F1 engine torque

[Downforce]

It's not.
If you want a longer store and let the bore the same you will get a higer
capacity of the engine and as we all know is the capacity limited in formula1. You must make the piston area smaler.

Yes.The displacement would be increased.But that is the principle.
The assumption:

The same pressure on the same piston area on a longer moment arm

is made to show the principle.
You could decrease bore of the cylinder,and increase stroke to fit in the 2.4l regulation,but the result would be bigger moment and smaller revs(huge decrease) which in result gives less peak power for the engine-and we don't want that.

[kilcoo316]

Nick T, yeah the maximum cylinder diameter is defined:

5.4 Engine dimensions :
5.4.1 Cylinder bore diameter may not exceed 98mm.
5.4.2 Cylinder spacing must be fixed at 106.5mm (+/- 0.2mm).

So, Renault could go for a smaller bore diameter and a longer stroke, it would give them a bit more torque - although you'd imagine a small sacrifice would be made in terms of ultimate revs achieveable would be made - is there any evidence this is the case? Another possibility is their engine design is simply better so it can achieve the same revs as the others while running with a longer stroke.


Consider that most of the time spent during an average lap is low down acceleration out of corners well... maybe renault have sacrificed the absolute speed for getting to it quicker. Again - any evidence through the speed traps?

[zac510]

Consider that most of the time spent during an average lap is low down acceleration out of corners well... maybe renault have sacrificed the absolute speed for getting to it quicker. Again - any evidence through the speed traps?

You could make that argument a couple of years ago but now it seems like they just have speed everywhere like Ferrari a couple of years ago!

[kilcoo316]

Consider that most of the time spent during an average lap is low down acceleration out of corners well... maybe renault have sacrificed the absolute speed for getting to it quicker. Again - any evidence through the speed traps?

You could make that argument a couple of years ago but now it seems like they just have speed everywhere like Ferrari a couple of years ago!

Hmm, could be they can get away with the same higher revs but still have a longer stroke/narrower bore... aka a better engine

[zac510]

Was reading a bit of a theory on the Atlas forum the other day that the 'longer stroke = more torque' theory is a bit of an old wives tale. But I really don't know the truth.

Remember a longer stroke will raise the COG too. That Renault handles quite well.

[kilcoo316]

Was reading a bit of a theory on the Atlas forum the other day that the 'longer stroke = more torque' theory is a bit of an old wives tale. But I really don't know the truth.

Remember a longer stroke will raise the COG too. That Renault handles quite well.

- no old wives tale, sure if the stroke is longer, the big-end bearing on the crankshaft has to be located further from the rotational axis of the crank = more lever arm

- the c of g of the engines is set now anyway, so they may not be disadvantaged;

5.5 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.5.1 The overall weight of the engine must be a minimum of 95kg.
5.5.2 The centre of gravity of the engine may not lie less than 165mm above the reference plane.

[zac510]

That's not the COG of the chassis though!

ah but it does make me think that they could be far less disadvantaged than otherwise.