Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Formula Cheap


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#51 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,215 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 14 July 2014 - 14:40

Here's the drag breakdown for an f1 car. A=1.25

 

                           cd      cl         hp at 320 kph     

Base shape         0.3     0        216

ground effect      0.2     2        144

wings                  0.4     0.8     287

 

total                   0.9     2.8      646

 

So the wings  provide around half the downforce for twice the power consumption of the body in ground effect

 

Thanks Greg, those numbers sound realistic and make very clear how much upside there is for active aero in an F1 type car.  Anyone ever done variable geometry GE tunnels?  Looks quite obvious if it were permitted.



Advertisement

#52 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 July 2014 - 15:43

safety cell 35

driver 60 (poor old webber)

helmet

clothes

seat

seatbelt

steering wheel and column and rack and tierods

 

engine

Hayabusa engines with gearbox comes in at 110kg dry +- Lets use that for mockup for now.

 

clutch&gearbox

diff

halfshafts

fuel 40kg

rads

oil cooler system

front and rear suspension arms,

springs shocks

body structure and covers

wings

wheels 16kg

tires 44 kg

Brake disc 1-1.5kg x 4  https://www.google.n...1 brakes weight

Caliper 1.6kg x 4 http://www.apracing....utus.aspx?cid=5

uprights

electrics

electronics

etc


Edited by MatsNorway, 14 July 2014 - 16:22.


#53 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 July 2014 - 05:28

I suppose that since a single race was specified, a car could be built at a "reasonable" cost provided the constructors (I am assuming it is not a one-make race) worked in isolation and any testing results they have remain secret.

 

It may even be that two or three cars will be sufficiently close to one another to provide decent competition.

 

Add a second or third race, or even 18 more, and the costs would sky-rocket, since those who were behind would try to catch up and those at the front would try to maintain their lead.



#54 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,479 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:36

The OP only specified certain performance targets (including single race duration). The winner is the cheapest car to meet those targets (even if its not the fastest car).


Edited by gruntguru, 15 July 2014 - 06:36.


#55 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:24

Then you don't need a race at all - just a test to demonstrate the targeted performance.



#56 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:44

 

safety cell 35

driver 60 (poor old webber)

helmet

clothes

seat

seatbelt

steering wheel and column and rack and tierods

 

engine

Hayabusa engines with gearbox comes in at 110kg dry +- Lets use that for mockup for now.

 

clutch&gearbox

diff

halfshafts

fuel 40kg

rads

oil cooler system

front and rear suspension arms,

springs shocks

body structure and covers

wings

wheels 16kg

tires 44 kg

Brake disc 1-1.5kg x 4  https://www.google.n...1 brakes weight

Caliper 1.6kg x 4 http://www.apracing....utus.aspx?cid=5

uprights

electrics

electronics

etc

 

The Suzuki would never have enough power for any of the parameters. Speed, acceleration yet alone pull the drag of the aero required. This whole thread is about F1 performance on the cheap,, that is doable but would still be far from cheap. The cornering force is the problem. 600+ hp cheap engine is too heavy, as probably most of the other comonents. Straight line speed is fairly easy the rest really not. Though with no rules it could be done far cheaper than current F1s,, they did just a few years ago before they went stupid hybrid and grooved tyres etc etc I suspect many 80s 90s F1s could do it with some upgrades to aero tyres and the like.  Possibly it could be done with a venerable later Cosworth. They had the power. And cost a LOT less money than the current  stupid cars that are far slower than last year


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 15 July 2014 - 08:51.


#57 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 July 2014 - 11:33

Actually the thread is about making a 5G car cheaply which.. cant be done. So now most of us is speculating on it even beeing possible. A 1.5L engine is more than sufficient to make the needed horsepower. We surpassed the hp number 30 years ago with that engine size.

 

Also the Suzuki can be stroked to 1.5L thats why i think it is a good start as at least a mere mockup.

 

It might be so that due to the drivers weight its easier if the car gets bigger.. But no one is stating any numbers on that so i at least go by what they say.

 

And currently one option is 400kg 650hp.

 

400kg

-125kg engine and gearbox

-60kg driver

-35kg safety cell

-4kg brake discs

-6.4kg Calipers

-40kg fuel

-16kg rims

-44kg Tires

 

69.5kg left.... i do not think it is doable. But i hope someone could argue about the tires and rims because it sounds alot given carbonrims and low profile tires would be possible.

 

If we go up in weight other existing engine combos become relevant options as more hp is needed, wankels come inn at 120kg completely stock.


Edited by MatsNorway, 15 July 2014 - 11:34.


#58 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,479 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 July 2014 - 23:43

I think 500hp, 500kg would be enough for everything except perhaps mid-speed acceleration. I also agree that a Hayabusa turbo will make a reliable 500 hp.



#59 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 July 2014 - 09:32

Not specifically for the specs in the opening post, but on a more general level, any "formula cheap" of the future will be electric powered.

 

In the same way that it happened with the "toys" of radio control model aircraft and cars, getting rid of the more messy, complex, expensive, unreliable, noisy glow plug engines and putting in electric motors. Now more popular at a fraction of the price, with less maintenance.

 

Battery technology isnt here yet (even Formula E have only about 300hp)... but one day.



Advertisement

#60 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 16 July 2014 - 15:41

It all depends on what the allowed budget is - maybe Mr. McDonald should specify an amount for the budget - it is his question after all. Without a target budget the question reduces to a "Formula Libre" one. The "full body fan car" probably would be best.

 

Maybe a better way of thinking about it would be, "if you had to make a car to race next weekend with these performance parameters, could you do it and how would you do it - but your expense is subtracted from the prize money".  There is some incentive to do it as cheap as possible.



#61 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 16 July 2014 - 16:10

I thought it 200mph top speed and 5g cornering, not together?

 

 

 I perhaps should have said "could make the 107% rule circa 2002" or some such.

 

Could some joker make something out of a sprint car, or bolted together Hayabusa motors, a blown 350, a turbine off a airliner APU, off the shelf helicopter engine... Maybe I should have specified "off the shelf engine block".  Doesn't matter if the shelf is for cars, planes, whatever.  Can a WWII Mustang Merlin be made to do that?   Can paper napkin aerodynamics achieve that?


Edited by chipmcdonald, 16 July 2014 - 16:11.


#62 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 16 July 2014 - 16:13

The thread is about matching F1 performance on the cheap, not a cheap, alternate formula.

 

 

Yes.



#63 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 July 2014 - 21:45

 Can a WWII Mustang Merlin be made to do that? 

 

That'd be an interesting callenge. The Rolls-Royce Merlin and the licence built Packard V-1650 derivative were over 2m in length and weigh 750kg.

 

Power wouldn't be a problem, throttle response might.



#64 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 16 July 2014 - 21:49

You can make it go constant rpm and throttle some sort of a clutch system much the same way like a propeller. Might give some cooling challenges...

 

lets see 600hp haya /120kg = 5hp pr kg. 4000hp? merlin / 750kg. = 5.33hp pr kg.. oh nice.. the driver stuff becomes way smaller part of the pusle.. hush you about gearbox and clutch ++ it was a fun idea.

 

But i recon the car would be at least 3m wide or something to get the needed diffuser size.


Edited by MatsNorway, 16 July 2014 - 21:51.


#65 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,479 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 July 2014 - 23:55

Hmm - might have trouble meeting the 107% rule if it won't even fit on the track.



#66 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 01:21

Haha! I also think running Monaco might be an issue. Oh and imagine the price for the 15-18" carbon ceramic one off brakes.


Edited by MatsNorway, 17 July 2014 - 01:22.


#67 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 July 2014 - 01:43

You can make it go constant rpm and throttle some sort of a clutch system much the same way like a propeller. Might give some cooling challenges...

 

lets see 600hp haya /120kg = 5hp pr kg. 4000hp? merlin / 750kg. = 5.33hp pr kg.. oh nice.. the driver stuff becomes way smaller part of the pusle.. hush you about gearbox and clutch ++ it was a fun idea.

 

But i recon the car would be at least 3m wide or something to get the needed diffuser size.

 

4000hp would be a stretch. Certainly woudl only be available for short bursts. 3000hp would be more likely.

 

The two stage Merlin is 88" (2235mm) long, 30" (762mm) wide and 40" (1016mm) tall. The single stage version is about 10" shorter, but is roughly the same height and width. Some height may be saved by changing from updraft to downdraft carburettor.

 

The other problem for this thread is that they aint cheap!



#68 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,609 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:15

On the optimum g website is a free 10 parameter laptime simulator. http://www.optimumg....are/optimumlap/

 

now you can figure out all the answers yourself. My first stab at an F1 car got round Spa in 111s, actual record pole is 106s. Not bad! Incidentally I'm going to switch tire load sensitivity on, and try and figure out a good value to use.


Edited by Greg Locock, 17 July 2014 - 05:58.


#69 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:48

I think the overall answer is use existing and proven technology to keep it cheap. What burns up money is either trying to learn and de-bug new technology ( 1970's ground effect, turbo's) or find the very, very last bit of speed within tight rules ( todays F1 or top,level saloon car racing).

 

Also time to result is critical , urgency = multiple parallel activity= cost.

 

So I would just turbo charge a 4 cylnder of the shelf racing engine (a cosworth turbo is good for 600 bhp I think)  and build a small car with wide tunnels and big, high, suspension mounted wings.

 

I would make the wings movable to mininise high speed drag and , if possible have the tunnel floors adjustable too., maybe pnuematic bladders.

 

It would need pit stops but that would allow the tyres to be changed as well to maintain speed.


Edited by mariner, 22 July 2014 - 07:49.


#70 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:36

A cosworth turbo is good for 800hp+ on the track. Pump fuel. No methanol. But yea 600hp is dirt cheap.

 

You could chance tires with the car moving. Get creative..


Edited by MatsNorway, 22 July 2014 - 12:41.


#71 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 1,464 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:22

http://www.google.co...s/US20020149235



#72 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,215 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 23 July 2014 - 15:38

Yep.  That's the basic idea.



#73 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 July 2014 - 03:20

A cosworth turbo is good for 800hp+ on the track. Pump fuel. No methanol. But yea 600hp is dirt cheap.

 

You could chance tires with the car moving. Get creative..

I hate to say this but that is dyno run. Where the engine can make massive numbers. Which are USELESS for racing or even driving. Those engines are good for 600 hp max in the real world, and that for short periods of time. And that is near undriveable at that. 

And after all that those engines are actually quite heavy. Remember the Sierras of the day, bulk wheelspin everywhere and that with between 500 and 550 hp in race trim. They were near undriveable.

I have raced against 650 hp 2 litre turbos, and driven by them with 550hp of Chevvy,, most of that power is useable however

I suspect the 500hp Hyabusa turbo is similar dyno run power too.

I live in the real world where the engine has to be useable, and last longer than about 30 seconds!



#74 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:38

Lee you cant do 300km't+ wheelies with an undrivable engine. Im not saying the hayabusa got exacly those 499hp as claimed but it is up there and it certainly isn't undrivable. Someone talk to this man.

 

rallycross cars got 550-600hp with a restrictor. Is it that hard to accept that there is more powerful cars that also is drivable. Someone talk to this man.



#75 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,479 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 July 2014 - 23:37

Lee these are similar to the engines that were used in F1 in the 1980's. Restricted to 1.5 litres they were making 500+ hp in 1977 and even with boost restricted to 2.5 bar in 1988, they were producing near 700hp. Those engines needed to be driveable and to last more than 30 seconds. They seemed to work quite well in F1 cars and would probably do the job we are discussing in this thread.

 

26 years later. Can someone match that performance with a YB Cosworth or turbo Hayabusa and no boost limit? Of course they can. Could your 550 hp Chev do what is asked in this thread? Probably not. Too heavy, too bulky, CG too high.



#76 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 25 July 2014 - 15:43

Of course given the cheapness of Chevy Big Blocks and snowmobile engines JH and GM probably had the solution 40 years ago.

 

 

I love the way it sinks down as the fans spool up!

 

Think carbon chassis and brakes, 40 years of skirt development and the preponderance of low/medium speed corners on modern F1 circuits.- it would fly.


Edited by mariner, 25 July 2014 - 15:44.


#77 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 26 July 2014 - 20:05

 

.... that's ok, Apple's lawyers will be on that right away.