F1 spec vs MotoGP spec engines
Discussion
Bikes are ~250bhp per litre
F1 ~250bhp ish per litre
Engine Spec BMW P84
Type Normally aspirated V10
Cylinder angle 90 degrees
Displacement 2998cc
Valves Four per cylinder
Valve drive Pneumatic
Engine block/cylinder head Aluminium
Crankshaft Steel
Engine management BMW
From www.motorcyclistonline.com/features/motorgp03/
Yes, all the bikes are fuel injected, drive their twin overhead camshafts with gears, and all except the 20-valve Yamaha M1 have four valves per cylinder. But otherwise, the Universal Racing Technology syndrome of the old V-four two-strokes -- or the current V-10 Formula 1 circus -- hasn't yet asserted itself. We've got everything from a pneumatic-valve triple (Aprilia), a 65-degree spring-valved V-four (Suzuki), a 90-degree V-four desmo (Ducati), one inline-four with rearward-rotating crankshaft (Yamaha), another with a forward-rotating crank (Kawasaki) and that other V-five, Kenny Roberts's new Proton four-stroke, this time with a 60-degree cylinder angle and two cylinders at the front, three at the rear -- the opposite of Honda's 75.5-degree V-five.
Is the V-formation used for packaging purposes or does it produce more power than other configurations?
What is it about the V config that means it dominates both categories?
Why not an opposing 'boxer' engine in F1 (wouldn't it give better balance and handling?)?
But, why are MotoGP engines seemingly much more reliable?
You rarely see a MotoGP engine failure. Ok, the races are a bit shorter but the revs are very similar and the power/capacity output is very similar.
F1 ~250bhp ish per litre
Engine Spec BMW P84
Type Normally aspirated V10
Cylinder angle 90 degrees
Displacement 2998cc
Valves Four per cylinder
Valve drive Pneumatic
Engine block/cylinder head Aluminium
Crankshaft Steel
Engine management BMW
From www.motorcyclistonline.com/features/motorgp03/
Yes, all the bikes are fuel injected, drive their twin overhead camshafts with gears, and all except the 20-valve Yamaha M1 have four valves per cylinder. But otherwise, the Universal Racing Technology syndrome of the old V-four two-strokes -- or the current V-10 Formula 1 circus -- hasn't yet asserted itself. We've got everything from a pneumatic-valve triple (Aprilia), a 65-degree spring-valved V-four (Suzuki), a 90-degree V-four desmo (Ducati), one inline-four with rearward-rotating crankshaft (Yamaha), another with a forward-rotating crank (Kawasaki) and that other V-five, Kenny Roberts's new Proton four-stroke, this time with a 60-degree cylinder angle and two cylinders at the front, three at the rear -- the opposite of Honda's 75.5-degree V-five.
Is the V-formation used for packaging purposes or does it produce more power than other configurations?
What is it about the V config that means it dominates both categories?
Why not an opposing 'boxer' engine in F1 (wouldn't it give better balance and handling?)?
But, why are MotoGP engines seemingly much more reliable?
You rarely see a MotoGP engine failure. Ok, the races are a bit shorter but the revs are very similar and the power/capacity output is very similar.
Aren't F1 engines more than 250bhp per litre? I thought they were 850+ bhp (ish) nowadays?
All I know with regards to the V configuration for bikes means that the physical shape can be narrower, e.g. a Ducati isn't as wide as a GSXR1000 (bad example - superbikes).
On reliability :- I would imageine that with more rubber on the track and lots of downforce, engines are working at 100% for a lot more time on a car - far more than on two wheels with the credit card sized (as they keep mentioning on the telly) contact patch for the rear tyre!
All I know with regards to the V configuration for bikes means that the physical shape can be narrower, e.g. a Ducati isn't as wide as a GSXR1000 (bad example - superbikes).
On reliability :- I would imageine that with more rubber on the track and lots of downforce, engines are working at 100% for a lot more time on a car - far more than on two wheels with the credit card sized (as they keep mentioning on the telly) contact patch for the rear tyre!
pbrett said:The rules only state that the engine should have 10 cylinders and not exceed 3000cc. The Renault engine with a 111 degree V demonstrated the drawbacks to an angle greater than 90. The advantages of a lower C of G were negated by a comparably lower power output due to the problems of exhaust packaging.
Also in F1 they have to use V10s - no other engine configuration allowed...
Doesn't say how flat the V can be though. Renaults 110deg engine didn't work though....
With the engine block also being used as a structural member, then a flat configuration would make it difficult to bolt suspension/chassis to the sides of it.
I also read that one team did attempt a very large angle V, approaching a flat layout, but engine vibrations proved a big problem.
I also read that one team did attempt a very large angle V, approaching a flat layout, but engine vibrations proved a big problem.
pesty said:Presumably you mean that because the bikes are chain driven, the engines are generally tranversely mounted, therefore the V-formation allows more cylinders to be squeezed into the engine's length compared with an inline configuration.
there may be another benefit of V formation Engine on a Bike.
Narrower Engine on a bike means bike can be narrower and therfore greater lean angles can be acheived without bike grounding out.
Not too sure about this though
Re: the motogp bikes, some of it is to do with marketing too.
Yamaha don't make a street V-engined bike so they didn't think of going down that route with the M1 where would be the spin-off marketing advantage?
Hondas mentailty means they went for a V5 cos they wanted to do something different engingeering wise, as demonstrated by the rumour of different displacement cylinders on the front and rear banks.
Ducati wanted to keep a link with their V twins but knew they needed more cylinders, hence V4.
Having said that, there do appear a number of valid and important engineering reasons for a v configuration!
Yamaha don't make a street V-engined bike so they didn't think of going down that route with the M1 where would be the spin-off marketing advantage?
Hondas mentailty means they went for a V5 cos they wanted to do something different engingeering wise, as demonstrated by the rumour of different displacement cylinders on the front and rear banks.
Ducati wanted to keep a link with their V twins but knew they needed more cylinders, hence V4.
Having said that, there do appear a number of valid and important engineering reasons for a v configuration!
Also the rules also played a part in why certain people went for a different configuration.
Some people went for a triple in line Engine because the Moto Gp rules said that they could have a lighter weight limit than a 4 cylinder.
They obviously thought that the weight benefit would be better than an extra cylinder.
Also I think Honda thought that a 5 cylinder Engines Characteristics might be easier to ride with all that HP. More linear etc.
Some people went for a triple in line Engine because the Moto Gp rules said that they could have a lighter weight limit than a 4 cylinder.
They obviously thought that the weight benefit would be better than an extra cylinder.
Also I think Honda thought that a 5 cylinder Engines Characteristics might be easier to ride with all that HP. More linear etc.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff