58 replies to this topic

[amardeep]

Does anyone know how much an F1 engine weighs, approximately ? I flicked through this week's Autosport at the newsagent, but didn't buy it, and I think it said the new Honda engine is rumoured to weigh 88kg. Perhaps I mis-read, but this figure seems ludicrously low.

And if anyone knows how much a road car engine weighs for comparison that would be interesting (say the M5's V10, and a typical family hatchback such as a Focus or Golf).

[Greg Locock]

No way?

Way!

[Monstrobolaxa]

Well the first engine under 100kg was the 1996 Yamaha engine used by Tyrrell.....it weighed 98kg....this was 8 years ago.....so 88 kg to me is quite a realistic number.....I would even think that 85kg would be possible....but under 85kg I really dont believe.

[desmo]

I wouldn't be surprised if an F1 engine with ancillaries but minus oil and coolant, engine ECU and associated wiring loom were under 90kg.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
I wouldn't be surprised if an F1 engine with ancillaries but minus oil and coolant, engine ECU and associated wiring loom were under 90kg.

Right, it will always depend on just what is included in the claimed weight. Since these are proprietary figures, they will differ in that regard so exact comparisons might be troublesome. That said, current F1 engines are damned light no matter how you weigh them.

[ViMaMo]

The powerful 4.2 V8 with chain drive made its widely acclaimed debut in the Audi S4 in late 2002.An additional advantage is that, weighing a mere 195 kg, the entire V8 power unit is extremely light.


Audi

[eoin]

Originally posted by amardeep
Does anyone know how much an F1 engine weighs, approximately ? I flicked through this week's Autosport at the newsagent, but didn't buy it, and I think it said the new Honda engine is rumoured to weigh 88kg. Perhaps I mis-read, but this figure seems ludicrously low.

And if anyone knows how much a road car engine weighs for comparison that would be interesting (say the M5's V10, and a typical family hatchback such as a Focus or Golf).

Next's years engine? I would find that hard to believe given that they will have to add weight to make it last twice as long. Hell I would be surprised if this years engine weighed that.

[ZoRG]

Why would they need to add weight?

[eoin]

Originally posted by ZoRG
Why would they need to add weight?

The engine has to last for two races next season, doesn't it?

[ZoRG]

Yes, but does that automatically mean more weight?

[desmo]

Wouldn't the easiest and most logical way to increase durability generally be to lower the shift point rpms, then optimize the engine for that working rpm range rather than adding mass to the spinning and sliding hot bits? I assume the vast majority of non-moving bits wouldn't significantly benefit in terms of longevity from increasing their masses either.

[ZoRG]

What exactly is it that wears out? Rings? Valve guides/seats? valve stems? cams? pneumatic system? bearings? spark plugs?

What I can think of is the bearings for 1, the pictures I have seen does not look like F1 motors employ any form of damper.

The rods and crank itseslf I would imagine have no problems as long as the bearings held up. With a shorter crank on the V8 motors, that might be less of a problem already.

The rings and pistons might be a problem. Valvetrain I am not sure about either, maybe the coatings will need to be revised.

I really don't see any reason for adding weight to any of these, can anyone else think of other parts that would wear out? I can't imagine oil and water pumps packing up in such a short period or the clutch, pneumatic system should have no problem either. Maybe we will see some pitstops where the plugs are changed who knows. Maybe someone with some insider info, can shed some light on the subject??

[Greg Locock]

Fatigue life at a guess. Conrods, gudgeon pins and pistons and crank in particular.

[ZoRG]

Conrods and crank should not be much of a problem, okay if they don't have any damping in the crank, problably won't last too long, but if they develop a damper for it, that should be fine????
The rods as well, Ti can also have a "infinate" fatigue cycle if designed correctly. Gudgeon pins and pistons, I think is the weak link, but difficult to say really, these motors don't really function like your average engine

[JtP]

Now I have never actually weighed one, but have you ever had to lift a Rover/ Buick V8? Can't be far from 88kgs. 3.5 V8 in road spec and two people can comfortably lift it into the back of a van. Ok it has push rod heads which save some weight, but a great big steel flywheel that the F1 engine doesn't have. So a modern F1 engine with ceramic pistons and probably chromed alloy block for liners etc should have no problem reaching the under 90kg. Afterall, the whole car including driver weighs under 600 kg and that's with ballast.

[ZoRG]

Ceramic pistons?

[SHuey]

I'm not sure of the exact weight of the new 2005 BMW V-10, but read an article in the Roundel magazine of the BMW CCA that basically said that thanks to some F-1 inspired technologies, along with some other developments by BMW the new V-10 is lighter than the V-8 that powered the last generation M5.

I don't have the issue anymore, and the article doesn't appear to be online so you'll have to take my word for it.

- Steve

[ZoRG]

That V10 was somewhat of a let down. Weighs about the same as some American V8, and produces the same power as the pushrod motors... maybe with less fuel but still.
In the end, is 88kg really that unbelievable?

[amardeep]

In the end, is 88kg really that unbelievable?

Well it was to me. I knew that F1 cars weighed 750kg, and I expected a much greater fraction would be engine - perhaps 200kg. This was based on nothing in particular, just a guess. I just checked, and it turns out that F1 cars weigh 600kg, so it shows what I know :-) 88kg still seems like a small fraction of the overall weight for the engine. Wonder how much the gearbox weighs ...

Thanks for the insightful replies, I vaguely remember that the Yamaha was light, but I didn't know it was the first sub-100kg engine. Also thanks for the link indicating the Audi V8 is about 200kg. A bit of searching on the Lotus UK web-site showed that the Lotus V8 weighed "less than 220 kg complete with all ancillaries." So my guess of engine weight was about correct, but only for a reasonably advanced road-going V8 !.

Someone mentioned ceramics I think, as well. Sadly I seem to remember that all ceramics were banned from F1 engines (though this is the same memory that got F1 car weight wrong). I would like F1 to have some spin-off applications to road cars, and ceramic materials r&d might have been useful.

[JtP]

Originally posted by amardeep


Well it was to me. I knew that F1 cars weighed 750kg, and I expected a much greater fraction would be engine - perhaps 200kg. This was based on nothing in particular, just a guess. I just checked, and it turns out that F1 cars weigh 600kg, so it shows what I know :-) 88kg still seems like a small fraction of the overall weight for the engine. Wonder how much the gearbox weighs ...

Thanks for the insightful replies, I vaguely remember that the Yamaha was light, but I didn't know it was the first sub-100kg engine. Also thanks for the link indicating the Audi V8 is about 200kg. A bit of searching on the Lotus UK web-site showed that the Lotus V8 weighed "less than 220 kg complete with all ancillaries." So my guess of engine weight was about correct, but only for a reasonably advanced road-going V8 !.

Someone mentioned ceramics I think, as well. Sadly I seem to remember that all ceramics were banned from F1 engines (though this is the same memory that got F1 car weight wrong). I would like F1 to have some spin-off applications to road cars, and ceramic materials r&d might have been useful.

Since it was myself that mentioned ceramic pistons, I should point that the current minimum weight is 605Kg during qualifying and 600 kg at all other times. That weight includes the driver. IIrc the last time 750kg was used was 1934 to 36 and that was maximum weight.

The materials that were banned were things like Boron and for obvious reasons. I never really understood how Porsche got away with using Boron discs on the 917. In fact Ilmor/ Mercedes have never been dominant since these toxic materials were banned.

As for the use of ceramics, I am currently following a discussion on the merits of ceramic ball races in engines on another board.

[desmo]

Ceramics are NOT banned, materials exceeding the specific modulus of elasticity limit are. In fact I cannot recall any specific materials being broadly banned. Ceramic bearings are widely used in F1 cars, certainly in wheel bearings, almost certainly in the clutch and transmission, and very likely in the engines as well. Also, I think boron is being confused for beryllium re the brake discs.

[rodlamas]

BMW´s P83 engine weighted less than 90kg, so it is more than possible that its weight was something about 88kgs.

2004 engines must have been a little heavier than this or at the most at the same weight of the 2003 engines, and I think tha same trend will stand for the 2005 engines.

Honda, BMW and Renault have been working very hard since mid-2004 on their 2005 engines and I do expect those engines to be on the of the performance list when we get to Melbourne.

[joachimvanwing]

Originally posted by JtP
... In fact Ilmor/ Mercedes have never been dominant since these toxic materials were banned.

IIrc they lost a lot of time and money in 1998 and 1999 when Byrrilium was banned.

[rodlamas]

Berillyum was banned becaused Ferrari could not develop an engine based on it that would have the same performance as the Mercedes engine.

The last Mercedes engine that had NO RESTRICTIONS on the well known metal was the 1999 engine, that had a superior performance than all engines, although many people on this forum keep on saying that the 048C from Suzuka was better than the Mercedes engine.

[amardeep]

Ceramics are NOT banned, materials exceeding the specific modulus of elasticity limit are.

OK, I'm going to have to be more careful with what I remember. So, where are the F1 regulations ? I guessed at fia.com and found some regs in pdf format at http://www.fia.com/s...ons/f1regs.html (2005 Technical Regulations). A quick skim reveals that

5.5 Engine materials :
5.5.1 The basic structure of the crankshaft and camshafts must be made from steel or cast iron.
5.5.2 Pistons, cylinder heads and cylinder blocks may not be composite structures which use carbon or aramid fibre reinforcing materials.

That is the entirety of that section, and doesn't mention modulus of elasticity or much about materials in detail (is "steel" a sufficiently precise definition, I thought there were lots of types). Perhaps there is more elsewhere in the doc, but I didn't see it. However, under "Changes for 2006" there is lots of detail including stuff such as

5.12.3 Intermetallic Materials (e.g. TiAl, NiAl, FeAl, Cu3Au, NiCo) – These are materials where the material is
based upon intermetallic phases, i.e. the matrix of the material consists of greater then 50%v/v intermetallic
phase(s). An intermetallic phase is a solid solution between two or more metals exhibiting either partly ionic
or covalent, or metallic bonding with a long range order, in a narrow range of composition around the
stoichiometric proportion.

and similar, which seems much more serious (and which I don't properly understand !). These define in detail terms to be used in later sections which specify which materials are allowed for the larger engine parts (pistons, crankshaft etc). So the proposed engine material regs for 2006 seem to be much, much stricter.

[cygnus]

Originally posted by rodlamas
Berillyum was banned becaused Ferrari could not develop an engine based on it that would have the same performance as the Mercedes engine.

i thought Beryllium was banned because it was a hazardous material to work with.

[JtP]

Originally posted by cygnus


i thought Beryllium was banned because it was a hazardous material to work with.

Precisely, just phoned the chap who explained this one to me and it is highly carcenogenic.

The pistons are either fitted with ceramic pads or ceramic coated depending on requirements.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by rodlamas
Berillyum was banned becaused Ferrari could not develop an engine based on it that would have the same performance as the Mercedes engine.

The last Mercedes engine that had NO RESTRICTIONS on the well known metal was the 1999 engine, that had a superior performance than all engines, although many people on this forum keep on saying that the 048C from Suzuka was better than the Mercedes engine.

IIRC Ferrari developed an engine that used aluminium-beryllium alloys during the 1998-1999 seasons - after it was known that Al-Be materials would be banned for the 2000 season (or was it 2001?).

Ferrari had been running Al-Be alloy brake callipers in the 1997 season, but these were banned.

The Al-Be alloy for engines ban didn't happen overnight. There was a period in which Mercedes-Benz/Ilmor could have developed suitable alternatives.

[Pioneer]

Keep reading amardeep the releveant bits on modulus of elasticity is farther down.



15.1.2 No parts of the car may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater than 40 GPa / (g/cm3). Tests to establish conformity will be carried out in accordance with FIA Test Procedure 03/02, a copy of which may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

[ZoRG]

Even so, the first section that specifies steel, outlaws all ceramics for crank/rods/pistons etc.
On the same subject, does anyone know what sort of sleeve material they use? Composite? or cast iron?

[desmo]

It actually doesn't outlaw ceramics for pistons. Only for the cams and crank. Sleeves, if present, are probably mostly Al-matrix MMC, near the specific modulus limit- and ironically like the pistons probably considerably costlier than the old Be alloy bits outawed primarily to "reduce costs".

[ZoRG]

doh! okay, got me there but the modulus rule does. Not many ceramics are suited to pistons, I can think of only a few, and they will all fail 40GPa.

What did you mean by "Sleeves, if present" ?

[david_martin]

Originally posted by JtP


Precisely, just phoned the chap who explained this one to me and it is highly carcenogenic.

That is not a particularly accurate statement.

Pure Beryllium is certainly a hardzardous material and a very significant occupational health and safety risk under some conditions. Beryllium is most often classified as a potential human carcinogen. The most common disease associated with exposure to Beryllium is Berylliosis, which is a chronic lung disease not unlike emphysema or asbestosis. It requires long term aspiration of large amounts of very fine particulate metal. Historically, approximately one in twenty people with dangerous levels of long term exposure to Beryllium have developed Berylliosis. The most prevalent workplaces exposures were in the lighting industry where very fine particulate Beryllium was used in fluorescent light manufacture. Most cases of Berylliosis were reported before 1950. It is still legal to work with Beryllium, and Beryllium bearing copper bronzes, light metal intermetallics and Beryl ceramics are widely available. It remains a frequently used component of a number materials used aerospace and nuclear applications, where comprehensive exposure control measures (respirators, air filtration, dust collection and precipitation) are required during manufacturing steps that generate particulate material. These are essentially the same as those required when working with heavy metals like Lead, Zinc or Cadmium, or in Aluminium smelting. Bulk Beryllium metal is neither particularly toxic nor dangerous. Some people will develop skin hypersensitivity to it much in the same way as Nickel.

There are a few other points to add to the F1 engine aspect of this story. None of the engine programmes, to the best of my knowledge, ever used or worked with pure Beryllium - they used a family of Aluminium-Beryllium intermetallic compounds often referred to as AlBeMet. These typically range from 20-60% Beryllium. I understand the Brush-Wellman alloy AlBeMet 140 (40% Beryllium) was one of the more commonly used grades. Exposure to fine particulate Beryllium from these alloys is most likely to occur during casting - dross and baghouse dust being the most likely sources, but the risk is significantly lower compared to working with pure Beryllium under the sorts of conditions that were prevalent when Berylliosis was an issue in the lighting industry. There was also never any suggestion that any of the F1 engine manufacturers or their subcontractors were handling or working with AlBeMet improperly in either casthouse or machine shop.

Justifying the ban of the use of a few kilogrammes of AlBeMet from F1 engines of the basis of occupational health and safety risks seemed much more like grasping at straws than achieving a triumph for the wellbeing of casthouse and machine shop workers the world over.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by rodlamas

The last Mercedes engine that had NO RESTRICTIONS on the well known metal was the 1999 engine, that had a superior performance than all engines, although many people on this forum keep on saying that the 048C from Suzuka was better than the Mercedes engine.

Judging from what happened in Malaysia, it would mean that the Ferrari had a helluva chassis, if there was a considerable difference in engine performance. Irvine has also reported, that until the chassis improvements implemented at Malaysia, all developments were cancelled after Silverstone and set for the 00 season.

Originally posted ZoRG

That V10 was somewhat of a let down. Weighs about the same as some American V8, and produces the same power as the pushrod motors... maybe with less fuel but still.

I'd be very surprised, if it had better fuel economy than the LS7(?) in the future Corvette Z06.

[J. Edlund]

Mercedes-Ilmor used AlBe not only for pistons but also for liners and from what I understand these were uncoated. The pistons was machined from solid, but Perfect Bore did also develope a casting method. Machining is not as easy as with aluminum and you must of couse take the health issue into consideration. The material itself has a high cost but the AlBe parts have a high durability the weight reduction means that less material can be used. An AlBe liner could weigh as little as 200 grams. AlBe also offer a high thermal conductivity which is desireable in pistons and liners.

F1 engines are fitted with torsional vibration dampers

The 2004 Honda engine was about 90 kg, which is about 5 kg less than the 2003 engine. 88 kg for their latest engine seems to be in the ballpark.

[desmo]

Originally posted by J. Edlund

F1 engines are fitted with torsional vibration dampers

At least one recent F1 engine wasn't.

[desmo]

Originally posted by ZoRG
doh! okay, got me there but the modulus rule does. Not many ceramics are suited to pistons, I can think of only a few, and they will all fail 40GPa.

What did you mean by "Sleeves, if present" ?

Don't forget the rules is for specific modulus. I agree no one is using or probably even considering ceramic as a piston material. I suspect however most F1 pistons now have a ceramic component though.

"Sleeves, if present" means that if sleeves are used... OK?

[ZoRG]

And if they are not present?

[desmo]

Then there is no sleeve material.

[ZoRG]

Okay, thought you had some strange reasoning behind them not using conventional sleeves.

[FordFan]

Cosworth claim (on their site) that the CR6 weighed 94 Kg 'with ballast', whatever that means.

What amazes me is not the weight but the power to weight ratio on a naturally aspirated engine. 10 BHP per kilo is damn impressive.

[scarbs]

F1 engines could go below the 90Kg mark easily, but the stiffness reqiured for chassis intergration puts something of a limit on it. Geoff Willis told me the minimum weight for an engine was around 100Kg complete with all the bits to make it go, which for a chassis designer is the key thing.

Cosworth use a heavy sump to act as ballast.

It amazes me the shear compactness of the current engines, producing as much power as most of the old turbos, with probably more torque and drivability, while lasting a reliable 800kms, or 1600 next year....!

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by FordFan
Cosworth claim (on their site) that the CR6 weighed 94 Kg 'with ballast', whatever that means.

What amazes me is not the weight but the power to weight ratio on a naturally aspirated engine. 10 BHP per kilo is damn impressive.

That means the engine weighs 86 Kg without the oil sump... they could put a 2 Kg oil sump on it, but to ballast the chassis they've made an oil sump that weighs 8 Kg. I just made up the numbers, but I think that's the general idea.

10 BHP/Kg without forced induction IS impressive! By comparison, the new Corvette engine, which is regarded as a lightweight, powerful production engine (400 lb and 400 HP), would, at 10 BHP/Kg, make 1820 BHP.

I think BHP/Kg is much more telling when comparing engines than BHP/L... assuming you're fair about it (i.e. don't forget to count weight of cooling system, exhaust, turbos, intercoolers, etc.). Of course racing series and some taxing authorities use displacement as a limit. Imagine a racing series making maximum engine weight, say 100 Kg, as the only engine rule...

[ferrarista]

From what i know, Ferrari 052 was 85 kg and according to Martinelli, thanks to new materials, this year the weight stayed similar; and Ferrari has been in the recent years the lightest engine on the grid. Renault, instead, is thought to have a very heavy engine, some 10-15 kg more than Ferrari, BMW and Honda.

[rodlamas]

Originally posted by ferrarista
From what i know, Ferrari 052 was 85 kg and according to Martinelli, thanks to new materials, this year the weight stayed similar; and Ferrari has been in the recent years the lightest engine on the grid. Renault, instead, is thought to have a very heavy engine, some 10-15 kg more than Ferrari, BMW and Honda.

Reanult´s 2004 engine was very heavy just because they had to revert to an old design because of the engine rules for 2004. Their 2003 engine was tipped to be very loght, but way down on power.

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by rodlamas


Reanult´s 2004 engine was very heavy just because they had to revert to an old design because of the engine rules for 2004. Their 2003 engine was tipped to be very loght, but way down on power.

Yes, you're right
But i think it's also part of their strategy of putting more weight on the rear axle; in fact, according to Piola, the RS25 won't be much lighter than the '04 unit.

[djellison]

Whilst at the Minardi auction in Ledbury - I was looking around at all the engines. One of the officials came over and said "grab that side"- and the two of us - very VERY easily - lifted a Supertec engine clear of its stand and put it back again. I knew they were light - but to FEEL how light they are is just astonishing!

Doug

[scarbs]

I think you'll find that Renault ended up with a rear heavy car because of the engine, not because they wanted it that way. The engine was developed rapidly in about ten months (IIRC), so it was not a light as they would like. Next year it will be lighter and the car will be more front heavy, the team tried hard in the year (2004) to lose weight to add forward placed ballast . Recall the lighter chassis?

Scarbs

[Timstr11]

This is what Honda's Tanaka said about the 2005 engine in Revved Up:
"We know we have made a big improvement on the engine, bigger than the year before, so that is exciting."

Amazing! Despite the doubling of the mileage.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Engineguy



I think BHP/Kg is much more telling when comparing engines than BHP/L...

Doesnt work like that.

You may chop off half the core of a 3000 F1 motor and end up with a 5cyl 1500 with half the core weight and half the horsepower but you dont reduce the weight by half of the flywheel, crankshaft, alternator, oil pumps ect. and the smaller engine size you go the worse the ratio has to get.