Where does 46kg come from?!

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

vorticism wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:54 pm
https://i.imgur.com/nJ7OZc1.jpg
To really give that some perspective it would be good to have a1996/7 car in that picture too, they were wider then than they are now (2.15m max).
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

Henri
Henri
-5
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:58 am

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

Stu wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:45 pm
vorticism wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:54 pm
https://i.imgur.com/nJ7OZc1.jpg
To really give that some perspective it would be good to have a1996/7 car in that picture too, they were wider then than they are now (2.15m max).
If the 2007-2008 car had the current engines with 1000hp.. they'd be the fastest cars ever

User avatar
JordanMugen
66
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

Stu wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:45 pm
vorticism wrote:
Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:54 pm
Image
To really give that some perspective it would be good to have a1996/7 car in that picture too, they were wider then than they are now (2.15m max).
2.00m from 1993 until 1997, but 2.15m from 1972 until 1992 like this 1984 Renault:
Image

The proper width I say! :D

1.8m narrow track era, which was after all nothing more than a misguided FIA regulation and not chosen for engineering reasons, is unreasonably fondly remembered. They were silly squashed cars, far too narrow.

Bring back the traditional 2.15m width, and get that free roll stiffness I say!

As the chassis got slimmer, they just looked so wide, mean and just plain great with those elongated control arms: 8)
Image

Meanwhile, "honey, look who squashed the racecar". :shock:
Image

Renault did a demo with '78 and '83 cars too:
Image

Note the low profile front tyres on the '78 car for people who think low profile tyres are a merely an unfortunate modern phenomena. They were allowed 15" fronts until the early 80's and many of the designers made use of that for the advantages of the bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. :wink:

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
496
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

I liked the narrow cars actually. It made the tyres look more aggressive.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌

====Zen level====
|||||||<@>||^||<@>|||||||

User avatar
henry
308
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

Mogster wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:49 pm
OO7 wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:53 am
One of the lightest V10s was BMWs P85, before the sporting regs demanded engines cover double the mileage previously planned, forcing BMW to stop the project. The P85 was only 82kg.
So basically it never raced because it was too fragile.

I wonder how heavy a 900-1000hp 3.5l V10 would be if it had to last for 8 events? You’d have to re-instate refuelling also.
Not only would the ICE be heavier to last longer but the cooling arrangements also come into play. The V10s probably rejected 700kW to the cooling system whereas today’s turbos reject around 200kW. Obviously the turbos need some cooling for the ERS and inter cooler but they still would be about half the V10 requirement. And that’s not just increased weight for the heat exchangers but aero drag.

I don’t think the total package for the turbos is anything like the handicap people think when they compare the V10 ICE to PU masses.
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

User avatar
vorticism
76
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

henry wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:55 am
Mogster wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:49 pm
OO7 wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:53 am
One of the lightest V10s was BMWs P85, before the sporting regs demanded engines cover double the mileage previously planned, forcing BMW to stop the project. The P85 was only 82kg.
So basically it never raced because it was too fragile.

I wonder how heavy a 900-1000hp 3.5l V10 would be if it had to last for 8 events? You’d have to re-instate refuelling also.
Not only would the ICE be heavier to last longer but the cooling arrangements also come into play. The V10s probably rejected 700kW to the cooling system whereas today’s turbos reject around 200kW. Obviously the turbos need some cooling for the ERS and inter cooler but they still would be about half the V10 requirement. And that’s not just increased weight for the heat exchangers but aero drag.

I don’t think the total package for the turbos is anything like the handicap people think when they compare the V10 ICE to PU masses.
I think this was somewhat answered by the V8 era.

RB7:
Image

RB11:
Image

The installation is much simpler. Fewer ducts, hoses, etc.
Defend the right to 140 character limited speech.

User avatar
JordanMugen
66
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

henry wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:55 am
I don’t think the total package for the turbos is anything like the handicap people think when they compare the V10 ICE to PU masses.
I don't agree. The V8 or V10 package is demonstrably more simple and more compact, as Vorticism showed. There are far fewer coolers for instance.

Beyond the difference in power unit minimum weight, there is probably additional weight gain in all the extra coolers, coolant and ducting.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
496
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

A NA engine with TJI and variable intakes the cooling package would have been much smaller too. 40% to 45% thermal efficiency would have been achievable I reckon.
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌

====Zen level====
|||||||<@>||^||<@>|||||||

User avatar
vorticism
76
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Defend the right to 140 character limited speech.

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

vorticism wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:43 pm
What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.

Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA, but they ended up awarding the Jim Clark trophy to best NA (Jonathon Palmer in a Tyrell if I remember correctly), they followed with a ‘roll-over’ year against 3.5l NA (1988, I think), where they became very restricted.
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

User avatar
vorticism
76
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 7:20 pm

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

Stu wrote:
Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:57 pm
vorticism wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:43 pm
What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.

Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA, but they ended up awarding the Jim Clark trophy to best NA (Jonathon Palmer in a Tyrell if I remember correctly), they followed with a ‘roll-over’ year against 3.5l NA (1988, I think), where they became very restricted.
Ah, right, toluene. Was it that certain teams were saying the turbo formula was getting too expensive, or too unsafe?
Defend the right to 140 character limited speech.

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

vorticism wrote:
Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:29 pm
Stu wrote:
Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:57 pm
vorticism wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:43 pm
What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.

Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA, but they ended up awarding the Jim Clark trophy to best NA (Jonathon Palmer in a Tyrell if I remember correctly), they followed with a ‘roll-over’ year against 3.5l NA (1988, I think), where they became very restricted.
Ah, right, toluene. Was it that certain teams were saying the turbo formula was getting too expensive, or too unsafe?
I can’t recall exactly, other than Toleman (Hart) it was only really manufacturer teams that were using turbo engines, but I would imagine they were as scary as hell with qualifying boost around Monaco!!
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
579
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

Stu wrote:
Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:57 pm
vorticism wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:43 pm
What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.
Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA ....
the FIA always attempted equivalence from 1938
eventually handicapping the supercharged (boosted) engine to death eg 1954 2500cc NA vs 750cc supercharged
but opened the door again by allowing boosted engines (so turbo) 70% of NA capacity in touring cars and endurance
and 50% for convenience in 1966 F1 3000cc NA 1500cc boosted (1961-5 was 1500cc NA 500cc boosted)
opened the door

F1 fuel capacity was then limited to .....
250 litres as part of 1973 crash-safety mandates
220 litres and refuelling ban in 1984
195 litres in 1985 - apparently for both NA and boosted
(presumably both at this point on the road to higher fuel density ie toluene etc)

then 1987 4 bar MAP limit
1988 2.5 bar MAP and 150 litres fuel limit (boosted only)

how could the FIA 'experts' be so useless ?
proudly limiting RON was laughable - even MON would have been better
eg for 1958 F1 switched to 'road fuel' aka 'pump fuel'
allowed Avgas (we're now always told 100/130)
but these numbers are minima - typically 100/130 tests at c.110/130
and somewhere in primotipo it even says they used Avgas 108/135
aromatics (toluene/benzene/xylenes) have always been the enabling ingredients in this (1938-invention) Avgas
detonation-resistance is poor at high flame temperatures but outstanding at low flame temperatures ie rich mixtures

the 100 or whatever is the RON - in effect a lean mixture test
the 130 or 135 is the supercharge performance number - in effect a rich mixture test
what did the FIA think those numbers were there for ?
on high-aromatic fuel the boosted engine makes much better use of rich mixture than does the NA engine

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:30 am
Stu wrote:
Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:57 pm
vorticism wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:43 pm
What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.
Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA ....
the FIA always attempted equivalence from 1938
eventually handicapping the supercharged engine to death eg 2500cc NA vs 750cc supercharged

but they opened the door again by allowing super (so turbo) 70% of NA capacity in touring cars and endurance
and 50% for convenience in 1966 F1 3000cc NA 1500cc super (as F1 1961-5 was 1500cc NA 500cc super)
opened the door

F1 fuel capacity was then limited to .....
250 litres as part of 1973 crash-safety mandates
220 litres and refuelling ban in 1984
195 litres in 1985
apparently for both NA and super
Thanks, lots of goodness in that post.
I can remember the equivalency in the early/mid-eighties being 1.7:1 (and a lot of ‘weird’ capacities appearing in the Group B rally cars -largely aimed at getting a lower weight limit; under 3-litres had a lighter minimum weight than the 3-3.5 litre class).
The more that I learn, the more I appreciate how much more there is to know….

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Where does 46kg come from?!

Post

vorticism wrote:
Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:43 pm
What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?
Elio’s crash in testing in 1986.
His death was the prove that F1 engines became to powerful for circuits, chassis and tires at the time. From ‘86 onwards there was a timeline to reduce boost and fuel consumption and the return to NA which is much easier to control by regulation (just decrease the capacity every few years).