191 replies to this topic

[ced381]

What car do you think would win a time attack session between a turbo-era F1 and a modern F1? Same driver, same day, same weather conditions.

Let's say Brabham-BMW BT54 vs BMW Sauber F1.08.

This car was able to produce up to 1200hp in qualifying trim, so I guess that on a straight line it would clearly win. Also it had great aerodynamics for the time, it had an extremely low-line and good cornering capabilities.

What car do you think would win?

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

The turbo car would lose, but it would be more fun to watch

[ced381]

Ok, but why would the turbo lose? I want details!

[Bill Sherwood]

I also assume(d) that the turbo monster would be faster in a straight line than the fastest V-10's.

But would they?

I guestimate about 650 ft-lbs (based on about 1300hp @ 11,000rpm) with maybe a little more in the middling revs when the boost hits in the turbo car.
I'd guess about 320 ft-lbs for a good V-10 three litre. (say at about 17,000rpm with a max of 19,000rpm)

If we assume the top speed of both cars is about the same then the n/a car will have about (19/11) x (320/650) = 85% of the torque at the wheels.
Yes, very simplistic but there's not as much difference as I'd thought there'd be.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by ced381
What car do you think would win a time attack session between a turbo-era F1 and a modern F1? Same driver, same day, same weather conditions.

Let's say Brabham-BMW BT49 vs BMW Sauber F1.08.

This car was able to produce up to 1500hp in qualifying trim, so I guess that on a straight line it would clearly win.

The BMW turbo has a unique advantage over other engines: It produces more power with each passing year. By 2011 or so it should be up to 2000 hp and then nothing will be able to touch it.

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by McGuire


The BMW turbo has a unique advantage over other engines: It produces more power with each passing year. By 2011 or so it should be up to 2000 hp and then nothing will be able to touch it.

Paul Rousche admitted to them getting about 1470hp on a dyno in qualifying trim once. That was in Motorsport magazine in about 2001 I think.
He built them, he should know.

[ced381]

No comment...

What's the name of this engine anyway? I can't find it. All I found is that it's based on BMW's M10 engine serie. What's it's official designation?

EDIT: Ok I got it, it's M12/13.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood


Paul Rousche admitted to them getting about 1470hp on a dyno in qualifying trim once. That was in Motorsport magazine in about 2001 I think.
He built them, he should know.

Yes, I believe all hp claims in all cases. Who knows better than the person who builds them. For example, there is no point in even reading a dyno report. The salesman's word ought to be good enough for anyone.

[JacnGille]

I'd think the track used might factor into the results. Monaco and Monza have very different car requirements.

[Fat Boy]

Some of you folks are seriously underestimating how fast a modern F-1 car is. The only place the BMW could **maybe** run with a present day car is at a drag strip. Even then with the launch/tire/shifting/aero advantages, I bet it'd be close.

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by McGuire


Yes, I believe all hp claims in all cases. Who knows better than the person who builds them. For example, there is no point in even reading a dyno report. The salesman's word ought to be good enough for anyone.

*shrug*
He was very specific and it was well over a decade after they finished with them. No point in making up stories then.

[hydra]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood


*shrug*
He was very specific and it was well over a decade after they finished with them. No point in making up stories then.

Not true, hey - it's still talked about, isn't it?

[saudoso]

Senna's pole in Monza in 1985 was 1:25.084.

Alonso's Q2 time in 2007 was 1:21.356.

Barrichelos pole in 2004 was 1:20.089 ( the track record is 1:21.046 by Barrichello during race)

The track has changed a bit during the time, but I'd guess it's slower today than it was then.

[Ogami musashi]

Especially since in 2003 no qualifying specific parts were allowed and race fuel was mandatory in qualifying, since tyres, electronics and suspension are far better i think a modern F1 would accelerate faster. As far as cornering is concerned, no way any other car can beat a 2004-2006 F1 car.
Add to that the braking distance.

The closest would be a 1991 F1 car. They used to run close to now.

0-62mph for turbo cars were around 2,7sec, on renault website in 2006 it was about 2,1 seconds and i think now it is 2,3sec average.

[Catalina Park]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood


*shrug*
He was very specific and it was well over a decade after they finished with them. No point in making up stories then.

Hmm, I recall at the time they were saying that they didn't know the HP because the dyno only went to 1000. (and then I think they were stretching it a bit)

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Hmm, I recall at the time they were saying that they didn't know the HP because the dyno only went to 1000. (and then I think they were stretching it a bit)

The article I read said the dyno went to 1450hp, and the engine made a touch more than that.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood


The article I read said the dyno went to 1450hp, and the engine made a touch more than that.

If the dyno registers to 1450, that means the brake is validated to that value, absolute maximum capacity. Above that value the engine may well be making less power because the brake is giving up.

My problem with 1450 hp from 91 CID is the BMEP required, do the math. My seat-of-the-pants reflection upon that number is maybe that could happen, for one-half to one pull. After that a ring land will collapse or a connecting rod will come out to have a look around. That is not real on-the-track horsepower. That is just a number found on a dyno. Is it "true"? Sure, why not, but it doesn't mean anything. It's just an interesting data point, like how loud was the noise a second later.

At the end of the day a dyno is just a big resistance unit you are throwing the engine against. All kinds of things can happen once or for a split second but that is not valid dynomometer testing. The purpose is to reproduce what the engine can do on a road or track.

This reminds me of a story I am sure I have bored you nice folks with before. Years ago some guys in LA found an old marine dyno and had lashed it up to a Top Fuel engine. When they were almost ready to fire up they called fuel motor guru Keith Black and asked if he would like to come over and watch. He said, "Hell no, I'm too close now," and hung up.

[Bill Sherwood]

Yeah I know all that.
I'll say it again for the reading impaired-
Once only, in qualifying trim, not race trim.

[saudoso]

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
[B]As far as cornering is concerned, no way any other car can beat a 2004-2006 F1 car.

Even the ground effect ones? Wasn't downforce bigger then?

[stuartbrs]

Just a couple of things...

Firstly, the BT54 was not a ground effects car. The BT54 wings are much larger than a modern Forumla One car has, but it probably generates no-where near the grip.. tyres, suspension and aero are all a quarter of a century old technology...

Secondly, the car in the picture, is a BT52, and is utterly gorgeous...

For what its worth, I reckon a modern F1 car would cremate a car from the turbo era..

Not that its relevant, but the most painful noise I have ever heard is the Renault Turbo at the Australian Grand Prix in 1985... horrible horrible noise, it was low resonance, and felt like someone pushing a low speed drill through your eardrums... Awful... modern cars sound pretty good..

[OfficeLinebacker]

How about if we were to rephrase the question thusly:

is there a 10+ year old car that would outrun a modern F1 car?

[pUs]

Originally posted by OfficeLinebacker
How about if we were to rephrase the question thusly:

is there a 10+ year old car that would outrun a modern F1 car?

Dunno, but perhaps a 1992 Williams with vintage qualifying fuel?

[Greg Locock]

Why are you ignoring the fan car in particular, or the twin chassis Lotus? I'd have thought that at Monaco say the fan car would have an enormous advanatge.

[Bill Sherwood]

Last night I remembered that I had the actual magazine in question tucked away (I was based in Algiers for a month and had very little reading material. One of the ground engineers brought it back for me from somewhere in Europe and it kept me (relatively) sane for the rest of the month) and I dug it out.

FWIW here it is ...



And the power figures that Rosche mentions - I got them slightly wrong but pretty close ...



HTH

[McGuire]

Bullshit, in a word. That's over 1250 psi BMEP, which is Top Fuel territory (and they run on nitromethane).

The engine is not going to hold together for one full dyno pull, let alone a qualifying session.

You know, this is Motorsport magazine you are citing here, where the great tall tales and war stories of auto racing are told on a monthly basis. You might not want to take every word you read there as the straight gospel. You might want to grant the respondents the priviledge of embellishment in their recollections, which they have certainly earned.

[Bill Sherwood]

Okay next time I run into Paul Rosche I'll tell him he's wrong.
Thanks for that.

(And you got the BMEP wrong, it's under 1100)

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood

(And you got the BMEP wrong, it's under 1100)

Sure, if you are bullshitting about the rpm too. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Bill Sherwood]

I haven't 'bullshitted' anything whatsoever.
And you've simply got the numbers wrong, get over it.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Why are you ignoring the fan car in particular, or the twin chassis Lotus? I'd have thought that at Monaco say the fan car would have an enormous advanatge.

Fan car--good call! Twin chassis car--haven't heard of that one.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Just researched the twin-chassis. Brilliant. My bile couldn't help but be raised, even though it's nigh on 30 years past. I have long thought Balestre to be a tool bag of the highest order (Suzuka 1989 and 1990 being plenty to solidify his status) but this just adds to the myth, the man, the legend.

[Ogami musashi]

No car made more downforce (and overall grip) than 2004.

My point was that maybe the turbo car in qualifying has more hp, but that the traction was lower because of chassis/suspension and tyre grip. Additionally i think overall drag was far higher for those cars (even GE ones).

It seems the 2006 F1 cars used to accelerate faster than 2004 ones, if true it was surely down to tyre and electronics.

I think maybe some 91-93 cars maybe accelerated the same as they had lower drag compared to now (and made really a lot of downforce while having very good tyres).

In any case around a lap, i bet there's no chance any turbo era car would even compete with a modern F1 car They really are faster everywhere.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
I haven't 'bullshitted' anything whatsoever.
And you've simply got the numbers wrong, get over it.

The folklore of motorsports is rife with hilariously inflated horsepower claims: Novi, Auto Union, M125, BRM V16. How many examples would you like? Obviously, this is another one: the numbers do not add up no matter how you shuffle them. (1100 psi is only slightly less ridiculous than 1250.) How is it that this engine could make hundreds more hp than any of its contemporaries? Doesn't that arouse your curiosity the tiniest bit?

Roche himself is telling you the figure is at least in part a fable: the dyno was calibrated to 1400 hp by his own account but somehow it recorded 1420 or 1450 or something. Since dynos do not work that way and I am pretty sure Paul knows that, the entire deal is now thrown into question. Paul has ceased to be a disciplined dyno tester at this point and now he is telling a fishing story. Nothing wrong with that -- racing is a romance -- but let's take it for what it is.

A word about "qualifying motors." Even a grenade needs a pin. One dyno pull does not equal one qualifying lap. One dyno pull equals one straight. One lap consists of 12 to 18 pulls -- however many corners there are.

Being an engine guy I have studied many of these fabulous engine stories. A common thread runs through many of them. At some point it is discovered that by detuning the engine, it actually makes more power. (The Novi and the M125 are perfect examples.) What does that tell you?

[Bill Sherwood]

Your opinion noted and dismissed.
Given the choice of someone that actually built the engine in question or something that doesn't seem to know a lot about it, I'll choose the bloke that knows.

[robroy]

Before qualifying yesterday, ITV showed this nice clip of Martin Brundle driving the beautiful Lotus 98T.
Doesn't contain much technical insight but enjoyable....

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
Your opinion noted and dismissed.
Given the choice of someone that actually built the engine in question or something that doesn't seem to know a lot about it, I'll choose the bloke that knows.

LOL then listen to what the bloke is telling you. He is not telling you that the engine ever made a certified 1500, 1470, 1450 or 1420 hp. What he is telling you that on a good day he likes to think the engine may have shown 1420 or 1450 hp on a 1400 hp dyno for a moment. I don't dispute the latter at all. I don't even care. What I dispute is that it means a frickin' thing. Flash dyno readings have no value. They are throwaway numbers. I know that, he knows that, and you should know that.

Also, no offense but you are arguing like a teenaged girl. Don't take all this so personally. Talking cars is fun.

[robroy]

I've read that the fuel used for all F1 turbos contained 86% Toluene. I don't know much about fuels but have since read that this is used as a solvent and octane booster. How much extra power would this mixture have added to the power? Also how would it compare to nitromethane?

[McGuire]

No comparison really.

The magic F1 fuel was 86 percent toluene (about 116 octane R+M/2) and 14 percent n-heptane (0 octane) to achieve maximum 102 pump octane as per the F1 rules. Toluene's knock resistance is extremely good, about that of methanol, while its energy density is greater since it is a pure hydrocarbon (C7H8) with no oxygen content. (Methanol is CH3OH.) But the heptane gives some of that back. The high knock resistance allows more boost and compression but to be honest, the commercial racing gasoline available today is better than that. Like ordinary VP C16, which is a legitimate 117 octane. And you don't have to heat the fuel as with toluene-heavy blends. You can even buy street-legal unleaded gasoline in 103 octane, or you can go E85, which in summer blend is approximately 105 R+M/2.

On the other hand, nitromethane is a low grade explosive and a monopropellant. It will make significantly more power than any gasoline blend.

[phantom II]

That rotten swine Paul Rosche owes mcGuire $20.

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
Okay next time I run into Paul Rosche I'll tell him he's wrong.
Thanks for that.

(And you got the BMEP wrong, it's under 1100)

[J. Edlund]

Paul Rosche when interviewed by Ian Bamsey told some horsepower numbers

1980: 550 bhp @ 9500 rpm and 2.3 bar
early 1983: 640 bhp with 2.9 bar (digital engine controller introduced)
1983, round 12 and later: 750 hp with 3.4 bar using toluene based fuel by Wintershall

there is also mentioning about those "crazy power levels"

"at monza in 1986 a flash plenum pressure reading of 5.5 bar asolute at 11,000 rpm was calculated to be good for over 1300 hp"

Then somehow this calculated power output became +1400 hp on a dyno.

I also recall another interview with Rosche where he says that their dynos was limited to 1270 hp or something like that.

Although the engines did produce about 1200 hp in qualification trim in 1986, their top speeds wasn't higher than today, so one could assume that the cars also produced a great deal of drag.

There are by the way a few dyno sheets (reading 802 hp @ 9700 rpm) of a restorated M12/13 engine on http://www.gurneyfla...bof1engine.html

[McGuire]

Originally posted by phantom II
That rotten swine Paul Rosche owes mcGuire $20.

Where is that twenty I spotted you last Columbus day?

Buddhist monk walks up to a hot dog wagon, hands the vendor a twenty and says, "make me one with everything."

Vendor sticks the twenty in his pocket and hands the monk a hot dog. Monk stands there looking at the vendor, waiting.

Finally the vendor says, "change must come from within."

link

[McGuire]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
Paul Rosche when interviewed by Ian Bamsey told some horsepower numbers

1980: 550 bhp @ 9500 rpm and 2.3 bar
early 1983: 640 bhp with 2.9 bar (digital engine controller introduced)
1983, round 12 and later: 750 hp with 3.4 bar using toluene based fuel by Wintershall

there is also mentioning about those "crazy power levels"

"at monza in 1986 a flash plenum pressure reading of 5.5 bar asolute at 11,000 rpm was calculated to be good for over 1300 hp"

Then somehow this calculated power output became +1400 hp on a dyno.

I also recall another interview with Rosche where he says that their dynos was limited to 1270 hp or something like that.

Although the engines did produce about 1200 hp in qualification trim in 1986, their top speeds wasn't higher than today, so one could assume that the cars also produced a great deal of drag.

There are by the way a few dyno sheets (reading 802 hp @ 9700 rpm) of a restorated M12/13 engine on http://www.gurneyfla...bof1engine.html

The older we get, the faster we were.

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
Paul Rosche when interviewed by Ian Bamsey told some horsepower numbers

1980: 550 bhp @ 9500 rpm and 2.3 bar
early 1983: 640 bhp with 2.9 bar (digital engine controller introduced)
1983, round 12 and later: 750 hp with 3.4 bar using toluene based fuel by Wintershall

there is also mentioning about those "crazy power levels"

"at monza in 1986 a flash plenum pressure reading of 5.5 bar asolute at 11,000 rpm was calculated to be good for over 1300 hp"

Then somehow this calculated power output became +1400 hp on a dyno.

Ah, finally some other figures, rather than vague hand-waving and incorrectly calculated BMEP numbers.

Looks at those last two sentences - They're different things. They may well have got 1300hp in the car on the track and they also may well have got 1400hp with the engine on a dyno under controlled conditions. For example I know for a fact a certain Group A Ford Sierra team in Australia used to be able to 'only' get 550hp from the engine when it was in the car but 600hp from them on the dyno. (due to cooling restrictions)
The Bamsey book was written in 1998 and the Motorsport article in 2001. We don't know what specific questions were asked of Rosche. Bamsey may have asked purely about the in-car figures and the magazine asked for the outright maximum - as has been said to sell more magazines, etc.

No-one here knows and certainly no-one has come close to disproving anything like that.

[bobqzzi]

I agree that HP numbers get exaggerated as time goes by, and it is unlikely the BMW made 1400hp on the dyno- but I don't see a real mechanical reason one would fly apart if it did. BMEP doesn't really seem to be a good way to measure engine stress as it only gives an average pressure rather than the peak, which is what will break things in a catastrophic way, rather than wear things out quickly.

I made 715 hp at 7500rpm from what amounts to a warmed over 1.8L street engine with a set of good rods (stock pistons- stock clearance!, crank, bearings, hydro lifters) that lasted about a two hundred runs on a Superflow dyno until the head gasket started to seep when we tried to get it to detonate so we could measure the frequency. When I took it apart the only issue I found was some pin bore wear. My point is I am far from a professional engine builder involved in a factory backed program and the engine is question isn't a race engine by any means.

If I'm not mistaken, the Ecotech 4 cylinder drag engines are in the 1400hp range currently- perhaps Macguire will have the inside scoop on the veracity of those numbers.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by McGuire


The BMW turbo has a unique advantage over other engines: It produces more power with each passing year. By 2011 or so it should be up to 2000 hp and then nothing will be able to touch it.

Some years ago I read that the dyno gave up at 1300, now we hear the dyno took it to 1450, and yes, soon it's going to be 2k.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by J. Edlund

Although the engines did produce about 1200 hp in qualification trim in 1986, their top speeds wasn't higher than today, so one could assume that the cars also produced a great deal of drag.

Just look at the rear wing on the pic in the first post, or any other mid-80s car. They look like barn doors. That alone must have wasted 400 hp @ 200+ mph.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by bobqzzi


If I'm not mistaken, the Ecotech 4 cylinder drag engines are in the 1400hp range currently- perhaps Macguire will have the inside scoop on the veracity of those numbers.

Yep, much of the development was done around here. The Ecotec has 50 percent greater displacement, is 20 years further down the road in engine, turbo, and control systems technology, and runs on 120 rather than 102 octane fuel. And it's a drag racing engine, not a road racing engine.

[Catalina Park]

Originally posted by robroy
I've read that the fuel used for all F1 turbos contained 86% Toluene. I don't know much about fuels but have since read that this is used as a solvent and octane booster. How much extra power would this mixture have added to the power? Also how would it compare to nitromethane?

Toluene was used and is still used in a lot of commercially available fuels. It is not a magic potion but it is not snake oil either, but it will make your car jump further. (Methyl Benzine is another name for Toluene)


The same fuel with a different brand...

[McGuire]

The Shell ad is the most wonderful thing I have ever seen. This is a work of pure imagination -- as original in its vision as any great novel. Look, the white car jumps neatly over the dreaded "water pit," while the black car (boo! hiss!) falls straight in, because it is WITHOUT METHYL BENZENE.

You can't make a message any clearer than that. In fact they probably pulled a few plug wires off the black car to provide even more clarity: Do not drive your car WITHOUT METHYL BENZENE.

And no, you do not have to be a "stunt driver" to appreciate "the extra power of Methyl Benzene in Super Shell." Actually, you don't even have to be a "stunt driver" to run up over a couple of boards laid out in the middle of a field, but you had better not be WITHOUT METHYL BENZENE.

Thanks, that made my day.

[robroy]

Nice little snapshot of marketing there and nice comment

I'm no engine expert and I wouldn't have a clue as to the 'true' figures for this engine but I like the cut of McGuires jib, having a healthy cynasism of claims that aren't backed up with hard facts or data.
It would have been nice if Mr.Rousch had smuggled out a few dyno or data reports from when he was achieving such ground breaking figures, for future reference or bragging etc. I know I would have done.

[Ross Stonefeld]

That Shell ad has to be a joke. Maybe I'm just too young to have known an era where that would be allowed and encouraged. It's like something 9 year olds would argue about.