2.4 v8 700bhp 18,000rpm not enought torque
Discussion
Watching the F1 today and brindle perked up at the point heidfield had to nip down a gear just for a second then back up. It made him highlight he had recently completed 70 laps in one and apart from 16,000-18,000 it doesn't have to power to pull the skin off custard - relatively speaking.
Coultard fully agreed to end his career with these engines was a shame.
Brakes steering aero grip beyond belief but engine Meh.
To me F1 is the highest technological achievement and will flow down to road cars at some point.
Can I highlight mega rev range with only a tiny fraction useful isnt good at all highly indrivable in anything apart from racing.
Another point is the reliability of these cars now they hardly ever fail at 18,000 rpm so the proposed 1.6ltr v6 turbos with 12,000 rpm are going to be even more reliable.
Coultard fully agreed to end his career with these engines was a shame.
Brakes steering aero grip beyond belief but engine Meh.
To me F1 is the highest technological achievement and will flow down to road cars at some point.
Can I highlight mega rev range with only a tiny fraction useful isnt good at all highly indrivable in anything apart from racing.
Another point is the reliability of these cars now they hardly ever fail at 18,000 rpm so the proposed 1.6ltr v6 turbos with 12,000 rpm are going to be even more reliable.
He was meaning compared to the V10s they are gutless. The V10s would have 20% more torque...which in such a light car would be very noticeable.
However, I do remember Brundle commenting the first time he ever drove the 2.4 V8s as being 'surprisingly linear', back in 2006. So my suspicions are that either the 18,000rpm limit-forced remaps on the engine have really ruined them or the Toyota engine in the back of the Pirelli car (which is a Toyota TF109 from 2009) which was renowned as being underpowered compared to the Mercedes/Renault/Ferrari engine when it was in competition.
But yes, the current V8s have around 220lb.ft of torque, or in other terms, around what a Focus 1.6 TDCI has.
However, I do remember Brundle commenting the first time he ever drove the 2.4 V8s as being 'surprisingly linear', back in 2006. So my suspicions are that either the 18,000rpm limit-forced remaps on the engine have really ruined them or the Toyota engine in the back of the Pirelli car (which is a Toyota TF109 from 2009) which was renowned as being underpowered compared to the Mercedes/Renault/Ferrari engine when it was in competition.
But yes, the current V8s have around 220lb.ft of torque, or in other terms, around what a Focus 1.6 TDCI has.
Steve_T said:
Per litre F1 engines make the most torque of any naturally aspirated engine - in the region of 94 lbft per litre. To say they're gutless is well wide of the mark.
So a 1 litre engine with 94 lb ft of torque couldn't be described as gutless in any circumstances?It's all relative, so he can call them gutless if he wants
R12HCO said:
At this rate, 20 years ago we saw a 1.3 v6 with 900 bhp!
EFA (roughly speaking, 1.5 v6 I think, FI as well).Agree that 'gutless' here is relative - the same torque as a 1.6TDCi, but moving a third of the weight - and capable of maintaining the focus's peak torque for 3 or 4 times the revs - so with the same gear ratio that focus might accelerate briskly to 40, the lighter F1 in the same gear accelerates 3x faster to 3x the speed. 5th/6th gear acceleration in an F1 car is probably roughly equal to 1st/2nd in the focus.
Surely the point is though that they build the cars within the regulations so that optimum performance is between a rev range, they don't need to build them to perform outside of those parameters.
I'm sure if the rules changed then they would build them to be the best under those conditions.
You can't have your cake and eat it, the cars are made to go round a circuit as fast as they can within the rules. They don't build them to go round a circuit fast and tow a caravan up a hill as well.
Is this not another thread for the sake of it Welshbeef?
I'm sure if the rules changed then they would build them to be the best under those conditions.
You can't have your cake and eat it, the cars are made to go round a circuit as fast as they can within the rules. They don't build them to go round a circuit fast and tow a caravan up a hill as well.
Is this not another thread for the sake of it Welshbeef?
DC's always complained about these 2.4 V8s ever since they switched to them.
I'm sure going from a 3.0 V10 with 900bhp to a 750bhp 2.4 V8 is always going to feel slower. Even if 'slow' isn't exactly a word you'd use to describe a modern F1 car.
