TopFuel Engine spec
Discussion
Just got me thinking about this since hearing about Cruz Ped changing his engine program? NHRA/FIA have restrictions on what you cant do on an engine. What can teams actually modify without it being prohibted? Eg:Can they change the shape on the top of a piston for instance? Are they allowed to modify the cam/crank?
Edited by The Enthusiast on Wednesday 15th February 11:20
Edited by The Enthusiast on Wednesday 15th February 11:22
"NHRA/FIA have restrictions ...". Yes and pretty scope-limiting they are, too ...
"All engine component development after 6/11/2003 must be FIA accepted.
The moratorium includes, but is not limited to, engine
blocks, cylinder heads, intake manifolds, and superchargers.
This includes any redesign, reconfiguration, and/or significant
modifications to existing components. Refer any development,
redesign, reconfiguration, and/or modification questions with
respect to major Top Fuel and Funny Car engine components to
the FIA for resolution."
"All engine component development after 6/11/2003 must be FIA accepted.
The moratorium includes, but is not limited to, engine
blocks, cylinder heads, intake manifolds, and superchargers.
This includes any redesign, reconfiguration, and/or significant
modifications to existing components. Refer any development,
redesign, reconfiguration, and/or modification questions with
respect to major Top Fuel and Funny Car engine components to
the FIA for resolution."
Edited by CH3NO2ADDICT on Wednesday 15th February 19:03
Forged aluminium engine block based on an automotive V8 design. Two valves per cylinder with push rod activation, not exceding 500ci, Supercharged with mechanical fuel injection. Dry sump lubrication.
(rods, pistons, crankshaft and camshaft. at the discretion of the engine builder)
Should add. Im no expert, just a fan.
(rods, pistons, crankshaft and camshaft. at the discretion of the engine builder)
Should add. Im no expert, just a fan.
Rules can be downloaded from the FIA website, but a small snippet from the TF engine specs...
1.1 ENGINE Any internal-combustion, FIA-accepted, reciprocating, 90-degree V-8, automotive-type engine permitted. Single-camshaft only; multi and/or overhead cam configuration prohibited. Maximum 500-cid (8,193.5 cm3), minimum 490-cid (8,029.6 cm 3); maxi-mum bore center spacing 4.800-inches (121.92 mm); maximum between cam centerline and crankshaft centerline 5.400 inches (137.16 mm); maximum two valves per cylinder. Any multi-valve and/or overhead cam configuration prohibited.
Only one cylinder-head design is acceptable: Intake valve angle of 35 degrees, + or - 1 degree Exhaust valve angle of 21 degrees, + or - 1 degree Engine block must be forged aluminum and FIA-accepted. The use of cast engine blocks prohibited. Lightening of engine blocks prohibited. Engine blocks must be utilized per manufacturers specifications.
ETA : http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/F...
1.1 ENGINE Any internal-combustion, FIA-accepted, reciprocating, 90-degree V-8, automotive-type engine permitted. Single-camshaft only; multi and/or overhead cam configuration prohibited. Maximum 500-cid (8,193.5 cm3), minimum 490-cid (8,029.6 cm 3); maxi-mum bore center spacing 4.800-inches (121.92 mm); maximum between cam centerline and crankshaft centerline 5.400 inches (137.16 mm); maximum two valves per cylinder. Any multi-valve and/or overhead cam configuration prohibited.
Only one cylinder-head design is acceptable: Intake valve angle of 35 degrees, + or - 1 degree Exhaust valve angle of 21 degrees, + or - 1 degree Engine block must be forged aluminum and FIA-accepted. The use of cast engine blocks prohibited. Lightening of engine blocks prohibited. Engine blocks must be utilized per manufacturers specifications.
ETA : http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/F...
I had an idea of how restrictive it was. But your info has summed it up perfectly. Thanks. Still cant believe the speeds they are running with the limitations. Is 330mph possible @ 1000ft with the spec they use?I can see it happening. Not far off now.
In comparison Worshams 3.73 was 5 mph slower than Masseys 328.6@ pomona. Could a 3.69/70 be possible?
In comparison Worshams 3.73 was 5 mph slower than Masseys 328.6@ pomona. Could a 3.69/70 be possible?
The moratorium on the development of motor architecture and parts is probably the main tool the governing body uses for restricting performance. Pushrod technology is ancient, two valves per cylinder is also unheard of in most performance engines. The McGee brothers who raced on the NHRA tour in the 80's and 90's developed a hugely powerful overhead quad cam engine with four valves per cylinder as soon as it looked as if the future was McGee powered (or at least was without pushrods) the NHRA banned it. Makes you wonder how much quicker we would be going if there were a lot less restrictions.
McGee motor
McGee motor
Big issue with the cammer motors is maintenance, strip and rebuild a pushrod V8 in 70minutes is do-able, no sure it is with an OHC lump. Also I seem to remember problems with valves maybe? Due to reduced sizes they couldn't handle the heat. I could be talking rubbish here....
If you can make 8000bhp with something as simple and easy to work on as a pushrod V8, why complicate things
If you can make 8000bhp with something as simple and easy to work on as a pushrod V8, why complicate things
I'm all for more technical freedom in top fuel drag racing.
Just imagine how many more side by side "heads up" races we'd see if the good old boys would just allow the engineers to bring the engine protection power of modern engine management systems to bare on these animals. I'd wager that the reduction in the destruction of expensive mechanical parts would easily offset the up front cost of implementing the hardware, on top of that once a team has bought the electronics it doesn't wear out.
Hell it may have taken until 2012 but even NASCAR have eventually woken up to this.
Just imagine how many more side by side "heads up" races we'd see if the good old boys would just allow the engineers to bring the engine protection power of modern engine management systems to bare on these animals. I'd wager that the reduction in the destruction of expensive mechanical parts would easily offset the up front cost of implementing the hardware, on top of that once a team has bought the electronics it doesn't wear out.
Hell it may have taken until 2012 but even NASCAR have eventually woken up to this.
SamBorgman said:
I'm all for more technical freedom in top fuel drag racing.
Just imagine how many more side by side "heads up" races we'd see if the good old boys would just allow the engineers to bring the engine protection power of modern engine management systems to bare on these animals. I'd wager that the reduction in the destruction of expensive mechanical parts would easily offset the up front cost of implementing the hardware, on top of that once a team has bought the electronics it doesn't wear out.
Hell it may have taken until 2012 but even NASCAR have eventually woken up to this.
Me to. Would be good if they had an "Outlaw" Topfuel event or experimentle event to the 1/8th mile. Only the 1/8th but bet theyd get near 300mph. Yeh the Mcgee of Stu Vallance made a heck of a noise back in the day.Just imagine how many more side by side "heads up" races we'd see if the good old boys would just allow the engineers to bring the engine protection power of modern engine management systems to bare on these animals. I'd wager that the reduction in the destruction of expensive mechanical parts would easily offset the up front cost of implementing the hardware, on top of that once a team has bought the electronics it doesn't wear out.
Hell it may have taken until 2012 but even NASCAR have eventually woken up to this.
Was the Mcgee undeveloped and underfunded? Thats what I heard.
Edited by The Enthusiast on Thursday 16th February 13:53
NitroWars said:
they allowed traction control...
If allowing engine management systems into the top level of the sport resulted in some sort of genius god of engineering figuring out how the hell to scale 8000bhp of Nitro fuelled engine output quickly enough to successfully react to these types of tyres unloading then loading up again then it would have been a benefit to all man kind and easily worth it 
In reality I think the pre-emptive based traction control style would be the only one which is realistically achievable in this formula.
It's a lose skirt around the rules of traction control, you use computer readouts from previous runs to see where tyre slip occured then tweak the fuel and ignition curves around them to prevent slip. All put very basically but it sure ain't that easy!
I think reactive traction control would take away from the role of the driver, everyone loves a good ol' pedal fest every now and there!
I think reactive traction control would take away from the role of the driver, everyone loves a good ol' pedal fest every now and there!
MotorPsycho said:
Big issue with the cammer motors is maintenance, strip and rebuild a pushrod V8 in 70minutes is do-able, no sure it is with an OHC lump. Also I seem to remember problems with valves maybe? Due to reduced sizes they couldn't handle the heat. I could be talking rubbish here....
If you can make 8000bhp with something as simple and easy to work on as a pushrod V8, why complicate things
Yep. I'm sure a way could be found to make turnaround times acceptable with an OHC engine, but the problem with current nitro cars isn't that they're making too little power anyway. Could they make more with multi-valve overhead cam engines and modern fuel and ignition management systems? Probably. But while the limiting factor is the ability to put the power down, making more power won't help anyway.If you can make 8000bhp with something as simple and easy to work on as a pushrod V8, why complicate things
Traction control would help there, and I'm sure it'll be legal soon enough, simply because it's too hard to police. Unless you mandate sealed six shooters and ignition boxes, etc, supplied at random by the governing body at the start of the meeting, I don't see any alternatives. That makes me sad, because it then comes down to a battle of who has the best traction control software. OK, so as a software guy, I'm reasonably confident that it would be me[1], but it's not what the sport should be about IMHO.
[1] Yeah, maybe that's just me being arrogant. But it's backed by a couple of decades of experience, the last few years of which have been in an area that's indirectly applicable to automotive traction control.
The Enthusiast said:
Isnt the ford design based on the hemi though? Cant be able to change much on the design. Wouldnt be approved by the nhra.
??? the ford design is based on a hemi???? It is a hemi...if you mean is it based on a chrysler hemi then yes loosley... as is the AJPE and BAE,
it cant deviate much as you say...
Gassing Station | Drag Racing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff