Quote from JCTK :

well, obviously at least they must still had a version that could last them one race.

They did, but it only had like half the power of the quali engine. I don't have any actual numbers, but we're talking like 1300 hp for quali and 7-800 for race. I think.

Stamped:

Quote :

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance. In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/media ... 10/Pages/wmsc-101210.aspx

Rocket Boosters, Machine guns and a pyrotechnics display... was the answer given by lamborghini when they were asked as to how they would make F1 more interesting.

Quote from oscarhardwick :

Rocket Boosters, Machine guns and a pyrotechnics display... was the answer given by lamborghini when they were asked as to how they would make F1 more interesting.

Do you have a link? Just for laughs...

Quote from EliteAti :

...They should change the cars design 1st before anything, looking just awful right now.

They are not meant to be pretty, just efficient, that's why they're designed by engineers instead of designers...

4 cylinder?

And I thought that the cars were annoying to listen to before.

Quote from Dygear :

Not from that displacement.

If the power has dropped by a smaller percentage than the rpm, you must have gained torque.

Quote from Bob Smith :

If the power has dropped by a smaller percentage than the rpm, you must have gained torque.

Quote from RasmusL :

The engine will have to deliver more torque around the RPM limit to achieve the power they are claiming though.

They only supply numbers at the peak At that point we don't really care about torque anyway, gearing will take care of it.

F1 engines are torque-less anyway. They don't need it, which is why you are always going through the box.

But if some Greeks can get 2,000HP+ from a 4pop, then I suspect a top flight F1 team can do it in a blink of an eye.

Linkage 1

Linkage 2.

Torqueless
750 hp @ 9000 RPM = 440 lbft. And that's probably quite a bit from peak torque.

An ideal world engine will have equal amounts of power and torque. Anthony Davidson described them as being torque-less during commentary this year (I believe it was Italy Friday Practise). Find yourself out of the power band and they have no get up and go, you have to drop a cog or two. A lot of it is gearing, but the lack of torque means the engine can't compensate for it.

Equal amounts of power and torque makes no sense.. :dopey: And yeah, current engines don't have a very wide powerband. The 2013 engines will probably have a wider powerband, but will also have to deal with turbolag.

I don't recall what book I was reading, other than one of the many littering the college library- or if I recall correctly- which cited that you want equal horse power and torque and flat torque delivery across the range for a smooth engine. Naturally that isn't what you're after in a racing environment.

Given all of the innovation to get turbos spooling quicker while still making huge boost, I don't think lag will be a big problem.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

F1 engines are torque-less anyway. They don't need it, which is why you are always going through the box.

But if some Greeks can get 2,000HP+ from a 4pop, then I suspect a top flight F1 team can do it in a blink of an eye.

Linkage 1

Linkage 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMTi8Zcw38s

holy shit that thing goes like.....

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

I don't recall what book I was reading, other than one of the many littering the college library- or if I recall correctly- which cited that you want equal horse power and torque and flat torque delivery across the range for a smooth engine. Naturally that isn't what you're after in a racing environment.

Given all of the innovation to get turbos spooling quicker while still making huge boost, I don't think lag will be a big problem.

It depends on the units, surely (and don't call me Shurley). Torque and power are not the same unit (I know you know that).

If you're using hp and lb.ft, then a 'good' engine will have the same peak numbers in each unit (e.g. 200hp and 200lb.ft of torque). This doesn't apply to hp and Nm, KW and lf.ft or KW and Nm. A peaky engine will have a lf.ft torque number much less than the hp number. A very torque engine will have a higher lb.ft torque figure than hp figure.

Current F1 cars have a narrow powerband, with next to no torque at low (i.e. less than about 9000rpm) revs. Hence they are torqueless and why 7 speed gearboxes are necessary. Road cars NEVER need more than 5 gears. Diesels NEVER need more than about 3. More are added for the benefit of marketing ("F1 Style Gearbox" [even though it's a manual stick-shift, it just has seven gears] or "Close Ratio Gearbox" [as though changing gear more often when you shouldn't really need to is fun])

Nice that when the lack of torque was first mentioned, somebody quoted figures from an engine from the future that hasn't been built yet to prove them wrong!!!

It's not like it's wrong, amirite?
They released the specs for the future engine already. All I did was convert to torque.. Alright, so I invented an RPM for peak power, but it's somewhere around there, since the limiter at 10000 would mean that good design keeps the peak power just under that.

And you honestly can't say what amount of hp and ftlb makes a "good" engine.. You need way more than peak figures to determine this.

Tractive force curves are all you should really care about anyway. This arguing over the relationship between HP and torque is just noise in the face of such data.

Quote :

Nice that when the lack of torque was first mentioned, somebody quoted figures from an engine from the future that hasn't been built yet to prove them wrong!!!

Being "torqueless" doesn't mean anything precisely. Rasmus took the word differently. He just showed that 440 lbft is still a decent amount of torque coming from a small displacement engine.

Enough with the torque discussions . You're confusing some people even more

For those still wondering :

The only important number is peak HP. They have 7 gears, enough to compensate for the narrowish powerband. If you wanna have a good idea how these things will accelerate you just look at the peak HP number. That's it. Don't care about the torque, Don't care about the RPM. Peak HP matters.

600 peak hp, with the level of grip they have right now, is weak.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

F1 engines are torque-less anyway

I'd say 310-315Nm (230-ish lbft) is pretty good for a 2.4L NA engine..

Quote from RasmusL :

The 2013 engines will probably have a wider powerband, but will also have to deal with turbolag.

I wish

Quote from PhilS13 :

Being "torqueless" doesn't mean anything precisely. Rasmus took the word differently. He just showed that 440 lbft is still a decent amount of torque coming from a small displacement engine.

Enough with the torque discussions . You're confusing some people even more

For those still wondering :

The only important number is peak HP. They have 7 gears, enough to compensate for the narrowish powerband. If you wanna have a good idea how these things will accelerate you just look at the peak HP number. That's it. Don't care about the torque, Don't care about the RPM. Peak HP matters.

600 peak hp, with the level of grip they have right now, is weak.

But if there was more torque the grip would be reduced in acceleration.

Quote from Mustafur :

But if there was more torque the grip would be reduced in acceleration.

Huh?

More torque. More twisting force at the wheels. More motive force at the wheels (all for a given gear and rpm etc etc).

How on earth does that give the tyres less grip.

If you turn your radio up, it doesn't reduce the ability of the tyres to grip the road. It doesn't change the coefficients of friction, or the chemical and mechanical actions that generate the grip.

I've told you before - DO NOT POST ANYTHING TECHNICAL ON ANY FORUM EVER AGAIN, AS YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK FOOLISH

Quote from Mustafur :

But if there was more torque the grip would be reduced in acceleration.

Let's say you meant grip/tractive force ratio would be reduced instead of grip would be reduced.

Even with that, No. You're wrong.

How many times this needs to be explained ?

If there was more low-end torque, no one would give a shit cause they'd still come out of EVERY corner near redline where PEAK HP is.

If there was more high end torque, then they would have more...guess what? PEAK HP.

They're not totally relevant to this thread, but given the way things are headed I thought I'd repost some figures I posted on another forum some years ago:

Quote from amp88 :

Obviously there aren't that many independent tests of F1 cars with release of figures to the public, but I've found a few in some magazines.

1997 Stewart Ford

Max Power: 700bhp @17000rpm
Weight: 1323lb
Power/Weight Ratio: 1186 bhp/ton

0-60mph: 3.0 seconds
0-100mph: 4.6 seconds
60mph-160mph: 5.1 seconds
160mph-60mph: 4.0 seconds
Quarter Mile: 8.60 seconds @147mph
Max Accelerative G: 1.5

Now, I've got another two tests, but they're from 0-100mph-0 tests, not quarter mile. They still have some interesting figures though...

1998 (?) BAR Supertec

Max Power: 770bhp
Power/Weight Ratio: 1283 bhp/tonne

0-30mph: 1.8 seconds
0-60mph: 3.1 seconds
0-100mph: 4.6 seconds
100mph-0: 3.1 seconds

0-100mph-0: 7.8 seconds

2002 Jaguar R3

Max Power: 780bhp @18000rpm
Max Torque: 380 ft lb @N/A
Weight: 600kg
Power/Weight Ratio: 1300 bhp/tonne

0-30mph: 1.5 seconds
0-60mph: 2.71 seconds
0-100mph: 4.02 seconds
100mph-0: 1.68 seconds (!!!)

0-100mph-0: 5.90 seconds

Standing Mile: 22.3 seconds @215mph

It's worth noting that the Jag was still set up from Monza (it was the one in which Irvine got on the podium), so the set up wasn't exactly tailored for great acceleration.