Are some road engines now "better" than F1 engines?

[Adam Ansel]

This has been intriguing me.
F1 engines are 1.6 litre V6 turbos limited to 15,000 rpm, but fuel-flow control makes it impractical to go beyond 12,000 to 13,000rpm
Also they are severely limited in the materials they are allowed to use. A whole raft of "exotics" are banned, including, for instance, beryllium in blocks and pistons, composites in the block and crankcase and tungsten crank counterweights.

Road engines have no such constraints, though they must pass emission tests.

Wikipedia says that: "In 2006, Yamaha advertised that the R6 had a redline of 17,500 rpm. This is 2,000 rpm higher than the previous R6 model and was the highest tachometer redline of any 2006 production four-stroke motorcycle engine.[5] The true maximum engine speed was limited by the ECU to 15,800 RPM.[6] In February 2006, Yamaha admitted the bike's true engine redline was more than 1,000 rpm lower than what was indicated on the tachometer and had been advertised,[7] and offered to buy back any R6 if the customer was unhappy."
And here is a video of a Honda CBR250RR at its 20,000 rpm redline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXt7fQsDsk8

These are both mass produced engines designed to last for a high mileage.

So do the materials and fuel flow limits on F1 internal combustion engines mean that they are no longer at the peak of technology? And that maybe a road vehicle engine could equal or even overtake their technology?

[Exige77]

No

[Vocal Minority]

Realistically you need to define 'better'.

Is it about materials, performance, how high it can rev?

Considering, for example, an F1 engine can still produce a specific output of say 450-500 bhp per litre (maybe), whilst being fuel glow limited, not using the most exotic materials and needing a several thousand mile lifespan - I'd personally say that would take some topping.

Porsche's 2.0 litre V4 and hybrid system may have a strong shout for being better I guess.

[//j17]

Adam Ansel said:

So do the materials and fuel flow limits on F1 internal combustion engines mean that they are no longer at the peak of technology? And that maybe a road vehicle engine could equal or even overtake their technology?

Depends on your point of view. F1 engines are the peak of technology in a very strict, prescriptive set of parameters and requirements but those restrictions and requirements don't exist anywhere else. F1 engines probably have MORE technology but is it BETTER technology...?

Despite the "F1 tech. improves road cars" marketing twaddle there's been little link between any F1 tech. and the real world since the 70s or 80s. Do we have road cars with engines that can rev. to 20,000RPM (peak we ever got to) and need to be replaced every 750 miles (5x average race distance based on 4 engines for a 20 race season last year). No, but we do have loads around the 100BPH/liter mark (up from about 60BHP/l 40 years ago) and that can go for 20,000 miles between services and can be expected to top 100,000 miles without a rebuild (up from around say 6-12,000 miles for an engine service and say 30,000 miles 40 years ago).

[Otispunkmeyer]

Vocal Minority said:

Realistically you need to define 'better'.

Is it about materials, performance, how high it can rev?

Considering, for example, an F1 engine can still produce a specific output of say 450-500 bhp per litre (maybe), whilst being fuel glow limited, not using the most exotic materials and needing a several thousand mile lifespan - I'd personally say that would take some topping.

Porsche's 2.0 litre V4 and hybrid system may have a strong shout for being better I guess.

Indeed

What is "better" ? The bike engines rev fast, but they are smaller. What is the mean piston speed? If you do this calc you'd find older cars like Honda Civic Type R with the 1.6 VTEC unit, were approaching similar piston speeds to F1 engines when F1 was all naturally aspirated. But the F1 engines still had a few meters per second on them.

What about defining thermal efficiency as a measure? If Merc are to be believed their Power Unit is 47% thermally efficient. The only engines I know of that are higher are the gigantic "cathederal" engines as made by the likes of Sultzer and Wartsila for tankers. They're helped by being two-stroke as well. Back in more sensibly sized engines there are 13 L diesel units whose overall thermal efficiency is approaching 55% with the help of things like turbo compounding, turbo generators and organic rankine cycles to help use the waste heat. So that clouds it a little, I would like to know what the actual thermal efficiency of just the combustion is.

In my view, the ICE has been around over 100 years. Its pretty well developed and to make it work in any kind of modern application leads to exceptional levels of engineering...especially when it comes to controls. I would say F1 engines are worse in some respects compared to road cars and better in others, its just the application that has determined which bits are better. Not the technology itself.

[Scuffers]

as said, define better?

try putting one though the EU6 drive cycle...

[cmsapms]

Isn't the basic purpose of a vehicles internal combustion engine to convert the chemical energy of their fuel into the kinetic energy of the vehicle's movement? I'd say a modern F1 engine (PU?) is doing this "better" than just about any other.

[Scuffers]

cmsapms said:

Isn't the basic purpose of a vehicles internal combustion engine to convert the chemical energy of their fuel into the kinetic energy of the vehicle's movement? I'd say a modern F1 engine (PU?) is doing this "better" than just about any other.

on that basis, no

marine diesels are more efficient

[thegreenhell]

I'd say that most road engines are better than F1 engines at being road engines, but would not be as good if asked to become F1 engines, i.e. they are good at what they're designed for but are designed for different purposes.

[IforB]

No.

One reason is that Yamaha got a kicking for the fact that 17,500 rpm would be displayed on the tacho, but it was more than slightly "enthusiastic."

Other than that, rpm is hardly a guide to how good an engine is. Things like the fact that in terms of specific fuel consumption an F1 engine is absolutely light years ahead of any other reciprocating piston engine I can think of. That ability to convert fuel to usable power is the key metric for what makes a "good" engine in engineering terms.

[DanielSan]

Vocal Minority said:

Realistically you need to define 'better'.

Is it about materials, performance, how high it can rev?

Considering, for example, an F1 engine can still produce a specific output of say 450-500 bhp per litre (maybe), whilst being fuel glow limited, not using the most exotic materials and needing a several thousand mile lifespan - I'd personally say that would take some topping.

Porsche's 2.0 litre V4 and hybrid system may have a strong shout for being better I guess.

I'd say that the F1 V6'a are a better engine than the V4 but the Porsche is the better hybrid system.

[Scuffers]

IforB said:

No.

One reason is that Yamaha got a kicking for the fact that 17,500 rpm would be displayed on the tacho, but it was more than slightly "enthusiastic."

Other than that, rpm is hardly a guide to how good an engine is. Things like the fact that in terms of specific fuel consumption an F1 engine is absolutely light years ahead of any other reciprocating piston engine I can think of. That ability to convert fuel to usable power is the key metric for what makes a "good" engine in engineering terms.

in which case, F1 engines lose hands down.

The most efficient reciprocating piston engines are the big marine diesels.

for container ships, fuel economy is everything and some.

for a 4 stroke, try the Wärtsilä 31 with it's 165 g/kWh
for a 2 stroke, try the Wärtsilä X92 with it's 156.4g/kWh (this works out at some 58% thermal efficiency)

Edited by Scuffers on Friday 4th March 15:12

[kambites]

Considerably the various arbitrary restrictions on them, F1 engines get remarkably close. I think they claimed to have been running around 50% efficiency last year and I'd be surprised if they haven't made significant gains over winter. I think we could easily see 52-53% efficiency from the ICE components this year?

[Scuffers]

kambites said:

Considerably the various arbitrary restrictions on them, F1 engines get remarkably close. I think they claimed to have been running around 50% efficiency last year and I'd be surprised if they haven't made significant gains over winter. I think we could easily see 52-53% efficiency from the ICE components this year?

Yes and no,

The f1 claims are for the total thermal efficiency including mguh recovery.

[kambites]

Scuffers said:

kambites said:

Considerably the various arbitrary restrictions on them, F1 engines get remarkably close. I think they claimed to have been running around 50% efficiency last year and I'd be surprised if they haven't made significant gains over winter. I think we could easily see 52-53% efficiency from the ICE components this year?

Yes and no,

The f1 claims are for the total thermal efficiency including mguh recovery.

Ah, that I didn't realise. That makes it rather less impressive.

[Scuffers]

kambites said:

Ah, that I didn't realise. That makes it rather less impressive.

Yea, but to be fair, it's still pretty impressive for a petrol (in the losses possible sence) engine.

[kambites]

Scuffers said:

kambites said:

Ah, that I didn't realise. That makes it rather less impressive.

Yea, but to be fair, it's still pretty impressive for a petrol (in the losses possible sence) engine.

True. I suppose the whole MGU-H thing is perhaps the one element of "F1 hybrid technology" which might at some point make its way into mainstream road cars. Albeit probably without the "M" bit.

[Scuffers]

kambites said:

True. I suppose the whole MGU-H thing is perhaps the one element of "F1 hybrid technology" which might at some point make its way into mainstream road cars. Albeit probably without the "M" bit.

More likely the other way round, using the m bit to eliminate turbo lag.

For a road car, in normal running, these not much energy your going to recover from a simple turbo.

[Some Gump]

OP,

I'm not sure anyone would be better off with berillium in engines. It's not a nice metal..

[mollytherocker]

thegreenhell said:

I'd say that most road engines are better than F1 engines at being road engines, but would not be as good if asked to become F1 engines, i.e. they are good at what they're designed for but are designed for different purposes.

Its this simple. Its like asking is a boat better than a helicopter.