F1

[monaro]

questions about F1's (which i know nothing about)

dry weight?
power?
induction?
drivetrain?
compression ratios?
basic engine details

thanks

[Justin Martin]

dry weight?

Minimum weight of 600kg/1320lbs


power?

Most engines put out about 750hp to 850hp


induction?

All F1 engines are naturally aspirated


drivetrain?

6 or 7 speed electronically shifted "manual" trannys, like the 355F1, 360F1, Vanquish, etc. Most drivers are using automatic shifting.


compression ratios?

not sure, someone else might could answer that...


basic engine details

3.0 liter V10, no more than 5 valves per cyl

Fuel type: RON98 (98 octane, like what you can usually get at your local fuel station, such as Shell Optimax, as its called in Australia).

Dry weight: 560kg is the absolute minimum weight, which the car must not go under, from memory.

Max Power: Well, some of the cars are supposed to be pushing out 900hp in qualifying engine tune..

Maximum revs: The BMW.Williams cars can rev to 18,500rpm, though, they use less revs in the race in the interest of reliability.

Compression ratios: Based on the 98 octane fuel used, I'd imagine no more than 12:1. Maybe 13:1 at most.

Acceleration:
0-100km/hr in around 2.3 - 2.8 seconds.
0-300km/hr in around 7.0 - 8.0 seconds.

Braking: Simulate this by getting yourself hit by a brick moving at 300km/hr. Yes, the braking forces are that massive. F1 cars can pull up from 300km/hr much faster than they can accelerate to that speed.

Trick technology:
1. The Renault 111° V10 engines. Look, no camshafts!! The valves are actuated by small super responsive electric motors. Meaning faster operation, less mechanical friction, more efficiency, potentially higher revs without unreliability, more power, infinitely variable valve timing (better driveability), and, better traction control functionality.. The reason the Renaults shoot of the starting grids so amazingly fast compared to the others. And we'll be seeing this technology in ordinary road cars in about 1 or 2 years time, too.

The strange 111° V angle is to make the engine less tall, and, reduce the centre of gravity, and, enhance handling as a result. 111° was determined to be the best trade off between low height and a width that wasn't too wide.. It'd be very strange to see an opposed cylinder engine configuration in F1, since it would be comparitively wide, and difficult to package, in an aerodynamically shaped body.. Most F1 engines though tend to stick with V angles varying between 60° and 80°.

2. The Ferrari V10 gearbox engine. The gearbox and engine as one complete, compact unit, all integrated as one. Very innovative.

[monaro]

amazing stuff boys, thanks

unbelievable what these engines are and have

justin: 3.0 liter V10, no more than 5 valves per cyl

does that mean some teams have 50 valves because thats just nuts, the technology is getting too nuts!!

[NameX]

Doesn't Dry weight mean what the car weighs without Fuel.

monaro: Don't forget VW's 64 valve 8.0 litre W16 Quad-turbo engine. Or the massively complex and extremely wierd looking 72 valve 6.3 litre W18 engine.. :eek:

I wonder what this W18 sounded like?? We won't know, since, Ferdinand Piech decided that not even this 414kW engine provided enough power for his new Bugatti supercar (the Veyron). So it was decided to use an 8.0 litre 64 valve W16 engine, and, quad-turbocharge it, to push out 1001hp, and 1250Nm of torque at just 2200rpm.. This monumental and potentially gear box destroying torque output has left engineers around the world wondering about what VW will use for a gearbox.. All we know is that it's a totally new gearbox, developed between VW and engineering/design firm Ricardo.



Ferrari has toyed with the 5 valve per cylinder idea for quite a while, on the 65° V12 used in the 614/F1 and the mechanically identical F50.

And the F355s flexible and responsive 3.5 litre V8 also used 5 valves per cylinder. It's not a rare arrangement.. Nearly all Audi engines are 5 valve per cylinder too, as are a lot of the VW engines (shared with Audi).

[monaro]

that W18 doesn't even make mechanical sense, it is essentially two V9's (?) spliced together with 4 valves per cylinder but only making 414kw or around 550hp in the old money. do you know how big that engine is, i'm tipping huckin fuge!

i think i might stick with a blown 4.5 litre lexus V8 for my car (yeh sure)

Well, actually, its made from 6 3 cylinder VW Lupo engines! &( I did see a diagram/technical drawing of this engine, and it's massively complex.


The W series of engines makes complete sense from an economics point of view. Because, they all use common components, and are all completely modular.

And, the W12 and W8 engines are extremely compact. The 12 cylinder W12 fits in the same space as a V8, and the W8 fits in the same space as a V6.

What VW is doing is that where rivals offer a V8, it will offer a 12 cylinder W12 engine, and, where rivals offer a V6, it offers an 8 cylinder W8 engine..

All part of Ferdinand Piech's grand plan to get rid of Mercedes Benz.. (He's furious with MB since MB released the A-Class, which takes on VW's top selling car, the Golf). So, He okayed a plan immediately to take on every Mercedes Benz model. The secret he reckons, is to match Mercedes on everything, but, at lower cost.

But, it's hard not to be impressed with the giant 8.0 W16 Quad-Turbo engine. That must surely be one of the most mighty engines to ever be offered in any production car by a manufacturer.

[monaro]

jesus, six 3 cylinders, so thats kinda like:


OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO

key O= cylinder

in a \/\/\/ shape?

Not quite. The 3 cylinder engines were paired off into inline sixes, so, it looks like 3 inline sixes put together.

You were close though with the improvised diagram, but the VVV bit isn't quite right..

But, either way, it's an engineering miracle! :eek:

Just wait a moment, I'll fetch a picture of it

Here is the 6.3 litre W18 engine:

http://wwwstud.fh-zwickau.de/~ao/bugatti_184_veyron/bugatt_184_veyron_26.jpg
http://wwwstud.fh-zwickau.de/~ao/bugatti_184_veyron/bugatt_184_veyron_25.jpg
http://wwwstud.fh-zwickau.de/~ao/bugatti_184_veyron/bugatt_184_veyron_17.jpg

So, thats the W18!

[Justin Martin]

I wonder if all cylinder banks are putting out the same amount of power. ;) The intake runners look like they are the same length, but the shape is different on each bank, looking at the middle pic, the left runners go almost straight down, the right ones have that almost 90' turn to them.

Justin: I wouldn't think that the 2 ones with the intake runners doing a 90° turn would be as efficient, because of the bend, but, VW probably did it that way for packaging reasons..

Anyhow, the W16 quad-turbo is a better design, which ever way you look at it.. A simpler engine.

But, the Bugatti Veyron went has had 3 different engines, during its development..

The first was the strange 414kW W18 engine, seen above, which was deemed to be not powerful enough, then, a 596kW naturally aspirated W16 was developed, which, was also deemed to be not strong enough to power the Veyron.. So, the W16 was quad-turbocharged, which delivered the amazing 736kW/1001hp, and 1250Nm of torque.

Ferdinand Piech spent incredible amounts of money re-establishing Bugatti. The work done looks to be worth it to. When the Veyron comes along, it will be the quickest accelerating supercar available, I'm certain of that. Only the Dauer 962 Le Mans will be able to beat the Veyron, and, then, only on twisty race circuits/roads.