2.4 L v8 90' degree V angle

[rodders]

yep I agree Guest, make all the engines by the one manufacturer. Maybe a TRABANT ?? ( you know that 2 stroke , I think 4 cylinder, maybe 2 cylinder, heap of bolts, thrown together in a tin can, at least thats what it sounds like )

Geez and to think over the past umpteen years Formula 1 was/used to be/ and maybe never will be if this stupid rule was to be obeyed, the epitomy of Motor Sport ???

[pyry]

guest: i didnt say anything about a v8 being useless to auto industry, i merely pointed out that a v8 being used more than a v10 is more usefull to them. and the number of cilinders matters a hell of a lot, the cam and crankshafts a completely different. and a v8 @ 18-19k rpm? not gonna happen just now, i guarantee that. a v8 simply doesnt rev that high. with a v12 wed be a couple thousand higher also. i dont have the ability to explain these technically, but its somwhat to due with the camshaft strengh and weight. also the vibrations are different. someone else with the sufficient knowledge could explain it, id also be grateful.

[Guest]

What you can run in terms of revs is dependant on a few things -

1. Piston speed and acceleration. This would be the same for a 2.4l V8 as it would be for a V10 as the cylinders would be the same capacity i.e. the same bore and stroke.

2. Valve acceleration, this is normally dictated by the inlet valve as it is heaver that the exheust and therefore sees greater accereration forces. Again as the cylinders are of the same capacity the same valves would be used so this would not be an isse from a revs point of view.

3. Vibration - this is the difference as the vibration propertys of a V8 are totally different to that of a V10. Having said that a V10 is a particulally nasty configeration from a torsional point of view so I would expect that this might take some work to get right but would be sorted in time.

In short I think it is likly that a 2.4l V8 would pull somewhere neer the same revs as a current V10. If the capacity had stayed the same then I agree they would be reving lower as the componants would be heaver and get a harder time.

Some notable engine that reved high were the Honda bike engines configered as 5 and 6 cylinders in the late sixtys (I think) they reved to around 21,000 rpm. The Toyota V8 CART engine reved to around 16,800 before they went to the IRL and that was 2.6l with steel valve springs which is realy impressive.

Hope this helps to explain things a little.

[Monstrobolaxa]

Your forgeting something that is also very important.....the fuel burning time....this also limits the rpm's....

[Guest]

Burn time does indeed affect rpm. In this case the bore of the engine is not changing so the burn time and charicteristics will remain the same, my apologys for neglecting it however.

[Monstrobolaxa]

apologys accepted!!!

[Another Guest]

I think that the FIA did at least get one thing in their proposal right.

Introducing these spec changes in 2008 leaves us with enough time to see some F1 cars with 1000bhp+
I cant wait so see just how fast these things will get by then!

I remember the good old days when racing was dangerous and sex was safe...

[Guest]

Based on an earlier comment:

V10's are mandated now when Toyota developed a fuel efficient V12 but other teams protested (due to huge investments in redesigning engines to compete) so the FIA currently only allows V10's now. Maybe it was a rumour.

I don't like these new rules. It sounds like European Nascar. Just a few years ago Bernie or Max were saying F1 was like soccer in the absence of passing and quite thrilling when it did occur like a score in soccer and now that they themselves want to make more money are trying to make a more marketable - cheaper product - with more passing.

A smaller engine is fine to keep speeds down. There needs to be a greater welfare system (for lack of a better term) in F1 so poorer performing teams get what they need to compete but also maintain their incentive to try. A BMW executive was correct when he stated SLEC holding company needs to become an "industrial" managed and organized operation. From what I've heard so far, I don't think I will be interested in Euro nascar. I love F1 now. So what do teams design with the new rules? Chassis and aero package? Boring compared to carbon fiber / titanium gear boxes, etc.

[vanakurat]

Back in 1959 Daimler built a 2.5 L 90degree V8, using twin SU carbs, solid pushrod operated valves, slipper cam followers with a 3"x 2.8" bore stroke ratio Hemi Head, this rather old technology revs easily at 8000 and puts 150 real horses to the Rear wheels. My point being that it would take very little modernization to bring this up to the horse power and rev range to make it a competative F1 class engine ?????

[Monstrobolaxa]

It could be "do-able"....but it seems to me that the valve sistem....might be a little overweight! but like you said a little modernazation....you never know!

[Guest]

Back in 1959 Daimler built a 2.5 L 90degree V8, using twin SU carbs, solid pushrod operated valves, slipper cam followers with a 3"x 2.8" bore stroke ratio Hemi Head, this rather old technology revs easily at 8000 and puts 150 real horses to the Rear wheels. My point being that it would take very little modernization to bring this up to the horse power and rev range to make it a competative F1 class engine ?????

I hope you're kidding....

I think the best 'modernisation' would be to melt it down and start again - a modern F1 engine has so many parts made of unobtainium, and very little made of common iron/steel etc that the Daimler engine is made of.

150 REAL horses?? - wow, better get them breeding, and fast, to make up the 700-800 horse defecit!

[vanakurat]

Of course I was kidding about actually using that particular motor!!! My intention was to point out that if such efficiency and revs were available in 59 technology and materials it would be easy to update and improve to your desired 900 ponies. I remember when American dinasores were telling us we would never reach 1HP per Cube inch or a 100HP per Litre, dare we suggest a little history on the internal combustion engines including the Otto, Brayton and Diesel. By the way Unobtanium is readily available at Boeing's scrap yard in Seattle Wa.


[/quote]

[SAF1Driver]

Well personally I think replacing the good old V10 with V8 engines, will totally change the formula 1 is now. I mean, come on, it's not going to be formula one anymore.

Who can argue with me that the best sound on earth is a Formula V10 engine running at 18000 or 19000rpm? Have you ever heard a F1 engine from 2 meters away? V8 engines just can't mesuer up to the chrips sound.

Another thing... Why try to slow the cars down?? If they want to bring compitition back into F1, it's not gonna work! Remember in formula 1, the rules are the formula... They define everything... And guess what? If a rule applies to one, they apply to all. If a rule is made, Michael Schumacher and Bruni has to conform. If they want to get someone else to win in F1 other than Michael, changing engines won't be the answer. Whatever rule they try to enforce, Michael will just e there to come out on top, cause the same rule apply to everyone on the grid.

Bernie, stop being grumpy, and let the young boys do the racing. You're too old for this man. Leave the fast stuff for the good guys! For the real men on the track that makes it all happens! I mean, the cars will never be too fast to drive as long as Michael is around! hehehe

[dumrick]

I don't thing that it is expectable for revs to be that different from the current engines, the unitary capacity being the same.

V-angles may be kept around the current figure of most manufacturers, 90º, from what I know, being the ideal figure in a V8, in terms of vibration and acoustics. I expect, of course, Renault to have around 90º angle, also. This means that the CoG height of the engines may remain around the same figures, overall influence must decrease, due to reduced engine weight, and so the resulting CoG may be lower.

[Guest]

Who can argue with me that the best sound on earth is a Formula V10 engine running at 18000 or 19000rpm?

Better would be V12 engine running at same revs, but it seems we don't get to hear that...