Which would be the best race engine?
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
Bill said:
Are we talking drag, sprint, oval, circuit or endurance?
It's a bit small for tractor racing so I'm discounting that.
To answer this let’s say endurance - specifically 24hours. It's a bit small for tractor racing so I'm discounting that.
So far it sounds like the rotary engine would have a massive power advantage over all others (remember N/A only).
Lol on the 535d - sorry petrol only in this thread
It again depends on the rules of the day. Endurance racing rules change a lot.
Nanook said:
Welshbeef said:
Given all are N/A would they all produce the same power and torque or would more cylinders give more torque?
I’m guessing BHp would be way north of 1,000 for any of he configurations.
Very roughly and generally, more cylinders means lighter pistons, smaller bore/stroke, higher piston speeds, more revs, more power and less torque.I’m guessing BHp would be way north of 1,000 for any of he configurations.
Exige77 said:
For endurance racing, fuel consumption critical so that rules out rotary. Mazda Le Mans win was a one off. The big guys where washing their hair that day .
Mazda won in part due to their fuel efficiency and strategy. .https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article...
The rotary is pretty efficient when running hard(relatively) , it's not so efficient when pootling around in traffic.
RobDickinson said:
Exige77 said:
For endurance racing, fuel consumption critical so that rules out rotary. Mazda Le Mans win was a one off. The big guys where washing their hair that day .
Mazda won in part due to their fuel efficiency and strategy. .https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article...
The rotary is pretty efficient when running hard(relatively) , it's not so efficient when pootling around in traffic.
GroundEffect said:
Based on what?
A flat plane V8 could produce way in excess of 600BHP at 6 litres in a racing environment. Even road car V8s can exceed that - the 4.5 litre in the 458 Speciale was 610PS.
Generally the more cylinders the more power however there's so much more to it than that. Fuel consumption and size/package/weight are just some. There's a reason Ferrari moved from V12 to V10 in the 3.0 litre F1 era. The V12 produced a bit more power but was bigger and heavier and used more fuel. For those regulations a V10 was preferred.
Based on actual V8 race cars. The ones that have competed in major racing events like Le Mans. They tend to be in the 500-600bhp range.A flat plane V8 could produce way in excess of 600BHP at 6 litres in a racing environment. Even road car V8s can exceed that - the 4.5 litre in the 458 Speciale was 610PS.
Generally the more cylinders the more power however there's so much more to it than that. Fuel consumption and size/package/weight are just some. There's a reason Ferrari moved from V12 to V10 in the 3.0 litre F1 era. The V12 produced a bit more power but was bigger and heavier and used more fuel. For those regulations a V10 was preferred.
Exige77 said:
For endurance racing, fuel consumption critical so that rules out rotary. Mazda Le Mans win was a one off. The big guys where washing their hair that day
It again depends on the rules of the day. Endurance racing rules change a lot.
The 787b was far more fuel efficient than the competition at Le Mans.It again depends on the rules of the day. Endurance racing rules change a lot.
TheDrBrian said:
And being lighter than the other cars.
You do get a significant weight saving with a rotary engine.Edited by delta0 on Monday 10th September 21:54
TheDrBrian said:
Especially if the ACO give you a lower minimum compared to everyone else.
Only for the older cars. There was a weight penalty for cars that hadn’t changed to the new 3.5l engine and this is what Mazda had lobbied on. Could you imagine if Mazda had entered a 35b? That would have been unbelievably powerful compared to the rest of the field!The Mazda was something like 200kg underweight, because no one thought it would be in with a chance. Mazda were generally also rans and pretty much raced in their own class in previous years. Sadly the quick cars all managed to shoot themselves in the foot as the race progressed and the Mazda hung on. It was 13 seconds off the pole position time, so it certainly wasn't fast by any stretch of the imagination.
Ahonen said:
The Mazda was something like 200kg underweight, because no one thought it would be in with a chance. Mazda were generally also rans and pretty much raced in their own class in previous years. Sadly the quick cars all managed to shoot themselves in the foot as the race progressed and the Mazda hung on. It was 13 seconds off the pole position time, so it certainly wasn't fast by any stretch of the imagination.
So the only rotary success in racing with other power types won simply as others had failed. RobDickinson said:
Ahonen I dont think you really understand what racing is about
Unless everyone else retired as a result of engine failure, or something that could be attributed to their choice of engines, he has a strong point.Getting lucky is not proof of a good engine choice. However, if they did all retire from engine failure, then I take back my point.
delta0 said:
GroundEffect said:
Based on what?
A flat plane V8 could produce way in excess of 600BHP at 6 litres in a racing environment. Even road car V8s can exceed that - the 4.5 litre in the 458 Speciale was 610PS.
