</TD></TR></TABLE>

Those are 2 stroke correct?

TeamSlowdotOrg

Motors are already new every few races. If engine development can be limited by providing more rigid engine rules, it'll save money. I don't see why they have to toss out the speed potential the 3.0 liter V10 platform offers. More displacement means more power for less money.

HondaRcB

When I raced RC cars, then engine turned over 38,000 rpm in a one cylinder, .12 cubic inch engine. Amazing.

JMU R1

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TeamSlowdotOrg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I don't see why they have to toss out the speed potential the 3.0 liter V10 platform offers. More displacement means more power for less money. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Not in Formula 1. Whatever the engine formula the teams are going to go to extreme lengths to get the power. If they have more displacement to make more power they are going to push to get to the limit of horsepower for that displacement.

I agree that limiting the engine rules could save money but in the case of the 2 race rule and the 2.4L V8 rule, the massive changes involved cost the teams the same or more money than leaving things as they are. Rules stability saves money too.

RR98ITR

Boy oh Boy - are you guys a bunch of mindless sheep.

The F1 idiots are going off in the wrong direction, and you are all just soooo impressed.

Lemme tell ya straight:

High RPM is NOT where it's at.

The smartest engine builders (from what I gather) try to make their power at the LOWEST possible RPM.

Here's a hint: RPM = Ruins Peoples Motors.

I'm amazed that with the many million$ spent on F1 power units, that they could ALL be going the wrong way.

Just goes to show that there's still room for a really smart guy to enter that world and both revolutionize and dominate it.

Scott, who thinks it reminds him of the decades of obesity building done on Low-Fat diets...I think Woody Allen had it right in Sleeper: "Before we found out that everything we thought was bad for us was actually good for us"...

slammed_93_hatch

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RR98ITR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">.

The smartest engine builders (from what I gather) try to make their power at the LOWEST possible RPM.

Here's a hint: RPM = Ruins Peoples Motors....</TD></TR></TABLE>

which is probably why the v10 3.0l reved to 18-19 grand, and the V8 V8 2.4l revs to 20 grand to make similiar power.

i always thought low displacment, and less pistons ment that you had to rev higher to make power, then compared to a car with more displacment and more pistons.


now scott will probably come back with some really funny/outlandish comment and make me look stupid

RR98ITR

Nahhh...I'm only worried (though barely) that somebody will think I'm serious - and hence a serious idiot.

The only problem I have with all these revs and the technology that enables them, is that racing becomes that much more scientific and materials and methods based. Not that I can really pretend that it hasn't always been so - but with ignorance comes romance. I can't get romantic with stuff at the molecular level - Me too big!

Scott, who in his personal life though IS into low rpm - I don't want a fast spinning grenade - ONLY because I don't feel I can afford it...

slammed_93_hatch

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RR98ITR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nahhh...I'm only worried (though barely) that somebody will think I'm serious - and hence a serious idiot....</TD></TR></TABLE>


i was right HAHA

Chris F

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i was right HAHA</TD></TR></TABLE>

*wipes a small tear from his eye*

sweeeet...

So, how about a rev limiter? Would that change the economics? What about pushrods, would that fix the economics?

I'm tempted to start thinking about what a rev limiter would do to F1 costs... but I'm all out of aspirin.

Speaking of rev limiters, did you guys see the Bob Endicott/Curran RSX spew all of it's go-fast slippery juice out the bottom of the oilpan at Watkins Glen last weekend? At least, I think that's what happened. It was one of the RSX's, and 4 other cars went off right behind him because the oil spill was in the braking zone.

-Chris

tnord

my motor goes to 11.

RR98ITR

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">my motor goes to 11. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah - but only once.

I watched the CART race at Portland on TV today, and (this is how much attention I've paid up to now) was introduced to the "push to pass button". Now there's a concept. I don't know exactly how it works. Is it a fuse that you're burning up every time you push the button? Or is the limit just a timer? Couldn't be a fuse could it??? A Real Racer would be sure push the button that one time too many right?

Scott, who is so confused anymore...racing should be so simple...but it's sooo complex...no wonder there are banks of monitors under the canopies in the hot pits..."I'm going as fast as I can - Gimme More Computing Power!"

tnord

actually, my motor went to 11 a couple weeks ago, and hardly seems the worse for wear.

push to pass i think is crap. i don't have a good reason for it really, i just don't like it. i'm pretty sure it's just a button that electronically changes all the engine parameters and jacks up the boost.

RynoDyno312

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RR98ITR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Yeah - but only once.

I watched the CART race at Portland on TV today, and (this is how much attention I've paid up to now) was introduced to the "push to pass button". Now there's a concept. I don't know exactly how it works. Is it a fuse that you're burning up every time you push the button? Or is the limit just a timer? Couldn't be a fuse could it??? A Real Racer would be sure push the button that one time too many right?

Scott, who is so confused anymore...racing should be so simple...but it's sooo complex...no wonder there are banks of monitors under the canopies in the hot pits..."I'm going as fast as I can - Gimme More Computing Power!"</TD></TR></TABLE>

I believe the pass button in CART temproarily ups the boost from the turbol, creating more power. Not 100% sure, but i think that's it.

slammed_93_hatch

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RR98ITR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
"push to pass button".
!"</TD></TR></TABLE>

it could be dubed the, "push to not be passed button" also.