a "normal" F1 V10

[darksag3x]

wonder how much power an F1 V10 would make if it had normal camshafts, a
under 8000-rpm redline and a proper exhaust system

[Spencifer_Murphy]

it wouldn't really be an F1 engine then would it? But its an interesting idea. I guess the drop wud be quite drastic. I mean to cut RPM from 18,000 - 19,000 down to just 8,000 would have a conciderable effect.

When you say about a normal exhaust...do you mean with a silencer and a Catalytic converter...like on road cars? If so, yup, lots of power will go.

But the fundamental geometry of the engine wont really change so you will still get quite high power level from such a small engine (I mean 3 litres...really isnt tht much)

[Guest]

i dont think a f1 engine makes much over 3000 hundred at that rpm

[DaveKillens]

Assumed an F1 engine turning 18,000 RPM gets 800 Hp, then reducing it to 8,000 would be a reduction of RPM by 2.25. Then I would hazard a guess that you would get in the order of 335 HP.

[Steven]

Interesting thought, but since F1 engines are designed to run at such high revs and thereby create power, I think it is not that hard for an experienced engineer to come up with basic ideas for a sub 8000rpm engine which produces more power than an F1 engine at those rotation levels.

[manchild]

I think that problem could emerge from fact that such engine would require much heavier fly-wheel and than the crankshaft would have to be made thicker. That means that fly-bearings would have to be thicker too and new connecting rods would be required also.

Since stroke is very short engine efficiency and elasticity would be awful since wide and short pistons would have to move heavy crankshaft and rotate heavy fly-wheel.

In a way, such engine would be hard to rev up but once it would achieve high revs than pulling foot of the accelerator would cause enormous engine breaking and stress to all engine elements, especially the timing gear.

[ginsu]

Assumed an F1 engine turning 18,000 RPM gets 800 Hp, then reducing it to 8,000 would be a reduction of RPM by 2.25. Then I would hazard a guess that you would get in the order of 335 HP.

This is a pretty rough estimate. F1 engines produce their peak torque at about 16,000rpm. At 8,000rpm they produce less than half of their peak torque. If you use 250 ft/lbs. for a peak torque figure, the max this 'consumer F1 engine' would produce is 125 ft/lbs.

At 8000rpm, 125 ft/lb is about 190HP. Pathetic. That's why F1 cars idle at 6,000rpm.

[m3_lover]

I remember reading in Car and Driver when they had a article on the Jaguar R1, that the amount of fuel at 18000 rpm 3 litre engine is the same as 9 litre engine with a maxrpm of 6000.

I thought f1 engines idle at 3500 rpms?

[m3_lover]

Sorry for another reply

But wouldnt a Honda S2000 be a perfect example of what it would it be roughly. Not a lot of Torque within the Rev Range (153 at 7500) and reaching Peak Horsepower is short and within a small range( 240 at 8300) in the Rev limit (9000).

2002 Honda S2000 specifications

[zac510]

Assumed an F1 engine turning 18,000 RPM gets 800 Hp, then reducing it to 8,000 would be a reduction of RPM by 2.25. Then I would hazard a guess that you would get in the order of 335 HP.

That sounds reasonable to me!
Others seem to be forgetting the original poster suggested changing the camshafts.

[Guest]

we must also take into consideration that there is no flywheel, and the parts are so light it would be really shitty to drive an engine like that at lower, or even at 4000 rpm. if you added a flywheel to the package it would probably mess the engine dynamics up quite a lot. also due to the very short stroke there would be virtually no torque avaidable, and the engine would be very adapt to stalling