20,000 rpm V8!!
Discussion
WOW! 
The "pots" are the same capacity in theory, two less cylinders, so 2.4 litres.
10/3 = 8/2.4
Well, like all well developed race engines, valve area is a big one. To burn more fuel we need more air, and to get more air we need more intake area. To utilise this fully we also need as many rpm's as possible
To get bigger valve area we in theory need a bigger bore, which points to even less stroke, which would key in with the much increased rpm's this V8 is running.
I'd bet on the same power as currently, if there was a huge advantage then other teams would have V8's already. Some teams don't even have an engine sorted for next year, and so some will run rev-limited V10's
I'd like a couple of choices for F1 engines. Would add some variation on track. Ie, disparity in speeds at different sections.
1.5 turbo V6 or 2.4 na V8 would be interesting, try keep power outputs the same. Turbo quicker but harder to drive, and worse fuel consuption, NA slower but easier to drive and longer runs between stops!
At least this engine change will stir things up a bit for 2006 anyway
Dave
10/3 = 8/2.4
Well, like all well developed race engines, valve area is a big one. To burn more fuel we need more air, and to get more air we need more intake area. To utilise this fully we also need as many rpm's as possible
To get bigger valve area we in theory need a bigger bore, which points to even less stroke, which would key in with the much increased rpm's this V8 is running.
I'd bet on the same power as currently, if there was a huge advantage then other teams would have V8's already. Some teams don't even have an engine sorted for next year, and so some will run rev-limited V10's
I'd like a couple of choices for F1 engines. Would add some variation on track. Ie, disparity in speeds at different sections.
1.5 turbo V6 or 2.4 na V8 would be interesting, try keep power outputs the same. Turbo quicker but harder to drive, and worse fuel consuption, NA slower but easier to drive and longer runs between stops!
At least this engine change will stir things up a bit for 2006 anyway
Dave
Yup, in going to the v8 they have less valve area, so to get some back for the power they need both more rpm's AND more valve area.
Shortening the stroke to get more bore gets more valve area, and also reduces crank and rod stresses.
Could go all the way to 1.2 litre inline 4 and just have huge valves and a really short high rpm stroke. Just going to extremes is bad as I think was quite well explained by that guy who talks technical in Evo magazine these days.
It'll be interesting to see how the cars do, and will cause a nice shake up with some interesting races next year.
Just not sure how it benefits anyone though, rich teams will just throw more money at it again and get more reliability and power, while the poor teams still loose out.
Until they budget cap the teams or something, the rich teams will always do better.
I expect to see the poorer funded teams V8's going pop alot next year. Back to a Ferrari 1/2 for every race?
Dave
Shortening the stroke to get more bore gets more valve area, and also reduces crank and rod stresses.
Could go all the way to 1.2 litre inline 4 and just have huge valves and a really short high rpm stroke. Just going to extremes is bad as I think was quite well explained by that guy who talks technical in Evo magazine these days.
It'll be interesting to see how the cars do, and will cause a nice shake up with some interesting races next year.
Just not sure how it benefits anyone though, rich teams will just throw more money at it again and get more reliability and power, while the poor teams still loose out.
Until they budget cap the teams or something, the rich teams will always do better.
I expect to see the poorer funded teams V8's going pop alot next year. Back to a Ferrari 1/2 for every race?
Dave
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff