10 replies to this topic

[slipstream]

Do current F-1 Engines have a Flywheel ? With engines now going up to 18,500 rpm they must have very little interia. I read that sprint cars have no clutch or flywheel and that go me to wonder about F-1 engines and flywheels.

[desmo]

Modern F1 engines have no flywheel per se, the tiny sub 100mm diameter carbon clutch serving that function now.

[perfectelise]

One clutch or two?
I think some teams (mclaren) have a clutch either side of the gearbox

perfectelise

[desmo]

As far as I know, the teams use only one clutch between the engine and the gearbox although there was talk of a twin clutch system last year on the Benetton. This idea apparently never bore fruit and hasn't been emulated by other teams. Teams have tried mounting the clutch behind the gearbox(Sauber '99), but I never really saw the point.

[Powersteer]

Seems that the two clutch system changed gears twice the speed of the single clutch. System is used in a larger and slower scale in the now defunct ITC series. It is also from this series (and maybe BTCC or JTCC) that Benetton found the FTT braking system. The twin clutch system was also about to be pioneered in F-1 by the Prost team.

[david_martin]

Didn't the original semi-automatic sequencial box that Ferrari used in 1989 feature a twin clutch arrangement?

[Powersteer]

Thats a twin plate cluth...what we are talking about is two clutch units for a gearbox.






P.S how many plates does F-1 clutches have around this era?

[david_martin]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Thats a twin plate cluth...what we are talking about is two clutch units for a gearbox.

I know what you are talking about. I mean two clutches, not a two plates clutch.

[Powersteer]

My apologise david martin

[marion5drsn]

Flywheel; Why none? This is one of the reasons that I believe the crankshaft is as heavy as I believe. Why have a heavy flywheel if you can use the same moment of inertia to do the same function without the penalty of a large diameter flywheel? Which raises the Center of Mass if using a “normal” flywheel shape. Altho the crankshaft would be of small diameter it would not be as efficient as a normal flywheel but could still be a substitute flywheel. But would allow you to have this mass doing double duty. The picture of the Judd crank seems to confirm some of this argument. As you may see I am not a believer in lightweight cranks. One may also notice that these engines are not great idlers. M. L. Anderson

[slipstream]

I have thought that F1 engines have very lightweight Cranks as well as having no flywheel. I read in Racecar engineering that in the current F1 engines the RPM rises and falls at over 40,000 RPM per second. It also says that low engine rotating inertia helps Acceleration especially in the lower gears as well has having a bearing on gear change times. So I would think that you would want a very light Crankshaft instead of a heavy one.