F1technical.net

ecapox wrote:Why are you guys even entertaining these questions/ideas?

He's starting backwards with an outcome: the Ferrari engine sucks. And then he comes up with ideas of why it sucks. Include the fact that we know absolutely nothing about the engine and this becomes a really stupid chain of posts.

Pretty much, just like most of the inane rumours people are putting around on various threads. It's all BS.

Kansas wrote:
and its gonna be a problem during qualifying why??

In race of course that wont be the average flow. Energy discharged from MGU-h and k will compensate as well as team tuning down the flow for the sake of race completion.

Please enlighten me how is that going to be a problem in flat out qualifying when we are talking about 1 lap in Q3 and Q2 on each set of tires, 2-3 in Q3??

I think you need to reread the whole thread before questioning someone.

mate, I will try to enlighten you, but maybe you need to be a little bit more modest since, trust me, you don't have some basic physics principles.
the 100 kg/hr flow limit does not only mean that you cannot burn more than 100kg of fuel in a hour but ALSO that you cannot burn more than 27.7 grams in a second, 27.7 milligrams in a milliseconds and so on...are you following me? it does not matter how short is the time you are considering (the single lap) you are ALWAYS severely limited in the maximum power you can produce with your engine.
With your (wrong) interpretation of the fuel flow limit, since the turbo boost is free, we would see power easily exceeding 1000cv in qualifying....

if you are following me on this then I will also try to explain you why having smaller cooling inlet COULD (I repeat, COULD. it's far from sure) mean that your engine is more powerful and not less powerful

motobaleno wrote: With your (wrong) interpretation of the fuel flow limit, since the turbo boost is free, we would see power easily exceeding 1000cv in qualifying....

I don't think so, if you have five PU for the championship you just can't take too much risks. It will be a nightmare for reliability pushing a 1600cc engine to 1000 cv, and i just forgot gearbox, MGUK and MGUH management and so on...
It's a very narrow blanket this year, maybe too much narrow to be enjoyable (tyers management, fuel management, recovered energy management, reliability management, drs... what a fun moments for the stands)

Frafer wrote:

motobaleno wrote: With your (wrong) interpretation of the fuel flow limit, since the turbo boost is free, we would see power easily exceeding 1000cv in qualifying....

I don't think so, if you have five PU for the championship you just can't take too much risks. It will be a nightmare for reliability pushing a 1600cc engine to 1000 cv, and i just forgot gearbox, MGUK and MGUH management and so on...
It's a very narrow blanket this year, maybe too much narrow to be enjoyable (tyers management, fuel management, recovered energy management, reliability management, drs... what a fun moments for the stands)

oh my god! guys, this forum is called f1 TECHNICAL.
I was talking of a completely different question...
at least read all the related messages before writing...

but to answer to you, you cannot think to THESE engines that are projected to have around 600 cv due to fuel restriction.
from the purely technical point of view if you are boost and fuel free it will be not a problem to build a 1000cv 1.6 lasting for several races....
it will be expensive but completely feasible. 30 years ago (thirty! with no electronics no pneumatic valves and primitive materials) they used to built 1500 cc engines with 1000cv lasting one race...

motobaleno wrote:it will be expensive but completely feasible. 30 years ago (thirty! with no electronics no pneumatic valves and primitive materials) they used to built 1500 cc engines with 1000cv lasting one race...

They never had engine turned up to 1000hp for any long period of time in the race. They had around 800hp in race trim, and those engines didn't always survived a race distance.

No, it was about an engine being able to deliver 1000hp in qualy and being able to last a race.

timbo wrote:

motobaleno wrote:it will be expensive but completely feasible. 30 years ago (thirty! with no electronics no pneumatic valves and primitive materials) they used to built 1500 cc engines with 1000cv lasting one race...

They never had engine turned up to 1000hp for any long period of time in the race. They had around 800hp in race trim, and those engines didn't always survived a race distance.

Berger must be wrong then! He has stated that they regularly ran 1000bhp. and in fact, in quali, (more than one lap) the bmw was turned up to 1500bhp, and even turned back a bit, could manage a race or two without problems.

motobaleno wrote: but to answer to you, you cannot think to THESE engines that are projected to have around 600 cv due to fuel restriction.
from the purely technical point of view if you are boost and fuel free it will be not a problem to build a 1000cv 1.6 lasting for several races....
it will be expensive but completely feasible. 30 years ago (thirty! with no electronics no pneumatic valves and primitive materials) they used to built 1500 cc engines with 1000cv lasting one race...

Let's assume that i decide if this is the right place for me or not.
BTW, the fact that these engines are projected to have around 600cv is due to fuel rate restriction and a lot of more expects.
If you are able to build 1000cv 1.6 that lasts for 4000 km tell me, we would make a society and we will be billionaires in a blink of an eye. It's not feasible, even without flow rate restriction.
Ah, there is no waste gate, try to develop 1000cv with 1.6 turbo with turbine stuck at 125000 rpm and no waste gate, you will find compressor in the stands and turbine in the pits.
80's engine developed 1300 cv for one lap (qualify) and around 800 for a race, but the engine was not the same, they were use to handle 2 to 3 engine in a weekend; and they often didn't last because a lot of them were used to suddenly blew up during the week end.

gilgen wrote:

timbo wrote:

motobaleno wrote:it will be expensive but completely feasible. 30 years ago (thirty! with no electronics no pneumatic valves and primitive materials) they used to built 1500 cc engines with 1000cv lasting one race...

They never had engine turned up to 1000hp for any long period of time in the race. They had around 800hp in race trim, and those engines didn't always survived a race distance.

Berger must be wrong then! He has stated that they regularly ran 1000bhp. and in fact, in quali, (more than one lap) the bmw was turned up to 1500bhp, and even turned back a bit, could manage a race or two without problems.

Weren't they using qualifying engines and race engines?

Frafer wrote: Let's assume that i decide if this is the right place for me or not.

sure.and I sincerely apologize for having written that (deleted now).
but Thanks god, I can still decide with whom talk.
and, forgive me, I think (completely IMHO) that you simply don't have enough technical background to talk with me.
so, have your fully respectable opinions, goodbye and go in peace

motobaleno wrote: and, forgive me, I think (completely IMHO) that you simply don't have enough technical background to talk with me.
so, have your fully respectable opinions, goodbye and go in peace

I do think the opposite, but btw it's not my problem. Too direct for only reading two posts in a thread man, if i were you i would reconsider the size of your ego.. Feel free to explain me where your huge technical background lays, and also feel free to tell me how you would create, develop and handle a 1600 turbo with 1000cv with current f1 rules, removing only fuel flow rate, assuming 200 kg/hr or 300 kg/hr: even for half a lap. Good luck.