624 replies to this topic

[OfficeLinebacker]

Hi guys. I just found this positively fascinating scholarly comparison between F1 and NASCAR V8s. Granted, it uses 2006 specs as a reference, but it was a good year for comparison.

Interesting that the BMEP and piston speeds are not that different!

Great read:

http://www.epi-eng.c...f_cup_to_f1.htm

[gruntguru]

Hi guys. I just found this positively fascinating scholarly comparison between F1 and NASCAR V8s. Granted, it uses 2006 specs as a reference, but it was a good year for comparison.

Interesting that the BMEP and piston speeds are not that different!

Great read:

http://www.epi-eng.c...f_cup_to_f1.htm

Interesting and some good points although quite naive in places - eg his EPC (engine performance coefficient) near the end of the article, is another form of BMEP. (Funny he gets 4.3% difference in EPC for the engines compared but only 4.1% difference for BMEP. I didn't bother trying to track the source of the discrepancy.)

[cheapracer]

I have nothing but respect for what those Guys do with "old tech" pushrod motors and makes me sad what they can achieve for the price making F1 look like such nonsense.

I said recently that F1 should go to 4.0 V8's with square bore/stroke and 5 speed gearbox to dramatically cut costs.

[Canuck]

While I agree with your sentiments about NASCAR engine builders, I'm not sure I agree with the F1 slag. Both engines are bound by restrictive rules and the laws of physics - you can throw all the money in the world you want at the problem, but you're still confined by the box you're in. Both are prime examples of specifications taken to the outer edge of possibility within their given rules. Are you saying there's power left on the F1 table because NASCAR achieves similar performance?

[OfficeLinebacker]

While I agree with your sentiments about NASCAR engine builders, I'm not sure I agree with the F1 slag. Both engines are bound by restrictive rules and the laws of physics - you can throw all the money in the world you want at the problem, but you're still confined by the box you're in. Both are prime examples of specifications taken to the outer edge of possibility within their given rules. Are you saying there's power left on the F1 table because NASCAR achieves similar performance?

No I think it's the reputation difference and the fact that NASCAR does it on a comparative shoestring budget.

[gruntguru]

No I think it's the reputation difference and the fact that NASCAR does it on a comparative shoestring budget.

Nascar has one important advantage - development time. They are working with engines that have evolved over several decades, so the accumulated sum of knowledge is immense. Thousands of little tweaks and improvements discovered one by one can compensate to some extent for a low budget and the lack of a high-tech, clean sheet design.

The greatest engines in history (and two that spring immediately to mind are the Merlin and the DFV) may have started off as wonderful designs but the constant improvment over many years was equally important.

Edited by gruntguru, 21 July 2009 - 23:05.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Nascar has one important advantage - development time. They are working with engines that have evolved over several decades, so the accumulated sum of knowledge is immense. Thousands of little tweaks and improvements discovered one by one can compensate to some extent for a low budget and the lack of a high-tech, clean sheet design.

You know as I was writing my post I was thinking of that but I was arguing the other side so I left it out!

You're absolutely right, how long had 2.4L V8s been the standard in F1 vs 5.7 (or is it 5.8?) V8s in NASCAR?

[cheapracer]

The greatest engines in history

...is the Chev V8 but some will think Cosworth DFV and some Ferrari will be mentioned along the way....

No engine has more success, done more laps of a racetrack while taking the kids away on school holidays.

We really are brainwashed by F1.

[cheapracer]

I'm not sure I agree with the F1 slag.

I'm coming from the money side of it, it's a scam so people through the industry can put a lot of money into their own pockets. I've dealt with their ilk, they just pull numbers out of mid air when it comes to money.

[gruntguru]

...is the Chev V8 but some will think Cosworth DFV

SB Chev was in my mind but didn't go on the (very short) list.

[cheapracer]

SB Chev was in my mind but didn't go on the (very short) list.

Well I have actually seen a Cosworth in a Speedway car but just the one. I haven't seen one at the Drags nor Bonneville nor a Jetboat nor an Ocean Racer nor towing a boat ....blah blah

[gruntguru]

Well I have actually seen a Cosworth in a Speedway car but just the one. I haven't seen one at the Drags nor Bonneville nor a Jetboat nor an Ocean Racer nor towing a boat ....blah blah ;)

I've seen a lot of machines with Briggs and Stratton engines, Holden Reds. . . . . .

[gruntguru]

Well I have actually seen a Cosworth in a Speedway car

Not a DFV surely? i've seen a few BDA's in midgets.

Edited by gruntguru, 22 July 2009 - 02:16.

[Canuck]

I'm coming from the money side of it, it's a scam so people through the industry can put a lot of money into their own pockets. I've dealt with their ilk, they just pull numbers out of mid air when it comes to money.

I keep trying to pull money out of mid-air when it comes to numbers, but no luck yet.

I'm not sure I understand. I mean, at the end of the day, the theory for making power seems to be all on the table - we (haha...not me) know all the sizes, all the curves, all the edges, ripples, finishes and what-not - the secret isn't in the "what" anymore, it's the "how". Surely pumping no end of money into either sport will give the same results at the end of the day - the absolute peak performance available in that design box. I don't know what an F1 engine sells for, but I do know the Ford dealer in my hometown is on a first-name basis with at least one NASCAR engine builder (supplier to their multiple World Champion jet boat racing effort), and those engines aren't exactly cheap. In the late 80's or early 90's, the big story going around town was that "Daddy bought a $20k Bill Elliot shortblock for the boy's boat". The progressed from there to running full engines.

Damn...even I don't know what my point was now

I think both engines are the same in that they're relevance to road cars is nil.

[Henri Greuter]

...is the Chev V8 but some will think Cosworth DFV and some Ferrari will be mentioned along the way....

No engine has more success, done more laps of a racetrack while taking the kids away on school holidays.

We really are brainwashed by F1.

How about the Miller Four?
Later on better known as the Offy?
Basic standard design 1935 with some 250 hp, developed into the 1300+ HP turbo version of the early 70's.

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 22 July 2009 - 09:08.

[Tony Matthews]

I haven't seen one at the Drags nor Bonneville nor a Jetboat nor an Ocean Racer nor towing a boat ....blah blah ;)

There was a marinised version of the DFV, my only book on Cosworth doesn't have the photo and details that I have seen somewhere, but the story was that the 'driver' was told not to get carried away and, if the situation arose, win 'by too much'. Guess what happened... Engine banned.

I have huge respect for those who can coax several times the original hp from a production engine and get it to hold together, but surely we are comparing apples with oranges. No-one would build an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for sole use as a racing - circuit - engine, or a fully stress-bearing, four-cam, short-life'd, minimum weight power unit, capable of over 20,000 rpm for a mass-production road car.

[ferruccio]

Very interesting article. One that simply amplifies how different Nascar V8s and F1 V8s are. In no way can we judge one race series or race series engine to be 'better' than the other. The very few 'similarities' doesn't signify much in terms of 'merit' in my view.

F1 will continue to exist as the 'pinnacle' of motorsport technology, though the powers in F1 are trying hard to curb that because the well funded engineers always find ways to significantly improve lap times every year and it seems FIA is losing the battle every year. Engineering an F1 engine is incredibly challenging not becuse it's difficult to produce a flat plane 90deg 2.4L V8 revving 19,000rpm but rather because it is an integral part of the chassis itself, especially it's influence on vehicle dynamics and aerodynamics.

Nascar simply isn't about that. I honestly don't follow it that closely but like most other series (bar F1) it seems more like a proper sport. F1 is a technology showcase (supposedly) trying hard to pass off as a real sport. It will and should always be the pinnacle of motorsport technology. Whether fans will appreciate it is a different matter altogether.

The more interesting question for me is, if a team in F1 swapped places with a team in Nascar, which one will get up to speed quicker

Edited by ferruccio, 22 July 2009 - 10:21.

[cheapracer]

I've seen a lot of machines with Briggs and Stratton engines, Holden Reds. . . . . .

Just out of interest I think it's staggering that Briggs and Stratton make 80 thousand engines per day - 3 factories running 24 hours a day.

B and S are also used in drags, speedway, circuit, grasstrack, dirt karts ... although I haven't seen one towing a caravan on holidays

F1 will continue to exist as the 'pinnacle' of motorsport technology

Bullshit, says who? Did you see my line "we really are brainwashed by F1"?

Damn...even I don't know what my point was now

I think both engines are the same in that they're relevance to road cars is nil.

Ha! I have those days

Not at all true, Chev have developed their road engines quite nicely with the aid of racing knowledge.

. No-one would build an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for sole use as a racing - circuit - engine,

Not sure what you meant Tony so I can only answer what I see.

Many a cast iron SBC engine has been built for the sole use for racing including series such as F5000, Can Am - Oz 'any engine' Sports sedans favoured SBC and whipped Cosworth.

Edited by cheapracer, 22 July 2009 - 11:03.

[Tony Matthews]

Not sure what you meant Tony so I can only answer what I see.

Many a cast iron SBC engine has been built for the sole use for racing including series such as F5000, Can Am - Oz 'any engine' Sports sedans favoured SBC and whipped Cosworth.

I wasn't specific enough - what am I like? I meant in a Formula 1 context. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just different. I don't know enough about modified - or built-for-purpose - iron V8's to comment. Unlike Racing Comments, it is reasonably important on this forum to have some idea of one's subject before sounding off...

The DFV was not a resounding success in Sports Car racing, as the DFL etc, but went on to some fame as the DFX, barely modified.

[ferruccio]

Bullshit, says who? Did you see my line "we really are brainwashed by F1"?

Says who you ask? Says ME of course. The final authority on such things. You are welcome to prove your point and refute my statement.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Nascar simply isn't about that. I honestly don't follow it that closely but like most other series (bar F1) it seems more like a proper sport. F1 is a technology showcase (supposedly) trying hard to pass off as a real sport.

The more interesting question for me is, if a team in F1 swapped places with a team in Nascar, which one will get up to speed quicker

And hard to say. For pure technology, F1 team. But in NASCAR there is much more cooperation between teams. Big name teams will loan resources, parts, extra pit crew guys, information, tips, etc to teams that struggle. An F1 team with an F1 attitude towards the other teams would fail miserably even if they had the most brilliant engineers and fabricators in the world.

[cheapracer]

Says who you ask? Says ME of course. The final authority on such things. You are welcome to prove your point and refute my statement.

Praise oh thee Ferruccio!


Various era's where F1 was behind others - Can Am, Group C and list when ahead - turbo'ed, stability controlled, electronic era, CF and aero advances but it's pretty simple just to say that F1 has nearly always been too heavily regulated in most era's to call it the technical pinnacle.

For me I would say in recent times rallying has been the pinnacle of tech. Electronic gearbox and diff control, 4WD, turbo'ed, stability controls, variable valve timing, working headlights (consider the conditions before you laugh at that).

I think my Mazda 6 has more complexity that a current F1, serious.

[DOF_power]

I have nothing but respect for what those Guys do with "old tech" pushrod motors and makes me sad what they can achieve for the price making F1 look like such nonsense.

I said recently that F1 should go to 4.0 V8's with square bore/stroke and 5 speed gearbox to dramatically cut costs.

Why ?!

The point of Grand Prix racing wasn't to be cheapo spec crap racertainment, it was to be a platform for relevant technological development as well as experimentation.

I'd open up the rules to hybrids/diesels/hydrogen and eCVTs.

And **** the driving skill B*ers.

In only that garagiste era would have never happened.

[DOF_power]

Praise oh thee Ferruccio!


Various era's where F1 was behind others - Can Am, Group C and list when ahead - turbo'ed, stability controlled, electronic era, CF and aero advances but it's pretty simple just to say that F1 has nearly always been too heavily regulated in most era's to call it the technical pinnacle.

For me I would say in recent times rallying has been the pinnacle of tech. Electronic gearbox and diff control, 4WD, turbo'ed, stability controls, variable valve timing, working headlights (consider the conditions before you laugh at that).

I think my Mazda 6 has more complexity that a current F1, serious.

The active ride car where the last true GP cars IMO and maybe the only true GP cars after the silver arrows.
And the Golden Era of GP racing is considered the 1930s for good reasons. The MB and AU cars where years too decades ahead of anything else.

But the point is without the pinnacle belief/perception nobody would give a **** about F1.

I honestly wished GP/F1 GP would have died with WWII or the ban of the active rides. There was need to prostitute a once glorious sport to the specter or racertainment, spec crap and comatose driver fanboys.


Either clear cut technological supremacy and freedom of innovation or death/kill the series.

Edited by DOF_power, 22 July 2009 - 15:11.

[ferruccio]

Praise oh thee Ferruccio!


Various era's where F1 was behind others - Can Am, Group C and list when ahead - turbo'ed, stability controlled, electronic era, CF and aero advances but it's pretty simple just to say that F1 has nearly always been too heavily regulated in most era's to call it the technical pinnacle.

For me I would say in recent times rallying has been the pinnacle of tech. Electronic gearbox and diff control, 4WD, turbo'ed, stability controls, variable valve timing, working headlights (consider the conditions before you laugh at that).

I think my Mazda 6 has more complexity that a current F1, serious.

Well I did say "...'pinnacle' of motorsport technology". I deliberately did not say "..pinnacle of automotive technology" because the technologies developed in F1 have little relevance to the auto industry. However i stand by my statement "..pinnacle of motorsport technology" because of the following. Bear in mind that the forum topic is on engines. F1 vs Nascar.

1. F1 engines produce the highest specific power output for any naturally aspirated series, given the regulations. Certainly F1 despite heavy engine restrictions of late is still more free than any other series out there. You can forget about comparison to single make series or same spec series (2-3 engine suppliers)
2. F1 engines and the rest of the car certainly employ the best packaging solutions compared to any other series out there, given the regulations.
3. The F1 industry still employ as far as I can see, the best motorsport brains in the world.

Having said all that, rallying is certainly more relevant to the auto industry and to spectators. Certainly better, more relevant technologies like e-diff, etc can be found there. However my final point is, given any set of regulations, it is in F1 that the best solutions will be found. For example, F1 gearboxes now use 'seamless', 'zero shift' boxes in the tightest, lightest packaging for a box with 'conventional' (not dual clutch, CVT etc, since regs prohibit them) box. And at least Ferrari have long dispensed with telescopic dampers in favour of small rotary dampers. These are just a few examples. But of course even Ferraris own road cars don't benefit from some of this interesting technology

[McGuire]

I wonder if the difference in cost is as great as advertised. As a generalization, F1 costs tend to be overstated and overestimated, while NASCAR costs tend to be understated and underestimated. We could construct a unit cost estimate for engines on the pallet ready to run: say, $1 Million for the F1 engine and $100,000 for the NASCAR engine, just to pull some round figures out of the air. I suspect that at least half that difference is in business models and accounting.

As the article at the top of the thread illustrates, there are interesting similarities and differences between the two engines. The most obvious similarity: Both are V8s. The most obvious difference: pushrod 2V valvetrain vs. 4V DOHC. However, go into the shops and you will see exactly the same tools and processes in use. The pushrod Ilmor Indy engine has long intrigued and impressed people, rightly so I think. There is something fascinating about cutting edge technology wrapped in an ostensibly backward package. Current NASCAR engines are equally refined and sophisticated, arguably moreso. The state of the art has advanced in 15 years.

[Ben]

...is the Chev V8 but some will think Cosworth DFV and some Ferrari will be mentioned along the way....

No engine has more success, done more laps of a racetrack while taking the kids away on school holidays.

We really are brainwashed by F1.

I would still go with the Cosworth on the basis that it didn't just change things as an engine, but it also changed the way F1 chassis were engineered. To take the idea of duplicating functionality as far as saying the engine itself should be primary structure was a big step.

Ben

[DOF_power]

All of witch are charity engines like that Cosworth piece of crap.
The EU needs to do something to eliminate these bans/freezes/restrictions and bring back technological relevance.
Motorsport will dead if stays irrelevant like it is now.

[DOF_power]

>
^ Here's what Mario Illien

"Personally I don't find it very interesting any more," he said in an interview with motorline.cc and echoing the view put forward recently by departed manufacturer Honda. "I have to say on one hand I am glad that I am no longer there.


"The worst thing is that they are spending exactly the same money today as we spent in the past, but for relatively little progress."

Illien said that although the modern engine regulations have introduced ‘stability’, he joked that the same principle of stability can also be applied to how fascinating this era of F1 engine development is.

"Now no one talks about the engines," he lamented. "(In F1) it is practically a standard engine, with too much regulation. A great many parameters (of the designs) are prescribed.

"My passion in racing is for the development, and that is no longer present."

And that's why Luca Marmorini left, and it also echoes what Mauro Forghieri had to say.

What a deplorable situation Grand Prix racing is in today.

It's a good thing men like Enzo Ferrari, Rudolf Uhlenhaut are dead and cannot see this shameful and disgraceful situation.

It's only worse when you consider that this era could so fascinating, with the necessities and developments of the contemporary era.

[Wuzak]

I said recently that F1 should go to 4.0 V8's with square bore/stroke and 5 speed gearbox to dramatically cut costs.

Sounds a lot like GP2.

[gruntguru]

Many a cast iron SBC engine has been built for the sole use for racing including series such as F5000, Can Am - Oz 'any engine' Sports sedans favoured SBC and whipped Cosworth.

Maybe if we replace the word "build" in Tony's original quote with the word "design"?

No-one would design an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for sole use as a racing - circuit - engine,

[cheapracer]

1. F1 engines produce the highest specific power output for any naturally aspirated series, given the regulations.

Bullshit, a cheap common production 45hp 125cc MX bike sold in the thousands daily shits all over a F1 engine.

.

[DOF_power]

Bullshit, a cheap common production 45hp 125cc MX bike sold in the thousands daily shits all over a F1 engine.

.

?!
Seriously, how long would it last in 4 GP races ?!
Cosworth hasn't failed twice for no reason.

The old V10s beat the living crap out of any current spec crap V8. But that's because the current rules demand lazy a** spec crap engines so that any sorry bunch of losers, like Cosworth, can "join" and be competitive.

[gruntguru]

Bullshit, a cheap common production 45hp 125cc MX bike sold in the thousands daily shits all over a F1 engine.

Two stroke.

[ferruccio]

Either clear cut technological supremacy and freedom of innovation or death/kill the series.

I agree.

Either allow it to innovate, or let it die. We have more than enough same spec series already existing around the world. F1 should be allowed to be what it is, even if it kills it

F1 should stop trying to become A1GP, GP2, IRL etc

Personally, I want F1 engines to be allowed to rev o 30,000 rpm

Or better still, go back to 4cyl Turbos. 1.5L? Boost pressure policing to limit hp is easier and the teams can still innovate engine and turbo technology all they want. These seem more relevant to the auto industry.

Edited by ferruccio, 23 July 2009 - 02:10.

[cheapracer]

Two stroke.

And?????????????????

?!
Seriously, how long would it last in 4 GP races ?!
Cosworth hasn't failed twice for no reason.

Did you mean 4 seasons? No problem with the occasional ring change. I can run 4 GP's in one day, throw it in the shed and come out next weekend, clean the air filter and do the same again, then the next weekend.....

Or better still, go back to 4cyl Turbos. 1.5L? Boost pressure policing to limit hp is easier and the teams can still innovate engine and turbo technology all they want. These seem more relevant to the auto industry.

Thats on the cards already I think, 2012??

Edited by cheapracer, 23 July 2009 - 05:17.

[Canuck]

And?????????????????

I think that speaks for itself. Different beast all together. If we're going to allow a straight comparison with reed-valves and expansion chambers (and burning oil), why don't we add nitromethane-fueled engines and supercharged engines and turbines too?

[cheapracer]

I think that speaks for itself. Different beast all together. If we're going to allow a straight comparison with reed-valves and expansion chambers (and burning oil), why don't we add nitromethane-fueled engines and supercharged engines and turbines too?

Because the OP said this...

"F1 engines produce the highest specific power output for any naturally aspirated series, given the regulations".

...thats why.


MX bikes and GP bikes run NA engines on pump fuel as F1 does and their specific power outputs are higher than those of F1.

Maybe if we replace the word "build" in Tony's original quote with the word "design"?

No-one would design an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for sole use as a racing - circuit - engine,

Can Am circa 60' - 70's

Totally free engine choice and yet most chose an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for the sole use as a racing - circuit - engine.

Edited by cheapracer, 23 July 2009 - 07:17.

[Henri Greuter]

.





Can Am circa 60' - 70's

Totally free engine choice and yet most chose an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for the sole use as a racing - circuit - engine.

Have a better look on the situation an dyou understand better why they opted for Detroit junk at that time.

Because there was little if anfy factory involvement by engine builders to begin with.
And few if any participants with unlimited amounts of money available.
much puwere was the easiest to get from big engines.
the most easily available big engines were the Detroit boat anchors, which were fairly cheap too.
And experience with them gained in racing already as well.

All those circumstances made Detroit Junk the most suitable option.

Porche was the first with money at hand to search for something else/better...
See what happened then....


Henri

[Tony Matthews]

Totally free engine choice and yet most chose an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for the sole use as a racing - circuit - engine.

Probably because this was familiar - the USA has shown very little in the way of innovation in motor racing, concentrating, rightly or wrongly, on the 'show', and I speak as an enthusiast fo most forms of American racing series. If it hadn't been for Jack Brabham and Colin Chapman, assuming no cross-over from any other, more enlightened series, no doubt the Indy 500 would still be a race for Roadsters.

[McGuire]

Probably because this was familiar - the USA has shown very little in the way of innovation in motor racing, concentrating, rightly or wrongly, on the 'show', and I speak as an enthusiast fo most forms of American racing series. If it hadn't been for Jack Brabham and Colin Chapman, assuming no cross-over from any other, more enlightened series, no doubt the Indy 500 would still be a race for Roadsters.

Sure, F1 had gone mid-engined decades earlier.

Reminds me of the apocryphal Times headline: Channel Fogged In, Continent Isolated

Where did Chapman get his engines, tires, and pit crew?

[Henri Greuter]

Probably because this was familiar - the USA has shown very little in the way of innovation in motor racing, concentrating, rightly or wrongly, on the 'show', and I speak as an enthusiast fo most forms of American racing series. If it hadn't been for Jack Brabham and Colin Chapman, assuming no cross-over from any other, more enlightened series, no doubt the Indy 500 would still be a race for Roadsters.

Tony,
I am in pretty much the same situation as you regarding the enthusiams about US racing. But for the sake of American ingenuity, I hope that at least one constructor eventually would have followed the trend wthin F1 racing, even without Cooper and Lotus.
For a country that managed to get to the moon within little more than 8 years after the commitment was made, you may expect that at least one clever mind would have brought Indy out of the roadster era....
Even if few, (if any....) worked at Detroit, not every brght US born mind was working at NASA only I may hope....

Henri

[cheapracer]

Probably because this was familiar - the USA has shown very little in the way of innovation in motor racing, concentrating, rightly or wrongly, on the 'show', and I speak as an enthusiast fo most forms of American racing series. If it hadn't been for Jack Brabham and Colin Chapman, assuming no cross-over from any other, more enlightened series, no doubt the Indy 500 would still be a race for Roadsters.

McLaren started with fancy motors, Climax and very special 1 off hand built Olds aluminium engines and then went to the Chevs.

****, I just realised I missed the absolutely obvious nomination for this, Ford and the GT40. Pushrods blowing off all the fancy Ferrari etc. engines and on their own home turf too.

And thats when the **** started by the way - 3.0L engines to reduce cost - yeah right, multivalve multi cammed engines are always cheaper than 1 cam and pushrods.

Edited by cheapracer, 23 July 2009 - 09:41.

[Tony Matthews]

Tony,
I am in pretty much the same situation as you regarding the enthusiams about US racing. But for the sake of American ingenuity, I hope that at least one constructor eventually would have followed the trend wthin F1 racing, even without Cooper and Lotus.
For a country that managed to get to the moon within little more than 8 years after the commitment was made, you may expect that at least one clever mind would have brought Indy out of the roadster era....
Even if few, (if any....) worked at Detroit, not every brght US born mind was working at NASA only I may hope....

Henri

It's got more to do with challange than ability, Henri, the challange set by President Kennedy was what got the Americans, with help from the German war effort - also a challange - to the moon. All the great innovators have challanged themselves, as much as accepted pressure from outside. I'm sure the world is full of very clever people who will never achieve their potential through lack of desire, determination or challange. I'm not being critical of the engineers of any nationality, or any discipline, I think I've stated often enough that I have respect, man, respect, just that it is human nature that most people, engineers or not, will accept the status quo, in this instance, if you can use familiar technology to produce a thin-wall iron block, single cam and two valves per cylider that gives loads of reliable horsepower, why bother with all-ali, four-cam, four valve screamers?

[gruntguru]

Can Am circa 60' - 70's

Totally free engine choice and yet most chose an iron block, two valve, pushrod motor for the sole use as a racing - circuit - engine.

You have still replaced the word "design" with "chose". There is a big difference. My point (and I think Tony's) is no one would come up with pushrod 2-valve for a clean-sheet race engine design.

[Henri Greuter]

You have still replaced the word "design" with "chose". There is a big difference. My point (and I think Tony's) is no one would come up with pushrod 2-valve for a clean-sheet race engine design.

It has happened only once in recent times.
And only because rhe rules permitted such an engine to have two major advantages: extra capacity and extra turboboost.
These two factors combined providing such a power advantage on the regualr racing engines that it made sense to pursue the option.

year: 1994:
Engine: Ilmor 265E alias Mercedes Benz 500I

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 23 July 2009 - 10:17.

[cheapracer]

if you can use familiar technology to produce a thin-wall iron block, single cam and two valves per cylider that gives loads of reliable horsepower, why bother with all-ali, four-cam, four valve screamers?

Because the rulemakers want it that way for reasons I have always missed.

Grunt, obviously people do design them but why scratch build them when the basics can be bought over the counter and can't be improved on? Notice the aluminum performance replacements blocks are barely changed in design yet they have a free hand to do so.

Yes henri, I forgot the Ilmor, very successful.

[Henri Greuter]

Yes henri, I forgot the Ilmor, very successful.

A pushrod indeed. But other then that, that engine was a purebred racing engine in every other aspect than the compromises required by and because of having only two valves and a single cam. It was much more advanced than everytinge Detroit ever made till then (1994) and maybe even up to today.
Had the design been closer to the "Detroit Boat anchors" then the power advantage id had would not ben as large is it eventually was.

Rating the Ilmor 265E on equal terms with a piece of Ditroit Iron, that is an insult to the men of Ilmor who designed and built it and the men who made it work on the track.

Henri

[DOF_power]

Probably because this was familiar - the USA has shown very little in the way of innovation in motor racing, concentrating, rightly or wrongly, on the 'show', and I speak as an enthusiast fo most forms of American racing series. If it hadn't been for Jack Brabham and Colin Chapman, assuming no cross-over from any other, more enlightened series, no doubt the Indy 500 would still be a race for Roadsters.

The first mid-engined cars ran at Indy in the 30s, and where inspired by the Auto Unions.
And Mickey Thompson run Dan Gurney in a mid engined car in 62.

In Europe it was aussie Jack Brabham that convinced Cooper to go all mid-engined and go into F1. The first Cooper F1 was actually a Brabham car build in the Cooper garage.

Both MB and Alfa Romeo experimented/had mid-engined car in 30s and 40s but chose the conventional layout for several reason (the lack of a Bernd Rosemeyer to master these less stable less drivable cars being one of the them).

Many of the european good old boys disliked and/or distrusted these mid engined cars, just like in America.

[DOF_power]

A pushrod indeed. But other then that, that engine was a purebred racing engine in every other aspect than the compromises required by and because of having only two valves and a single cam. It was much more advanced than everytinge Detroit ever made till then (1994) and maybe even up to today.
Had the design been closer to the "Detroit Boat anchors" then the power advantage id had would not ben as large is it eventually was.

Rating the Ilmor 265E on equal terms with a piece of Ditroit Iron, that is an insult to the men of Ilmor who designed and built it and the men who made it work on the track.

Henri

True, it was a custom made loophole exotic really.