Power outputs if no engine regs

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

What sort of power outputs would we be looking at from Formula One engines if manufacturers could basically do what they wanted? To give this some sort of frame of reference, how about restricting this to just technologies and specs seen in the sport since the first turbo era.

First turbo era - At it's peak, before fuel and boost restrictions, engines were able to get up to the 1000 bhp mark using value springs, cast iron blocks and two valves per cyclinder from 1.5L engines.

The V10 era - By the end of 2005 engines were again approaching the 1000 bhp mark even as part of a 3.0L formula. If the old 3.5 litres had been retained, the 20,000 rpm some manufacturers were getting on the dyno and the use of exotic materials like beryllium pistons had been retained you'd fancy they'd be well over 1000bhp, possibly even knocking on 1200bhp.

Second turbo era - It's only been around three seasons and we already back up to the 1000bhp mark with restricted fuel flow, revs, engine size and electrical gathering capacity.

If an engine builder was able to combine all of the above, what sort of power outputs would we be talking about? 2000bhp? More??? Is a 3.5 litre, 20,000rpm V10 with 5 bar of boost, an alcohol/petrol fuel mix and ERS even theoretically possible, or would the darn thing simply explode on the dyno?

I highly doubt such a monster would be anything like driveable round an F1 circuit. but it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts.

Thanks

User avatar
godlameroso
414
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

If they could do whatever they wanted? That's a ridiculous question, you severely underestimate what humanity is capable of. If money was not an issue, and power restrictions were not an issue, and aero restrictions were not an issue. We'd see cars with 3,000hp, weigh 600kg soaking wet with a driver, and require special suits to drive for more than 10 minutes at a time. There has to be a restriction, or the vehicle would be too fast for humans to control as their reaction time could not keep up with the performance.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Jolle
Jolle
192
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

Enough to have wheel spin at the end of the longest straight on the calendar with maximum downforce.

Something jet-nuclear powered hyperdrive running on some potent acid.

There was one short time that power output was unlimited, during the early eighties, before boost control. Those years was less about racing but more who dared to turn on the boost the most.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
458
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

Bmw and honda turbos were easily over 1200hp in qualifying. But if i understand your inquiry... Are u suggesting use whatever engine whatever fuel flow rate? Man oh man.. My guess would be that 1500 horsepower is on the limits fo what a human would be able to drive safely on a circuit with cars of this weight.

It would be like Moto GP.. You can only have so much power for the tyre you are given.

You could crank on barn door wings and rip thru corners at riduculous G forces!
Viewing from the outside we wont even see the true effect of that horsepower most of the time. Even at Monza they would crank on the downforce. Maybe Canada or Baku?

User avatar
The_table
6
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

In this case power would be effectively areo limited at some point, but if they had this much power they would start strapping barn door wings on every part of the car and it would be a runaway train situation.

But at SOME point they would have too much power for the level of aero they can manage.

User avatar
Juzh
502
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

The_table wrote: But at SOME point they would have too much power for the level of aero they can manage.
Simply scrap fuel flow limits and you'd have this situation in no time.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

The point of forced induction for 4T engines is that the power levels achieved do not require
the ludicrously distorted & expensive engine architecture designs needed to run those super-high rpms.

MotoGP has been mentioned, & in that case, since forced induction is not allowed, 4T N/A engines were
granted a double capacity - up to a litre, from 500cc max, to defeat the 2T's inherent working advantage.

Though heavy/bulky & with high dynamic inertia , the lower specific out-put tune, & sophisticated ECU
engine/chassis interface packages allowed for a more rider-friendly, controllable, yet ultimately faster MotoGP machine.

Since 2Ts are banned, & engine rules are tight, we cannot see what would be possible in terms of a true
'Formula Libre' open design, which would allow the best combination of power-to-weight/chassis tech
for the quickest possible laps.

The same is true for F1, where an optimum size of ICE would allow for the best balance of power input
tuned to chassis design, inc' aero down-force/drag factors, as needed for an unconstrained fast lap.
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

I realise that going much more beyond 1000-1200 bhp in terms of an actual race engine strapped to a car would produce something undrivably fast.

My query was more if you could build an engine for the dyno, just for the sake of it using any combination of cylinder amounts, engine capacity, construction materials, boost pressure, fuel and energy recovery that have actually been permitted at one time or another in the regs since 1980, what sort of power outputs could be achieved?

My personal suspicion is that applying five bars of boost and a twin turbo/ERS set up to a 3.5 litre V10 capable of hitting 20,000 rpm is that there would be beyond the physical limits of what current metallurgy could handle. I'm curious to know if others agree with that.

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
138
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

If for what ever reason you needed to be producing 1000s of hp to be competitive in an F1 race, what is likely to be the engine architecture for high reliability (able to produces full power over the course of 1 race) while retaining a high power to weight ratio. Presumably at some point a turboshaft electric hybrid would be preferred over an ICE engine.

wuzak
wuzak
357
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

J.A.W. wrote:The point of forced induction for 4T engines is that the power levels achieved do not require
the ludicrously distorted & expensive engine architecture designs needed to run those super-high rpms.

MotoGP has been mentioned, & in that case, since forced induction is not allowed, 4T N/A engines were
granted a double capacity - up to a litre, from 500cc max, to defeat the 2T's inherent working advantage.

Though heavy/bulky & with high dynamic inertia , the lower specific out-put tune, & sophisticated ECU
engine/chassis interface packages allowed for a more rider-friendly, controllable, yet ultimately faster MotoGP machine.

Since 2Ts are banned, & engine rules are tight, we cannot see what would be possible in terms of a true
'Formula Libre' open design, which would allow the best combination of power-to-weight/chassis tech
for the quickest possible laps.

The same is true for F1, where an optimum size of ICE would allow for the best balance of power input
tuned to chassis design, inc' aero down-force/drag factors, as needed for an unconstrained fast lap.
Of course the 500cc 2T engines were good for around 220-230hp. while the 990cc 4T engines were detuned for driveability down to a mere 250hp.

And weren't the 4T engines reduced to 800cc after a while anyway?

Jolle
Jolle
192
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

wuzak wrote:
J.A.W. wrote:The point of forced induction for 4T engines is that the power levels achieved do not require
the ludicrously distorted & expensive engine architecture designs needed to run those super-high rpms.

MotoGP has been mentioned, & in that case, since forced induction is not allowed, 4T N/A engines were
granted a double capacity - up to a litre, from 500cc max, to defeat the 2T's inherent working advantage.

Though heavy/bulky & with high dynamic inertia , the lower specific out-put tune, & sophisticated ECU
engine/chassis interface packages allowed for a more rider-friendly, controllable, yet ultimately faster MotoGP machine.

Since 2Ts are banned, & engine rules are tight, we cannot see what would be possible in terms of a true
'Formula Libre' open design, which would allow the best combination of power-to-weight/chassis tech
for the quickest possible laps.

The same is true for F1, where an optimum size of ICE would allow for the best balance of power input
tuned to chassis design, inc' aero down-force/drag factors, as needed for an unconstrained fast lap.
Of course the 500cc 2T engines were good for around 220-230hp. while the 990cc 4T engines were detuned for driveability down to a mere 250hp.

And weren't the 4T engines reduced to 800cc after a while anyway?
MotoGP is also limited by the fuel they may carry, around 20 liters at the moment. This has a big impact. Besides that, a motorbike is much more limited in the amount of power it can take due to its high center of gravity, Limiting the acceleration around 1G and the cornering speed around 1,3-1.4 G due to the limits in lean angle. Even other forces come in to play, the weight of the crankshaft has a big impact on how fast the bike will turn due to the gravitational forces, etc etc. It's a very unfair comparison between bikes and cars.

User avatar
henry
297
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

gdogg371 wrote:I realise that going much more beyond 1000-1200 bhp in terms of an actual race engine strapped to a car would produce something undrivably fast.

My query was more if you could build an engine for the dyno, just for the sake of it using any combination of cylinder amounts, engine capacity, construction materials, boost pressure, fuel and energy recovery that have actually been permitted at one time or another in the regs since 1980, what sort of power outputs could be achieved?

My personal suspicion is that applying five bars of boost and a twin turbo/ERS set up to a 3.5 litre V10 capable of hitting 20,000 rpm is that there would be beyond the physical limits of what current metallurgy could handle. I'm curious to know if others agree with that.
To answer your specific query, although not as you put it.

They would not be V10s - fewer cylinders are better to reduce mechanical losses. Maybe 3 or 4.

They would not rev to 20,000 rpm - you only need high rpm to get air into the cylinders. With a turbo and no restrictions they would run lower revs than now maybe down to 6000 or so.

There would still be metallurgical, and other challenges, but not in the way you are thinking.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
537
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

high revs x boost gives more air massflow and so more fuel massflow and so more power than low revs x boost
so a 3.5 litre V10 with turbos might not quite make 20000 rpm but should still manage 2200 bhp
assuming that the fuel is as free in quantity and nature as the rules allowed in those times
a 3 litre V12 with 4 turbos would be twice a mid 80s F1 engine

people are confusing efficiency with power
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry
297
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:a 3.5 litre V10 with turbos might not quite make 20000 rpm but should still manage 2200 bhp

assuming that the fuel is as free in quantity and nature as the rules allowed in those times
a 3 litre V12 with 4 turbos would be twice a mid 80s F1 engine

people are confusing efficiency with power
As a member of the people I stand corrected.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

gdogg371
gdogg371
7
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:19 am

Re: Power outputs if no engine regs

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:high revs x boost gives more air massflow and so more fuel massflow and so more power than low revs x boost
so a 3.5 litre V10 with turbos might not quite make 20000 rpm but should still manage 2200 bhp
assuming that the fuel is as free in quantity and nature as the rules allowed in those times
a 3 litre V12 with 4 turbos would be twice a mid 80s F1 engine

people are confusing efficiency with power
This is the sort of set up I imagined would be the ultimate in pure power terms. Why do you say it wouldn't hit the 20,000rpm though? Is adding a forced induction system going to reduce the rev range of the engine? Doesn't really matter as this is a dyno based 'what if' sort of question, but a V12 with compound turbo charging on both cylinder banks and ERS of some sort would be absolutely huge in both size and weight.