Generally the more cylinders the more power however there's so much more to it than that. Fuel consumption and size/package/weight are just some. There's a reason Ferrari moved from V12 to V10 in the 3.0 litre F1 era. The V12 produced a bit more power but was bigger and heavier and used more fuel. For those regulations a V10 was preferred.
Based on actual V8 race cars. The ones that have competed in major racing events like Le Mans. They tend to be in the 500-600bhp range.A flat plane V8 could produce way in excess of 600BHP at 6 litres in a racing environment. Even road car V8s can exceed that - the 4.5 litre in the 458 Speciale was 610PS.
Generally the more cylinders the more power however there's so much more to it than that. Fuel consumption and size/package/weight are just some. There's a reason Ferrari moved from V12 to V10 in the 3.0 litre F1 era. The V12 produced a bit more power but was bigger and heavier and used more fuel. For those regulations a V10 was preferred.
The rules said there is no cost limit. Think about what that means for a moment. So we could be doing enormous engine speeds with pneumatic valvetrain, producing something like 300bhp/litre. A V12 is probably optimal for outright power or your mean piston speeds will be starting to get silly at six litre capacity, but it might be better to have even more cylinders - depends on the balance of packaging it in the car versus power benefit of increased engine speed. There were a lot of restrictions on what you could do with a 3.0 F1 engine, but they still got to 900bhp at 19000rpm almost twenty years ago. It should be possible to exceed 1500bhp at six litres.
Ah yes, it's for 24-hour racing? Who cares. Costs are uncapped. Make your bearings out of unobtanium and do eleventy billion hours of durability work until you can life everything in the engine to ten-minute accuracy.
We haven't had no-limits design anywhere - motorsport or automotive sector - for a really long time. The result would be astounding.
bigbadbikercats said:
Just to throw another spanner in the works, are we allowing 2-strokes?
Not generally a huge fan of them but they are capable of spectacular specific power outputs (Both in BHP/litre and BHP/Kg terms) and a 6.0 litre V12 2-stroke would make an absolutely unreal noise... :-)
With a 2 stroke you are basically taking advantage of partly why the rotary engine is much more powerful than a piston engine. Every rotation has a power pulse so you get twice as many power pulses than a 4 stroke. In theory for the same capacity of 2 stroke or rotary you can get at least twice the power. Again it is also a light engine.Not generally a huge fan of them but they are capable of spectacular specific power outputs (Both in BHP/litre and BHP/Kg terms) and a 6.0 litre V12 2-stroke would make an absolutely unreal noise... :-)
McSam said:
hat, the ones that have performance-balanced air restrictors to keep them at roughly that output? That might have something to do with them only making 600bhp...
The rules said there is no cost limit. Think about what that means for a moment. So we could be doing enormous engine speeds with pneumatic valvetrain, producing something like 300bhp/litre. A V12 is probably optimal for outright power or your mean piston speeds will be starting to get silly at six litre capacity, but it might be better to have even more cylinders - depends on the balance of packaging it in the car versus power benefit of increased engine speed. There were a lot of restrictions on what you could do with a 3.0 F1 engine, but they still got to 900bhp at 19000rpm almost twenty years ago. It should be possible to exceed 1500bhp at six litres.
Ah yes, it's for 24-hour racing? Who cares. Costs are uncapped. Make your bearings out of unobtanium and do eleventy billion hours of durability work until you can life everything in the engine to ten-minute accuracy.
We haven't had no-limits design anywhere - motorsport or automotive sector - for a really long time. The result would be astounding.
V12 vs V8 depends a lot on the the track. Going back to the racing Aston team. The V12 does better where absolute top speed is needed most of the time whereas the V8 does better where the track is balanced more towards cornering. The rules said there is no cost limit. Think about what that means for a moment. So we could be doing enormous engine speeds with pneumatic valvetrain, producing something like 300bhp/litre. A V12 is probably optimal for outright power or your mean piston speeds will be starting to get silly at six litre capacity, but it might be better to have even more cylinders - depends on the balance of packaging it in the car versus power benefit of increased engine speed. There were a lot of restrictions on what you could do with a 3.0 F1 engine, but they still got to 900bhp at 19000rpm almost twenty years ago. It should be possible to exceed 1500bhp at six litres.
Ah yes, it's for 24-hour racing? Who cares. Costs are uncapped. Make your bearings out of unobtanium and do eleventy billion hours of durability work until you can life everything in the engine to ten-minute accuracy.
We haven't had no-limits design anywhere - motorsport or automotive sector - for a really long time. The result would be astounding.
Edited by delta0 on Saturday 15th September 23:39
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff