Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
ACRO
1
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:25 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by ACRO » Thu May 30, 2019 10:16 pm

great comments and inputs gents !
Nonserviam85 wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 11:05 am
The main focus actually was to increase rpm and reduce weight, I don’t seem to remember that the compression ratio and volumetric efficiencies to be as crucial back in the day.
i think they took every effort to also raise volumentric efficiency , so bmep , so torque . torque x rpm was the power .

i have read carefully honda f1 documents about 3rd era NA f1 engines , a great reading and information ! :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... rBsMWwvAXx

with moving trumpets , airbox design , high pressure fuel nozzles taking away latent heat of the fuel / air mixture by vaporizing , valve and head improvements and much more they battled to make the engine suck in as much air as only possible without turbocharging .

since nevertheless an atmo has physical limits in bmep they - like we discuss here - went more and more in rpm to raise power and with this in my opinion we in the 2000,s saw the most extreme b/s ratios and finest internal mechanical solutions ever introduced in a piston engine .

at this time the spectator was only informed about rpm,s they rev . the design approch and internal dimensions were secret.

i,m still very interested in bore and stroke of the still for me unknown cosworth , renault and ilmor of this time .

ACRO
1
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:25 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by ACRO » Thu May 30, 2019 10:59 pm

e36jon wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 7:24 pm
I have seen the rings for the Cosworth TJ V10 and they don't look like anything resembling rings as they are so thin and narrow.
they all had just two rings for low friction : one compression and one oil control ring .

the document i linked in my post above explains honda used in its qualifying engines ( shortly before rules excluded a pure qualifying engine ) extra designed pistons with NO oil control ring at all. the reduced friction gave few horses extra.

this resulted in an oil consumption unacceptable for the race duration but manageable for few quali laps .

amazing what was done in the last years of the atmo screamers .

saviour stivala
-13
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by saviour stivala » Fri May 31, 2019 12:37 pm

ACRO wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:16 pm
great comments and inputs gents !
Nonserviam85 wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 11:05 am
The main focus actually was to increase rpm and reduce weight, I don’t seem to remember that the compression ratio and volumetric efficiencies to be as crucial back in the day.
i think they took every effort to also raise volumentric efficiency , so bmep , so torque . torque x rpm was the power .

i have read carefully honda f1 documents about 3rd era NA f1 engines , a great reading and information ! :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... rBsMWwvAXx

with moving trumpets , airbox design , high pressure fuel nozzles taking away latent heat of the fuel / air mixture by vaporizing , valve and head improvements and much more they battled to make the engine suck in as much air as only possible without turbocharging .

since nevertheless an atmo has physical limits in bmep they - like we discuss here - went more and more in rpm to raise power and with this in my opinion we in the 2000,s saw the most extreme b/s ratios and finest internal mechanical solutions ever introduced in a piston engine .

at this time the spectator was only informed about rpm,s they rev . the design approch and internal dimensions were secret.

i,m still very interested in bore and stroke of the still for me unknown cosworth , renault and ilmor of this time .
“Cosworth, Renault and Ilmor”. (3.0-litre V10).
Cosworth TJ 3.0-litre V10:- 2005 series 10 915BHP@18500rpm had 95mm pistons.
Ilmor 3.0-litre V10 exclusively supplied to maclaren:- specification=bore undisclosed.
Renault 3.0-litre V10 RS21, RS22 and RS23 by Jean Jacques His:- specification never even disclosed.
Notes about Cosworth:- What is known as the TJ was an internal designation while CR was an external designation. CR are press release names to ownership, CK, TJ are internal designation.
The TJ 3.0-litre V10 had 12 updates (series 1 to series 12).
2003 external (CR-5) internal (TJ2003) Jaguar R4.
2004 external (CR-6) internal (TJ2004) Jaguar R5.
2005 external (TJ005) internal (TJ2005) Red Bull RB1.
CK family, CR-1 to CR-3 were 72 degree bank angle.
LK family CR-4 and RS1 were 72 bank angle.
TJ family was 90 degree bank angle.

Tommy Cookers
516
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by Tommy Cookers » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:53 am

over 110 years ago many eg GP-type cars were 'square' or somewhat 'oversquare'
though high-status race engine capacity had only briefly been unlimited
but from 1906 GP cars were (in France anyway) limited to 30 litre/100 km (9.4 mpg) fuel consumption
then from 1908 the (French) GP rules had bore limited to 155 mm but stroke unlimited - 'free stroke'

FS was the perverse consequence when French men of science earlier pronounced for car taxation purposes ...
that engine rpm was determined by piston speed and so was the inverse of stroke
(so capacity increase via stroke increase was self-defeating as slowing the engine proportionately it didn't increase power)
ie ''the power of an engine is determined by bore size (piston area) regardless of stroke''

this of course was wrong
rpm and so power are determined (by inertial loads due to piston acceleration) according to the square root of the stroke

but British and other European car taxation promptly followed this practice of discounting stroke
and road car makers chose long strokes as these gave greater power for the same tax as shorter strokes

GPs collapsed but light car racing flourished with rule-limited bore but freakishly long strokes
eg the 1909 rules treated as equal 1323cc 75x75 and 1857 cc 65x140 (4cyls) - and similarly various twin and single cylinders
1910 (Coupe de L'Auto) gave unlimited stroke and 65mm bore (4 cyl) or 80mm bore (2 cyl) - Lion-Peugeot 80x280 V twins won
this horrified many, and so the 1911 rules limited engines to 3 litres regardless of stroke and cylinder count
but the (artificially and accidently) successful long strokes remained the fashion
when GPs restarted (1912 French GP) the old big-engine cars were (just) beaten by the 'heroic little' Peugeot
actually a 150 bore 200 stroke car was beaten by a 110 bore 200 stroke car in a fuel-consumption-limited race
the concurrent Coupe de L'Auto light car race was won by a 78 x 156 3 litre Peugeot
Peugeot's design enabled huge valves/ports needed for 'tiny' valve timing - so had low gas speeds and needed 5 gears
later others eg Sunbeam (Fiat clone) won with 3 speeds but smaller ports
'modern' valve timing using higher gas speeds - said Pomeroy
dynamic pressure being of course the square of mean gas speed

so started the risible fashion for 'smallbore/longstroke' engines in the top race categories
(ok most road cars were sidevalve so had excessive combustion chamber area - and fuel quality was poor)
the 'smallbore/longstroke' route made more sense for these
but sidevalves disappeared after WW2 - as did car tax giving free stroke

the S/L design polluted top racing for decades (though helping eg straight 8s)
due to recurrent engine rule changes (about 12) from 1914 (broadly the start of capacity limits)
till 1966 (broadly the modern era of engine rule stability)
before 1966 - why push your luck with bore:stroke ratio ? (there's enough issues just meeting the new engine rules anyway)
after 1966 - try raising the B:S ratio for more rpm - because there's not much else you can change

some of us were waiting 40 years for the B:S ratio to be properly pursued
Tresilian's 4 main bearing 2.5 litre (that became the 50s BRM) was 103 x 73 - but had only 2 valves/cylinder
a basic UK Ford road car was 81 x 48 - and yielded the FJ/F3 and F2 SCA - which didn't have or need 4 valves
then the BDA/F1 'Cosworth revolution' - which had 4 valves (but the same bore centres as the road car)
McLaren 1965 had 255 Indy Ford destroked (97.7x52.4 says primotipo) with lots of Stellite to F1 3 litres (Hamill says also debored)
the 60s dohc Ford Indy 255 V8 was destroked for a 159 turbo aka Foyt exact stroke unknown
recent Indycar is 95x52 V6
Honda had the NR500 motorcycle with 8 valves/cylinder and B:S over 2 ?

the high B:S F1 engines were said to depend on fast-burning fuel then unavailable to Moto GP and Le Mans etc
Honda said their 18000 rpm 125cc twin (stroke 41, more than freeze F1) machines of the early 60s needed only 73 octane
in-era (these machines being widely available) it was said that high octane fuel cost power due to tardier combustion


ok the great journey now completed has shown that 'volumetric efficiency' isn't a specially useful measure of engine qualities
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:33 am, edited 7 times in total.

Nonserviam85
10
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by Nonserviam85 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:07 pm

ACRO wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:16 pm
great comments and inputs gents !
Nonserviam85 wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 11:05 am
The main focus actually was to increase rpm and reduce weight, I don’t seem to remember that the compression ratio and volumetric efficiencies to be as crucial back in the day.
i think they took every effort to also raise volumentric efficiency , so bmep , so torque . torque x rpm was the power .

i have read carefully honda f1 documents about 3rd era NA f1 engines , a great reading and information ! :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... rBsMWwvAXx

with moving trumpets , airbox design , high pressure fuel nozzles taking away latent heat of the fuel / air mixture by vaporizing , valve and head improvements and much more they battled to make the engine suck in as much air as only possible without turbocharging .

since nevertheless an atmo has physical limits in bmep they - like we discuss here - went more and more in rpm to raise power and with this in my opinion we in the 2000,s saw the most extreme b/s ratios and finest internal mechanical solutions ever introduced in a piston engine .

at this time the spectator was only informed about rpm,s they rev . the design approch and internal dimensions were secret.

i,m still very interested in bore and stroke of the still for me unknown cosworth , renault and ilmor of this time .
There is also a very nice paper by M. Theissen regarding the development of the BMW N/A engines. They were the benchmark of the period so a very interesting read!

ACRO
1
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:25 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by ACRO » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:27 pm

i,m aware of the bmw documents . thats my source they went 95x42.3 in 2001.

2001 was a very interesting year :

honda went back
renault went back
cosworth ( with jaguar ) went back
bmw stunned the world in top end power
ilmor had to deal with a berrylium ban

my opinion :

ferrari saw the future for next years and designed probably the most extreme b/s ratio for 2000 and 2001 with 96x41.4 but they did not managed in 2001 to fully control the combustion and compression at this short stroke . most probably bmep and torque was not top notch , rpms about 17500 with good but not top power. it resulted in a reliable engine since bmep and piston acclerations were fair at just 41.4 stroke

bmw with 95x42.3 decided to risk everything in 2001 and stretched mechanical parts to the edge , reving higher than ferrari with a longer stroke . it resulted in superior torque and top end but many blowups in 2001

honda choosed with 95x42.3 an aggresive but not extreme b/s for 2001 , was cereful with bad reputation at engine blows so the engine reved about 17400 and torque and top end were average .

ilmor played the berrylium card 1998-2000 . it had lower bore / higher stroke and so superior bmep and midrange torque . the higher berrylium material strenght of the pistons and liners let them rev as high as other teams with shorter stroke and so they combined superior midrange torque with good top end power . 2001 with the ban let them with still good midrange but they reved only 17200 and suffered top end power .

renault ... reved about 17200 as well . bmep and torque was maybe comparable with asiatech . no idea about b/s ratio

cosworth . no idea .maybe 94x43.2 ?
for sure cosworth had tons of experience how to build a f1 atmo engine !

that said the season was of course not only the engine but the overall package and the drivers .

saviour stivala
-13
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by saviour stivala » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:36 am

I cannot understand how one can say that in 1998-2000 Ilmor had ‘lower bore/higher stroke’ when one doesn’t know what Ilmor bore and stroke sizes were.
The year 2000 FERRARI tipo 049 produced 817BHP@17500RPM (max power speed). And its maximum RPM was 18000RPM. The tipo 049 had enough control of its combustion to win the championship in 2000-2001.

saviour stivala
-13
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by saviour stivala » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:09 pm

ALUMINIUM-BERYILIUM pistons and liners first exploited on track by mclaren-mercedes/Ilmor V10 of 1998. Following tentative use of the material that year, the 1999 and 2000 Ilmor V10 engines were designed to more fully exploit its potential. Ilmor machined its own AM162 pistons from solid in house. The exploitation of aluminium-beryilium allowed a higher compression ratio and less engine cooling. It permitted Ilmor to produce and engine that was lighter, more compact and more powerful than those of its rivals. These were the days when the main battle was between mclaren and FERRARI and the initial response from Maranello was an attempt to have the material banned. FERRARI cited the fact that beryilium dust is a known threat to the health of susceptible individuals. Mclaren countered that the dust was not an issue, provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed. Of course, component failure in use was another aspect of the argument, which was not clear-cut. The FIA did not immediately bow to FERRARI’s pressure, in view of which during the course of 1999 FERRARI found its own supplier of the material. However, the FIA did then make its 40 GPa/(g/cc) rulinmg for 2000 for all but internal engine component and for everything metallic from January 1 2000. That ruling effectively outlaw the use of aluminium-beryilium and FERRARI did not pursue an aluminium-bryilium development programe. In 1997 American materials supplier Brush Wellman was working with UK engine component specialist Perfect Bore to develop formula 1 pistons and liners from AIBeMet AM162, an aluminium-beryilium material comprising 62% beryilium. This very stiff, very light material had already been successfully exploited by Brembo to make more effective F1 brake calipers at the suggestion of former Honda engine designer Osamu Goto, then working for FERRARI. Beryilium metal has 1/3 less density then aluminum yet. Kilo for Kilo, it offers nearly 7 times the stiffness of steel. It is an excellent thermal condactor and have superb dimensional stability over a wide range of temperatures. The addition of pure aluminium improves its ductility and the combined material retains exceptional properties. AM162 has approximately 3/4 the density and 3 times the modulus of structural aluminium alloys, Perfect Bore developed an AM 162 liner with Nikasil-type coating that was as stiff as steel yet was lighter than it aluminium counterpart, with 30% superior thermal conductivity. in addition Perfect Bore worked to develop a forged AM 162 piston and also a gudgeon-pin that set a beryilium core within a steel sleeve , to afford it the strength that beryilium alone lacks. this composite pin was claimed to be 1/3rd the weight of its regular steel counterpart with better stiffness. Ilmor was the first to manufacture and race aluminium-beryilium pistons in F1 IN 1999 but the first known beryilium pistons were produced by Porsche before 1968 for an undisclosed eastern military block.

ACRO
1
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:25 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by ACRO » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:56 am

@saviour stivala :

you are correct - the b/s ratio is only a guess . i have it from this document :

Image

as well looking back at 2001 races where ilmor struggled to reach top competitors rpms when berrylium was banned .

the tipo 049 was the winning and surely a very good engine , no question !

this document :
Image

nevertheless gives a max torque of 253 ft-lb and a bmep of 13.57 bar at max power which was a good but not a benchmark number for 2000-2001 .

that let me believe they suffered a bit in bmep having the shortest stroke at that times .

nevertheless the engine was reliable and powerful enough , the car very good , the team motivated and with schumacher behind the wheel nobody was able to stop ferrari.

saviour stivala
-13
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by saviour stivala » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:42 pm

If Ernest Henri, the designer of the 1913 3.0-litre Peugeot, were alive and able to inspect the F1 3.0-litre V10 engine of year 2000, he would be able to instantly comprehend the layout and to identify and understand the functioning of the majority of the mechanical components. That is because the arrangement of the power producing components has changed little in the 70 years since he designed the cylinder head of the Peugeot engine, with its 4-valves per cylinder and twin overhead camshafts driven by spur gears, the first of any kind and the one that have shown the way forward in race engine design and which has defined the layout of piston engine ever since. He might be perplexed by the V10 cylinder arrangement. The lack of obvious valve springs, and the amount of electronic monitoring and control. He might also be surprised at the specific output of 268BHP/litre, compared to the 31aBHP/litre of his engine, and the 18000RPM at which the engine was able to run without destroying itself, compared to the 2900RPM he achieved. Then again, perhaps he would not, being an engineer of great vision. In the intervening years, GP engine designers have been influenced by the technical regulations, R&D carried out to develop aircraft engines during 2-world wars. And the available and permitted fuels, they have explored various cycles – normally aspirated, supercharged, turbo-charged, and even gas turbine—and a variety of cylinder arrangements. During the last 3.0-litre formula, from 1966 to 1985, before the turbo-charged 1.5-litre proved superior, engine designers started to work with their chassis designer colleagues to optimize the whole system. V8, V12, FLAT12, and even H16 configurations were explored, with consensus favoring the V8 as the best compromise among ultimate power, under car aerodynamics, and structural stiffness. By the time the formula returned to 3.0-litre normally aspirated engines in 1995 designers had converged on the V10 arrangement, agreeing that it provides as near as possible optimum cylinder size for combustion and thermal efficiency, with the best compromise of length and cross section for structural properties. This was in spite of the problems of resonant tuning and torsional harmonics that the arrangement gave them. By this time they had sophisticated computer software to assist them in sorting out problems and electronic control systems to optimize all aspects of operating the engine.

Nonserviam85
10
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by Nonserviam85 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:42 am

I was always fascinated by the idea, what Ilmor could have achieved if Be-Al alloys were allowed around 2004-2005...

saviour stivala
-13
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by saviour stivala » Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:32 pm

In 1998 Ilmor FO110G V10 was used by mclaren-mercedes to win both the drivers and constructors world championships titles.
In 1999 Ilmor FO110H V10 was used by mclaren-mercedes and Hakkinen successfully defended his world title.
In 2000 Ilmor FO110J V10 was used by mclaren-mercedes to run FERRARI close to the championship (7 wins).
MARIO ILLIEN:- When did you reach 800bhp? “In 1998”. How high was the output of the FO110J by the end of 2000? “A little bit above 800bhp”. In excess of 850bhp? “No”. How much did the peak-power-speed increased since mid-1997? “It has gone up quite a bit – but not in big steps”. Presumably, if we assume it was around 16500rpm by the end of 97, it must now surely be well in excess of 17000rpm? “Yes, it has gone up steadily, but I am always keen if at all possible to make the power at lower rpm, that is more beneficial, it is more efficient”. But, presumably, you are always having to strive for higher peak-power-speed – you simply can’t afford to stay where you are and optimize at that speed? “Yes, rpm we have always to push – there is no question about that, but you do have to ensure that your specific fuel consumption doesn’t go out of the window”. How much higher is the maximum speed than the peak-power-speed at the present time?. “We have allowed in 2000 the engine to go about 400-500rpm above the peak-power-speed”. So presumably the maximum speed of the FO110J is in excess of 18000rpm? “Around 18000”. And this coming season the peak-power-speed will be over 18000? “We are always trying to increase it but for 2001 we have got a regulation change – the new materials limitations”. When we spoke in 1997 you were still using pistons made from the traditional RR58 aluminium ally, at the time, nobody seemed to have a better alternative, using RR58, pistons cooling was an issue so you had an oil spray to the underside of the crown. Was cooling still an issue with the lightweight, relatively high heat rejection, aluminium-beryllium pistons you have used over the last couple of years? “Yes – they still contain aluminium and the issue is still there”. How significant was the introduction of the aluminium-beryllium pistons? " The properties of the material had certain benefits, no question, but it also posed problems, including machining problems. it was a step. with the change in regulations which outlaws the material for 2001 we have had to do quite a lot of work in developing an alternative". Is your alternative an MMC material? "No, it is an aluminium alloy, with the regulations as they are now - a maximum specific stiffness of 40GPa/g/cc for any metallic material used in the engine - you are limited as what you can do. I know that MMC material has been developed which is within the rules but I don't think it is quite there yet". When did you first used aluminium-beryllium pistons in race engine?. "After we used them in qualifying engines...I can't remember if they were first raced in 98 or 99...?. Did the aluminium-beryllium liner come at the same time as the aluminium-beryllium piston? "No, that was a separate development, it came earlier than the piston".

Tommy Cookers
516
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by Tommy Cookers » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:13 pm

saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:42 pm
.... Ernest Henri, the designer of the 1913 3.0-litre Peugeot....
the arrangement of the power producing components has changed little in the 70 years since he designed the cylinder head of the Peugeot engine, with its 4-valves per cylinder and twin overhead camshafts driven by spur gears, the first of any kind and the one that have shown the way forward in race engine design and which has defined the layout of piston engine ever since.....
the arrangement of the power producing components changed rather a lot in those 70 years ie ....

from 1923 till 1966 GP's fashion for 4 valves in a pent-roof head was replaced by the fashion for 2 valves in a hemi head

saviour stivala
-13
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by saviour stivala » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:24 am

Block material:- traditionally stock engine blocks have been cast iron productions run with liners while racing engine blocks have been aluminium alloy productions fitted with liners, one time iron, normally these liners have been wet (in other words exposed directly to the coolant) rather than dry, this arrangement saving weight and enhancing cooling. Early in the first post-war 3.0-litre era Cosworth used plain iron liners, FERRARI chrome plated aluminium liners, also than favored by Porsche for sports car racing. Porsche was however, unhappy with the chrome plating which was very susceptible to damage and prone to lifting. In response in 1971 it introduced a nickel silicon carbide coating developed by Mahle for the NSU Wankel rotary engine. This so called ‘NIkASIL’ coating was less prone to lifting and offered excellent frictional characteristics. Nikasil coating aluminium alloy liners subsequently became standard wear for race engines, The Cosworth DFV was typical of its time in having each liner located by a flange at the top and free to expand at the bottom, where there was a O-ring seal, later Cosworth engines had a stepped liners whereby the liner was clamped between the head and a mid-depth step. Magnesium has not been found suitable for engine block, although for decades it has been a popular choice for transmission case. Right back in the seventies certain experimental Cosworth DFV engines had a magnesium block but it was concluded that the material was not sufficiently stable over the operating temperature range. Magnesium sumps were popular early in the V10 era – before the sump became fixed ballast. Renault designed magnesium heads for its wide bank angle V10, in response to that engine putting on weight in overcoming development problems. Undisclosed issues associated with those heads left them on the shelf. Magnesium has been used widely for cam covers, although aluminium is just as logical a chose, but taking into account the loss of strength with temperatures and other casting issues associated with magnesium, the cum-covers being part of engine structure it needs to be strong as well as light. The 3.5-litre FERRARI V12 of 1989 had a cast iron block, this thin-wall production that eschewed the use of liner, was both stiff and reasonably light, and the 'mark 2' version for 1990 was the basis of the 3.5-litre 12 cylinder engine weighing only 125kg at a time when Renault and Honda V10's were closer to 150kg.

Tommy Cookers
516
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Bore and stroke on early 2000,s V10 engines

Post by Tommy Cookers » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:11 am

saviour stivala wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:24 am
Block material:- traditionally stock engine blocks have been cast iron productions run with liners ....
no they haven't (mostly)