120 replies to this topic

[Wuzak]

In the main site there is a story that an insider has claimed Cosworth's 2006 2.4l V8 is already producing 850hp, which is not far behind their own V10 from last year.

Is this a realistic figure? It seems a bit high for a starting point. I was expecting it to be 750-800hp.

How would they be achiving this? Increased revs?

[red300zx99]

Increased revs probably, but I dunno not an engine guy. I would figure that cosworth and toyota may have a slight advantage on the V8 because of their indy and cart experience.

[desmo]

There's been speculation that without V10 crank TVs to contend with 21+krpm might be possible in a 2.4l V8. Significantly higher specific outputs are possible, I think. I wonder at what point fMEP components increasing as a square of velocities put a practical cap on rpm?

[shaun979]

I have heard that some components of total friction increase linearly whilst others increase as the square of increase in speeds. The average is high, but not quite pure square.

I did not have a chance to follow up with questions, and I do not know which components of friction would increase linearly or exponentially vs surface speeds. I am interested in hearing from the good folk here. Perhaps start another thread so as to not take this one off topic?

[McGuire]

At the recent SAE Motorsports Conference I spoke to folks currently on the new engines, and some were saying the rpm potential is considerably higher due to the V8 crankshaft's happier natural frequency. They were saying 23,000 rpm, soon.

This is just a little puzzling to me as in the past, whenever I have asked about the torsional difficulities with the 90-degree V10, the basic answer was no worries, not a major problem.

[desmo]

Wright in F1 Technology postulates a crank TV limitation for 3l V-10s of "approximately 19,000" rpm. Of course he also says that a 3l V-8 "is limited to approximately 15,000 rpm by secondary TVs in its crankshaft." He wrote an interesting piece for grandprix.com when he was still doing tech articles for them on the subject IIRC describing it as a piston mass or a crank TV problem depending on one's viewpoint, I don't know if it's still available. Some have said that the limiting V-10 TVs are second order, while another source said that the 5th 7th and 9th (?) orders were also problematic and that the best way of addressing all of these after trying all sorts of other approaches is to lessen piston mass. The 90 degree bank angles may be a means of addressing some of the higher order TVs.

Re friction, I found an interesting quote from John Judd talking about losses from increasing rpms: "Unfortunately though, friction doesn't go up with crankshaft speed as a straight line relationship. The inertia loads- rotating and reciprocating- are speed squared and power loss with inertia is friction times speed- speed squared times speed which is speed cubed!"

Thoughts?

[Greg Locock]

Yes, friction as n^3 seems reasonable for the piston skirts and the mains and the valves, but I thought total engine friction was dominated by piston rings, where it might only be n^1

I don't think I'd make any prognostications on TVs, there's probably an ancient paper around by Priede that gives you the trend in TV frequencies as a function of crankshaft length and throw and number of cylinders, that could be used to guess which layout is likely to be better, but it largely comes down to doing an FEA of the crank, or building an engine.

I'm not too sure what Wright means by secondary TV's - that could either mean TVs excited by second order forces (ie L/r), or perhaps higher order TVs, above the fundamental. I expect he means the former, considering the other quotes.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
Wright in F1 Technology postulates a crank TV limitation for 3l V-10s of "approximately 19,000" rpm. Of course he also says that a 3l V-8 "is limited to approximately 15,000 rpm by secondary TVs in its crankshaft."

That must have been a while back.

[desmo]

Well, it was published in 2001.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by McGuire
That must have been a while back.

My dad remembers when the "experts" said it would be physically impossible for a car to ever negotiate the turns at Indianapolis at more than 150 MPH. They've been doing that for over 30 years now.

Hopefully Wright prefaced his limits with something like, "With current engine design practice and materials..."

On the other hand, does "limitations" mean impossibility, or just the point you have to address the problem, as always in engineering, with compromises to some other design goal? (i.e. small bearing journals to reduce friction and inertia).

And if you allow that "approximately 19,000" could reasonably mean 20,000... I'm not sure he's yet been proven wrong... yet.

Can anyone think of a 3L V8 that ran over 15,000 RPM? The last (1996-1997) F1 3L V8s turned 15,000. The 2002 CART V8s were well over that, but they were 2.65L. And Cosworth's 2006 F1 V8 is, of course 2.4L.

[McGuire]

Peter did say "approximately."

The current engine longevity requirements appear to have eased the upward pressure on the 19,000 rpm range on the V10, as speeds do seem to have stabilized there. The CART V8 did see 16,500 rpm, with a slightly less aggressive stroke/bore ratio than now used in F1 (methanol fuel kept bores in 94mm range). However, I did see that while these engines had that capability in the final year it wasn't always used. Cosworth for one kept its engines in the 15k range at most tracks. At Milwaukee they were running them at ~14.5k as I recall.

Personally, the current stories of 850+ hp for the 2.4L F1 V8 sound high to me...I would expect more like 800, maybe 825 on the outside. Not that I have any direct information on that number whatsoever.

[McGuire]

On paper at least, a 72-degree V10 is pretty decent (many of them ran with no dampers at all, apparently) while a 90-degree V10 with a 72-degree crankshaft and uneven firing interval ought to be a nightmare. (There might even be some outright torque reversals in there, which in a ten cylinder engine is unforgivable.) However, I am told that with this config the second-orders (by that I mean those that occur 2x per crank rotation) are to large degree mutually cancelling, so it all works out in the end. All rather curious, and hard to work out with the skimpy info available.

It does appear that vibration issues are what did in the wide-angle Renault, since it went away as soon as the engine longevity rules appeared. There are things about its design that suggested a lot of struggles with vibration -- the separate cam drives on each end, the remote clutch...

[zac510]

In a Minardi-related article, Cosworth have claimed that their 2006 V8 test engine regularly runs to 20000rpm.

"Development engines have been running on the dyno for quite some time & we are very happy with the results so far. Power figures cannot be disclosed for obvious reasons but we can confirm that we are routinely running to 20,000RPM."

Surely the other top engine manufacturers would be doing the same rpm by now too.

[panic]

"90-degree V10 with a 72-degree crankshaft"

I assume you meant a crankshaft with paired journals offset by 18 degrees to give TDC positions at regular 72 degree intervals?

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by panic
"90-degree V10 with a 72-degree crankshaft"

I assume you meant a crankshaft with paired journals offset by 18 degrees to give TDC positions at regular 72 degree intervals?

I cannot say with certainty for the rest, but the 90 degree vee Cosworth V10 has five simple crankpins (not offset ground) at 72 degree spacing, so it is "odd-fire." I would doubt anyone uses a split pin crank.

[panic]

I'm sure they've had adequate time by now to re-think the relative merit vs. cost of a 72 degree block vs. all of the weirdness the alternate caused...

[voice_of_reason]

All current F1 engines have 5 pin cranks, with pins at 72 deg intervals. There are several viable solutions for the firing order down each bank eg 1, 5, 2, 3, 4 or 1, 3, 5, 2, 4. All but the Renault (and the old Cosworth used pre-Imola in the Minardi) are 90° vee, so are uneven firing. It is possible to prove this hypothesis from spectral analysis of in car engine sound.

(As an aside, RPM estimates from the soundrack should be accurate +/- approx 20 RPM if the data is processed correctly!)

In 90° V-10s, crank balance is typically such that there is no primary or secondary force imbalance, however there is a primary moment that is not balanced (think of opposing forces at the ends of the crank rotating opposit one another making a locus like a diabalo!). The absence of secondary imbalance is a significant factor in favour of 90° V-10s. Torsional vibrations are a factor in choosing the firing order along each bank as mentioned above.

When thinking V-8 vs V-10, remember the cams will be shorter as well. Shorter, stiffer cams are significant in reducing cyclic speed variations (torsionals) so contribute to running higher RPM.

[Nathan]

How long do you guys think it will take before the new 2.4's are making the same HP numbers as the 3 liters? 3-4 years?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by panic
"90-degree V10 with a 72-degree crankshaft"

I assume you meant a crankshaft with paired journals offset by 18 degrees to give TDC positions at regular 72 degree intervals?

That would be an "even-fire" crank. To my knowledge all the current engines use plain 72-degree cranks (five pairs of shared journals) producing a an uneven firing order with 90-degree bank angles. A split-pin crank (ala Lancia and Buick) would fix the uneven firing order, but create more crankshaft torsional problems than it might solve.

The beauty of the 2.4 liter V8 is a very short, stiff crank. These engines will invariably be "odd-fire" too: 180 degree cranks with 70 to 75 degree vee angles.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by McGuire

The beauty of the 2.4 liter V8 is a very short, stiff crank. These engines will invariably be "odd-fire" too: 180 degree cranks with 70 to 75 degree vee angles.

Nope. The vee angle is defined in the regulations - 90°.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Wuzak


Nope. The vee angle is defined in the regulations - 90°.

Thanks for the correction!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Im mildly surprised Renault/Meccachrome didnt build the new GP2 V8 engines to a low-rev equivalent of the upcoming F1 engines.

[Earthling]

McGuire, (and anyone else who cares to conjecture)
Why would anybody build a 70-80 degree V8? Packaging constraints perhaps? I noticed that the Cosworth XB and the latest Indy engines are in the range of 75-80 degrees. What's up with that?

[Wuzak]

Are not the dimesnions of the Indy engines set by regulation, and their banks angle set at 90°?

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Wuzak
Are not the dimesnions of the Indy engines set by regulation, and their banks angle set at 90°?

Yes, the IRL engines are. Earthling was referring to Champ Car engines.

[Dragonfly]

Would someone please give a link or post the guidelines along which manufacturers are developing the V8 engines for 2006. I need this for a local thread where some poeople claim V8 in 2006 are not certain.
Thanks in advance.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Dragonfly
Would someone please give a link or post the guidelines along which manufacturers are developing the V8 engines for 2006. I need this for a local thread where some poeople claim V8 in 2006 are not certain.

From the FIA web site...

BOLD text is new (note that some is just renumbering of paragraphs).
Small blue italic text is old text that is marked out (i.e. replaced or no longer applicable).

ARTICLE 22 : CHANGES FOR 2006

22.2 Amendments to Article 5 :

5.1 Engine specification :
5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are
permitted.
5.1.2 Subject only to Article 5.2, engine capacity must not
exceed 3000cc 2400cc.
5.1.3 Supercharging is forbidden.
5.1.4 All engines must have 10 cylinders 8 cylinders arranged
in a 90° "V" configuration and the normal section of each
cylinder must be circular.
5.1.5 Engines may must have no more than 5 valves two inlet
and two exhaust valves per cylinder all of which must be
circular.
Only reciprocating poppet valves are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve
component and the stationary engine component must
be circular.

5.2 Alternative engines :
For 2006 and 2007 only, the FIA reserves the right to
allow any team to use an engine complying with the
2005 engine regulations, provided its maximum
crankshaft rotational speed does not exceed a limit
fixed from time to time by the FIA so as to ensure that
such an engine will only be used by a team which does
not have access to a competitive 2.4 litre V8 engine.

5.3 Other means of propulsion :
5.3.1 Subject only to Article 5.2, the use of any device, other
than the 3 litre 2.4 litre, four stroke engine described in 5.1
above, to power the car, is not permitted.
5.3.2 The total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car
must not exceed 300kJ, any which may be recovered at a
rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.

5.4 Exhaust system :
Variable geometric length geometry exhaust systems are
forbidden.

5.4 Engine dimensions :
5.4.1 Cylinder bore diameter may not exceed 98mm.
5.4.2 Cylinder spacing must be fixed at 106.5mm (+/- 0.2mm).
5.4.3 The crankshaft centreline must not be less than 58mm
above the reference plane.


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.