I'd assume when they switch to these shopping trolley engines in a couple years time they will have more torque at least.
I'm sure going from a 3.0 V10 with 900bhp to a 750bhp 2.4 V8 is always going to feel slower. Even if 'slow' isn't exactly a word you'd use to describe a modern F1 car.
I'd assume when they switch to these shopping trolley engines in a couple years time they will have more torque at least.
Edited by caine70 on Monday 27th June 00:49
A point I should have really brought up when I first compared an F1 car to a Focus is the fact that it's the torque at the contact patch of the back wheel which is important. That dictates accelerative potential (as does BHP).
An F1 car produces 210ft.lb or so but at stratospheric rpms so when you couple that about a first gear ratio of about 15:1 (or more) and a fairly big tyre diameter you are getting a mighty-huge lot of torque about the back wheel meaning simply ludicrous acceleration.
F1 cars can accelerate from 0-124mph in under 5 seconds, and that's poor for them given they really struggle off the line (silly-hard suspension and tyres far too narrow for all the power). The rate an F1 car will go from 50-150mph will bend your eyeballs.
And as technically minded as Martin is, I think he might be falling in to the old habit of equating peaky engine with a lack of torque i.e. he's meaning little torque = narrow useable power band. DC has complained over and over about the 18,000rpm limit as he said it feels like you're constantly bumping into the limiter when trying to get the thing going (and I do agree - that sounds enfuriating!). Just remember, the Ferrari and Renault V8s were nudging 21,000rpm at the end of 2006...so to knock 3,000rpm off that will really make them feel weird to drive.
And add to that that the 2005 V10s were caressing 1,000BHP (according to Toyota's lead engine designer) at the end of their life you are going to end up with some unimpressed drivers.
An F1 car produces 210ft.lb or so but at stratospheric rpms so when you couple that about a first gear ratio of about 15:1 (or more) and a fairly big tyre diameter you are getting a mighty-huge lot of torque about the back wheel meaning simply ludicrous acceleration.
F1 cars can accelerate from 0-124mph in under 5 seconds, and that's poor for them given they really struggle off the line (silly-hard suspension and tyres far too narrow for all the power). The rate an F1 car will go from 50-150mph will bend your eyeballs.
And as technically minded as Martin is, I think he might be falling in to the old habit of equating peaky engine with a lack of torque i.e. he's meaning little torque = narrow useable power band. DC has complained over and over about the 18,000rpm limit as he said it feels like you're constantly bumping into the limiter when trying to get the thing going (and I do agree - that sounds enfuriating!). Just remember, the Ferrari and Renault V8s were nudging 21,000rpm at the end of 2006...so to knock 3,000rpm off that will really make them feel weird to drive.
And add to that that the 2005 V10s were caressing 1,000BHP (according to Toyota's lead engine designer) at the end of their life you are going to end up with some unimpressed drivers.
Surely it is desireable for cars to have too much power vs the available grip.
Sure the F1 cars can oversteer etc but only if your in the sweet spot of the engine otherwise "off cam" with WOT would it do anything??
Isnt it more desirable to have grunt AND big power figs? Or is it now the case that with RPM limited and CC & number of pistons & formation limited then this is all they will ever produce? A mere 700bhp...
Sure the F1 cars can oversteer etc but only if your in the sweet spot of the engine otherwise "off cam" with WOT would it do anything??
Isnt it more desirable to have grunt AND big power figs? Or is it now the case that with RPM limited and CC & number of pistons & formation limited then this is all they will ever produce? A mere 700bhp...
Welshbeef said:
doogz said:
Mr Dave said:
Torque only matters when you take gearing into account.
And formula 1 cars all have gearboxes, torque still matters.Welshbeef said:
Surely it is desireable for cars to have too much power vs the available grip.
I don't understand this statement in the context of an F1 car. My thoughts would be that in a race car where 1000ths of a second matter you want the exact amount of torque for the available grip, a bit more you risk wheel slip and lose time, a bit less you are not optimising the chassis' ability.
Maybe for entertainments sake on a track day or quiet road a 1.6 MX5 would be enhanced hugely by a turbo, or a Boxster would be a bit more of a giggle with some lesser tyres at the rear for a few laps.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff