Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

the V16 was indeed powerful i was looking at the specs

Cylinders: V16

RPM: 12000

Displacement 1487.76 cc

Power 410.1 kW (549.9 bhp)

Dry sump 50 to 70 lbf/in³

135 degree V16 alloy cylinder block and crankcase. Cast iron wet liners.

Bore 49.53 mm (1.95 in)

Stroke 48.26 mm (1.90 in)

Fuel system Rolls Royce two-stage centrifugal supercharger with two 3 in (76 mm). SU carburettors. 5.7 bar maximum boost.

Fuel Petrol/alcohol fuel

Ignition Lucas coil, later four Lucas magnetos. One spark plug per cylinder

Valve gear 2 valves per cylinder @ 80 degrees with twin overhead camshafts per cylinder bank, via gear train from the centre of the crankshaft. Hairpin valve springs.

Inlet valves 1.25 in (32 mm)

Exhaust valves 1.09 in (28 mm)

Crankshaft Counterbalanced two piece with 8 plain bearings & 2 main roller bearings. (Later 10 plain bearings.)

5.7 bar of boost (82psi)...WTF

Anyhoo...I would love to see next year Webber (one that last F1 drivers I know that shaves with a set square) improves up the grid. I beleive that RBR will move up. The other thing I would like is Honda come out of the wilderness and become competitive again...what in the world happen to Honda Racing

In terms of this years championship...Hamilton was more consistant throughout the year than Massa. Hamilton had 3 non points finishes and 1 DNF where as Massa also had 3 non points finishers but 2 DNF's. IMO the turning point was the Singapore GP when Massa drove off with fuel hose still connected. I still don't know why Ferrari went to a light system instead of retaining the lollipop man (which they went to after Singapore).

Edited by BigDirtyJase
the V16 was indeed powerful i was looking at the specs

5.7 bar of boost (82psi)...WTF

5.7 bar - the joy of two stage compression. But remember that the compressors were centrifugal & have a think about what the torque curve would have looked like..... Anyway that BRM was a heap of sh!t, although it did have some magnificent engineering on it.

I still don't know why Ferrari went to a light system instead of retaining the lollipop man (which they went to after Singapore).

The reasoning is simple & quite compelling. One lollipop man CANNOT look at four tyre changers and the fuel hose at the same time. So inspite of all the palaver & the carry on the green light means go system is actually safer & better than a man with a lollipop.

Please note: It is particularly unsafe if it is one of the dodgy fkrs on here offering you a lollipop. ;)

Edited by djr81
5.7 bar - the joy of two stage compression. But remember that the compressors were centrifugal & have a think about what the torque curve would have looked like..... Anyway that BRM was a heap of sh!t, although it did have some magnificent engineering on it.

Yeah, agreed, the joys of 50' technology, driving that '67 BRM in GPL although its not real life was an absolute pig of a car

The reasoning is simple & quite compelling. One lollipop man CANNOT look at four tyre changers and the fuel hose at the same time. So inspite of all the palaver & the carry on the green light means go system is actually safer & better than a man with a lollipop.

Please note: It is particularly unsafe if it is one of the dodgy fkrs on here offering you a lollipop. :blink:

I have to agree, one lolipop man cam't look after everything...but then again all the other teams did not have a problem with lolipop men....but i guess if its perfected then it will be a good thing...

For me I love to see F1 go back to like 1967 days where the driver drove the car (obviously with latest safety innovations)...could you imagine the carnage...but will definitely show drivers skill and qualtiy racing would most likely ensure (who knows??)

Please note: It is particularly unsafe if it is one of the dodgy fkrs on here offering you a lollipop. :blink:

lamo...enough said!

Edited by BigDirtyJase
Yeah, agreed, the joys of 50' technology, driving that '67 BRM in GPL although its not real life was an absolute pig of a car

Well the first 1950's era BRM was a world away from the mid 60's cars in technology & much else.

There again they are the folks who spawned a 3 litre H16 when Phil Irving was knocking out world beating V8's to go with Ron Tauranac's inspired chassis & Jack Brabham & Denny Hulmes driving. Proving that things did not have to be complicated to be right. :blink:

For me I love to see F1 go back to like 1967 days where the driver drove the car (obviously with latest safety innovations)...could you imagine the carnage...but will definitely show drivers skill and qualtiy racing would most likely ensure (who knows??)

ummm- but they've already scrapped TC (thankfully), and next year we get slicks + less aero; so that will further spice things up

but what else can they do? it's not like they should go back to using manual gear selection and mechanical limos...

Dead Ringers for WDC in 2009:

Lewis (obviously, but I'm not actually going to back him to bring hom the bacon next year).

Alonso & Räikkönen will be the man contenders I reckon, Kimi back with a vengence next year. 2010 will be Massa's time again I think.

Darkhorse will be Mr. Robert Kubica, possibly Vettel is a man to watch. Depending on how the Honda's come on in 09, I think they may very well be next year's equivalent of Renault 2008..

Not a fan of the adjustable front wings... I dunno, I think they should've just cut the aero, reintroduced slicks and then play it by ear... Anyways, we will see...

Edited by Marco-R34GTT

But isn't there a good possibility that the front running teams (re: McLaren, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota) wouldn't have had the time to develop all the changes for the '09 car like the teams that realised they weren't in with a chance towards the end of '08 did? I don't reckon you can say much about '09 yet...

But isn't there a good possibility that the front running teams (re: McLaren, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota) wouldn't have had the time to develop all the changes for the '09 car like the teams that realised they weren't in with a chance towards the end of '08 did? I don't reckon you can say much about '09 yet...

I'd say Toyota and Renault would be better equipt than either the Fez or the Mac, erm, I also recall something about BMW pretty much drawing the curtains on their 08 car after Montréal as to focus on the 09 car and KERS... I reckon both Ferrari and McLaren will have been wrong-footed come Melbourne next March... As you said, 'Crystal Balling' isn't going to be all that easy this time around...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...