Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

You always hear about the hp of F1 engines and CART engines. I've heard anywhere between 800hp (approx 615kw) and 950hp (approx 730kw) for F1 engines and 750hp (approx 577kw) for CART engines. Any idea the level of torque these engines have. I think someone said a couple of years ago that F1 engines have around 700nm. I guess torque isn't as important due to the low overall weight. Has anyone have some info they can share.

Note: All hp/kw figures are at flywheel.

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/54694-torque-of-an-f1-engine/
Share on other sites

im pretty sure its 19,000 RPM, not that it would make much of a difference

Different teams use different rev limits depending on track/engine longevity etc..

so there is no set limit, but most teams run betwen 17000 and 19000 depending on the track.

if u watch f1 lately you would have seen they show live telemetry on the screen that shows speed and revs... pretty good to watch the revs rarely drop below about 13500 in most races.

The revs you see on the TV aren't accurate. ITV use the accustics of the engine to determine the RPM. Teams wouldn't want to give away how many revs their engines are producing to the opposition.

Check out

http://www.f1technical.net/article13.html

The revs you see on the TV aren't accurate. ITV use the accustics of the engine to determine the RPM. Teams wouldn't want to give away how many revs their engines are producing to the opposition.

Check out

http://www.f1technical.net/article13.html

i knew that all the teams are secretive about the specs of their cars, and was surprised when i saw the revs on the screen, you have just resolved that issue for me! i knew they would never reveal their revs :mad:

I once heard Martin Brudle say that the pistons in an F1 car about the size of a biscuit!

Hence how they get them to rev so hard.

Also the reason why they only last 200km ;) maybe 300km these days.

Actually, the piston size has has much to do with the displacement requirements too. The high revving has a lot to do with pnuematic lifters.

New regs say that engine has to be a 2.4L V8.

Simply, they are the old V10's with 2 pistons chopped off the end. This would save teams having to R&D engines from scratch, hence costing more money.

Yeah if it weren't for pnuematic valves they would have real issues reving high cause of valve bounce.

holy shit... 2.4L V8?? im interested in seeing what kind of power they'll end up putting out. But in the past, for example when the V10 3000cc rule was implemented the cars still pulled out record power and broke lap records, so the engines will still be poweful but ill miss that high pitched scream which they have down the straight... it wont be the same ;)

I heard these rules were put in for cost cutting and to attract more teams into the competition by making it cheaper to compete. Are there other reasons??

holy shit... 2.4L V8?? im interested in seeing what kind of power they'll end up putting out. But in the past, for example when the V10 3000cc rule was implemented the cars still pulled out record power and broke lap records, so the engines will still be poweful but ill miss that high pitched scream which they have down the straight... it wont be the same :D

I heard these rules were put in for cost cutting and to attract more teams into the competition by making it cheaper to compete. Are there other reasons??

Yes because ferrari can afford to spend billions on on part of their car when other teams have even less money for their whole car.

I don't think That figure of 400nm is right. The Honda VTR1000S SP2 is 99Kw/102NM, and that is a simple 1 liter production engine. There is no way a multi million dollar motor is only going to put out around 400NM. But in saying that I don't know what they put out.

I also heard on RPM that teams are going to run a breakaway series in 2006 (Date?).

The figures are pretty much on par. F1 engines really lack torque. Engine manufacturers chase after power, not torque.

The breakaway series is after the current Concord agreement which expires after 2008. It's all about Bernie Ecclestone's profit from the F1 series. The teams want a more bigger slice of the action.

I was watching the Indy cars for a little bit before work last Sunday, and they say they were running Turbo 2.4ltr V8's??? Weird combo, altho i understand that higher revving engines seem to have less displacement, but i thought it was interesting to see a small capacity V8 with a Turbo and they said around 700hp :D

I like it. Compact'ish V8 with a blower, think that would be cool to see in a production car. Altho it seems torque may be a problem

So is Indy the CART thing people are talking about?

Are the F1's going to go Turbo again? Oh yeah, the Indy engines were running STUPID boost, i must have heard the commentator wrong, 30-40 psi??? Must have heard wrong...

cheers.

im pretty sure that turbo's arnt going to ever be allowed in F1. They have rules against the forceful manipulation of air.

I remember reading about the F1 fan car, which basically used a gaint fan to suck up air from the ground (thus keeping it down), that model was scraped due to the rule that was put in.

faq1.jpg

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...