5.5 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.5.1 The overall weight of the engine must be a minimum of
95kg.
5.5.2 The centre of gravity of the engine may not lie less than
165mm above the reference plane.
5.5.3 The longitudinal and lateral position of the centre of
gravity of the engine must fall within a region that is the
geometric centre of the engine, +/- 50mm.
5.5.4 When establishing conformity with Article 5.5, the
engine will include the intake system up to and
including the air filter, fuel rail and injectors, ignition
coils, engine mounted sensors and wiring, alternator,
coolant pumps and oil pumps.
5.5.5 When establishing conformity with Article 5.5, the
engine will not include liquids, exhaust manifolds, heat
shields, oil tanks, water system accumulators, heat
exchangers, hydraulic system (e.g. pumps,
accumulators, manifolds, servo-valves, solenoids,
actuators) except servo-valve and actuator for engine
throttle control, fuel pumps nor any component not
mounted on the engine when fitted to the car.

5.6 Variable geometry systems :
5.6.1 Variable geometry inlet systems are not permitted.
5.6.2 Variable geometry exhaust systems are not permitted.
5.6.3 Variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems are
not permitted.

5.7 Fuel systems
5.7.1 The pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors may
not exceed 100 bar. Sensors must be fitted which
directly measure the pressure of the fuel supplied to
the injectors, these signals must be supplied via direct
hardwired connections to the FIA data logger.
5.7.2 Only one fuel injector per cylinder is permitted which
must inject directly into the side or the top of the inlet
port.

5.8 Electrical systems :
5.8.1 Ignition is only permitted by means of a single ignition
coil and single spark plug per cylinder. The use of
plasma, laser or other high frequency ignition
techniques is forbidden.
5.8.2 Only conventional spark plugs that function by high
tension electrical discharge across an exposed gap are
permitted.
Spark plugs are not subject to the materials restrictions
described in Articles 5.13 and 5.14.
5.8.3 The primary regulated voltage on the car must not
exceed 17.0V DC. This voltage is defined as the
stabilised output from the on-car charging system.

5.9 Engine actuators :
With the following exceptions hydraulic, pneumatic or
electronic actuation is forbidden :
a) Electronic solenoids uniquely for the control of engine
fluids ;
b) Components providing controlled pressure air for a
pneumatic valve system ;
c) A single actuator to operate the throttle system of the
engine.

5.10 Engine auxiliaries :
With the exception of electrical fuel pumps engine auxiliaries
must be mechanically driven directly from the engine with a
fixed speed ratio to the crankshaft.

5.11 Engine intake air :
5.11.1 Other than injection of fuel for the normal purpose of
combustion in the engine, any device, system, procedure,
construction or design the purpose or effect of which is any
decrease in the temperature of the engine intake air is
forbidden.
5.11.2 Other than engine sump breather gases and fuel for the
normal purpose of combustion in the engine, the spraying of
any substance into the engine intake air is forbidden.

5.12 Materials and Construction - Definitions :
5.12.1 X Based Alloy (e.g. Ni based alloy) – X must be the
most abundant element in the alloy on a %w/w basis.
The minimum possible weight percent of the element X
must always be greater than the maximum possible of
each of the other individual elements present in the
alloy.
5.12.2 X-Y Based Alloy (e.g. Al-Cu based alloy) – X must be
the most abundant element as in 5.12.1 above. In
addition element Y must be the second highest
constituent (%w/w), after X in the alloy. The mean
content of Y and all other alloying elements must be
used to determine the second highest alloying element
(Y).
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.
5.12.4 Composite Materials – These are materials where a
matrix material is reinforced by either a continuous or
discontinuous phase. The matrix can be metallic,
ceramic, polymeric or glass based. The reinforcement
can be present as long fibres (continuous
reinforcement); or short fibres, whiskers and particles
(discontinuous reinforcement).
5.12.5 Metal Matrix Composites (MMC’s) – These are materials
with a metallic matrix containing a phase of greater
than 2%v/v which is not soluble in the liquid phase of
the metallic matrix.
5.12.6 Ceramic Materials (e.g. Al2O3, SiC, B4C, Ti5Si3, SiO2,
Si3N4) – These are inorganic, non metallic solids.

5.13 Materials and construction – General :
5.13.1 Unless explicitly permitted for a specific engine
component, the following materials may not be used
anywhere on the engine :
a) Magnesium based alloys
b) Metal Matrix Composites (MMC’s)
c) Intermetallic materials
d) Alloys containing more than 5% by weight of
Beryllium, Iridium or Rhenium.
5.13.2 Coatings are free provided the total coating thickness
does not exceed 25% of the section thickness of the
underlying base material in all axes. In all cases the
relevant coating must not exceed 0.8mm.

5.14 Materials and construction – Components :
5.14.1 Pistons must be manufactured from an aluminium alloy
which is either Al-Si ; Al-Cu ; Al-Mg or Al-Zn based.
5.14.2 Piston pins must be manufactured from an iron based
alloy and must be machined from a single piece of
material.
5.14.3 Connecting rods must be manufactured from iron or
titanium based alloys and must be machined from a
single piece of material with no welded or joined
assemblies (other than a bolted big end cap or an
interfered small end bush).
5.14.4 Crankshafts must be manufactured from an iron based
alloy.
No welding is permitted between the front and rear
main bearing journals.
No material with a density exceeding 19,000kg/m3 may
be assembled to the crankshaft.
5.14.5 Camshafts must be manufactured from an iron based
alloy.
Each camshaft and lobes must be machined from a
single piece of material.
No welding is allowed between the front and rear
bearing journals.
5.14.6 Valves must be manufactured from alloys based on
Iron, Nickel, Cobalt or Titanium.
Hollow structures cooled by sodium, lithium or similar
are permitted.
5.14.7 Reciprocating and rotating components :
a) Reciprocating and rotating components must
not be manufactured from graphitic matrix,
metal matrix composites or ceramic materials.
This restriction does not apply to the clutch and
any seals ;
b) Rolling elements of rolling element bearings
must be manufactured from an iron based alloy;
c) Timing gears between the crankshaft and
camshafts (including hubs) must be
manufactured from an iron based alloy.
5.14.8 Static components :
a) Engine crankcases and cylinder heads must be
manufactured from cast or wrought aluminium
alloys.
No composite materials or metal matrix
composites are permitted either for the whole
component or locally.
b) Any metallic structure whose primary or
secondary function is to retain lubricant or
coolant within the engine must be
manufactured from an iron based alloy or an
aluminium alloy of the Al-Si, Al-Cu, Al-Zn or Al-
Mg alloying systems.
c) All threaded fasteners must be manufactured
from an alloy based on Cobalt, Iron or Nickel.
Composite materials are not permitted.
d) Valve seat inserts, valve guides and any other
bearing component may be manufactured from
metallic infiltrated pre-forms with other phases
which are not used for reinforcement.

5.15 Starting the engine :
A supplementary device temporarily connected to the car may be
used to start the engine both on the grid and in the pits.

5.16 Stall prevention systems :
If a car is equipped with a stall prevention system, and in order to
avoid the possibility of a car involved in an accident being left with
the engine running, all such systems must be configured to stop the
engine no more than ten seconds after activation.

[Dragonfly]

Thanks Engineguy

Of course the first place I looked for info was FIA's site, but somehow I couldn't navigate to this. And my connection speed to their site is far from fast.

[Greg Locock]

"(As an aside, RPM estimates from the soundrack should be accurate +/- approx 20 RPM if the data is processed correctly!)
"

Well, Heisenberg's uncertainity principle say the engine would have to hold a steady speed for 3 seconds for that to be true and meaningful, but I'm sure you know what you meant.

The frequency resolution (in Hz) of a signal length T is, at best, 1/T Hz

At 20000 rpm the fundamental is at 333.3r Hz, and a 20 rpm error is 0.33 Hz, so differentiate between 20000 and 20020 we need a deltaF of 0.3 Hz, so T is at least 3 seconds.

Now find us a bit of track where they hold steady engine speed for 1 second, never mind 3.

[desmo]

Engineguy I hadn't read that, very interesting. Some of the specifics seem a little strange to me. Rev limited 3.0l V10s, the bore maximum and bore centers stipulation, the 100 bar rail limit for FI, the mandating of conventional sparkplugs, the regulated voltage limit, the direct driven auxiliaries... it goes on and on. Are all these really necessary?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Earthling
McGuire, (and anyone else who cares to conjecture)
Why would anybody build a 70-80 degree V8? Packaging constraints perhaps? I noticed that the Cosworth XB and the latest Indy engines are in the range of 75-80 degrees. What's up with that?

Two reasons as I see it: packaging, and also makes the harmonics through the cam drives and valvetrain easier to handle. A 90 degree V8 with a flat crank is a bad hombre from 2nd order up, almost killed the Cosworth DFV until they put the famous splined torsional damper in the cam drive. The IRL engines now struggle with this as at 10,300 rpm they run in a bad period (just like the DFV did).

Actually, a narrow vee angle is a common historical solution for dealing with the harmonics of a flat crank V8. At 90 degrees vee angle, the unbalanced recip forces are dead horizontal & perpendicular to the crank (vector sum of the vertical forces of the two banks.) As the bank angle is narrowed a portion of this force is disposed vertically, until you get to 60 degrees where it rotates with the crankshaft at 2x speed. If I ever retire I am going to sit on the porch with pencil and paper and work out the crank TVs of that setup.

Henry Leland was involved with the original 1915 Cadillac V8 with 90 degree V and 180 degree crank. When he built his own Lincoln V8 a few years later, he gave it a 60 degree bank angle -- uneven firing order, rotating recip forces. He likened his design to a company of soldiers breaking step over a foot bridge to keep it from swinging. This engine wasn't quite smooth but at least it didn't hammer itself to death. Some other V8's with vee angles of less than 90 degrees: Wills Ste. Claire, Fiat, and most recently TVR.

The other V8 solution is the 90 degree crank, where two of the shared rod journals are twisted at right angles to the other two to cancel the recip forces. Of course this crank is no longer in primary balance but that's what counterweights are for.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
Engineguy I hadn't read that, very interesting. Some of the specifics seem a little strange to me. Rev limited 3.0l V10s, the bore maximum and bore centers stipulation, the 100 bar rail limit for FI, the mandating of conventional sparkplugs, the regulated voltage limit, the direct driven auxiliaries... it goes on and on. Are all these really necessary?

This is the result of all evolving legislative systems: that which is not forbidden becomes compulsory. It appears we are in the baroque phase of the current regulatory cycle.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by desmo
Engineguy I hadn't read that, very interesting. Some of the specifics seem a little strange to me. Rev limited 3.0l V10s, the bore maximum and bore centers stipulation, the 100 bar rail limit for FI, the mandating of conventional sparkplugs, the regulated voltage limit, the direct driven auxiliaries... it goes on and on. Are all these really necessary?

Given the presumed concurrent goals of slowing the upward creep of horsepower and reducing development costs, it's not too hard to speculate on the reasons for most of the rules.

First, let's suspend all wishes, demands, and rants that F1 should be "anything goes." Sure, it was technically interesting see turbine vs. DOHC vs. pushrod stockblock, rear engine vs. front engine, turbocharged vs. normally aspirated, 2WD vs. 4WD, etc. in 1960s Indy cars, for example. The participants in F1 apparently have no desire for such diversity and the unlimited budgets to explore all the possibilities, and/or the politicized equivalency formulas they bring. So let's not have that debate here; it's been done... it's not your (or your shareholders') checkbook. The reason I bring up this subject is to explain the anti-GDI rule (5.7.2 Only one fuel injector per cylinder is permitted which must inject directly into the side or the top of the inlet port.).

We'll nickname this rule "Protect us from Audi." A gasoline direct injection SI engine is a different animal from a port injection SI engine. Not as different as a diesel, wankel, or supercharged engine, but different enough (fuel consumption more than HP... at the moment) that one manufacturer getting a development jump on the rest could make a half dozen teams hopelessly uncompetitive for two or three years; unless an equivalency formula was introduced. My first take on the 100 bar injection limit was that it was anti-GDI, but I've seen 50-120 bar mentioned for GDI... perhaps 19,000 RPM demands well over 100 bar for GDI. But with 5.7.2 so clearly prohibiting GDI, perhaps there is another avenue of development the participants said they want to avoid being forced to pursue... say a very late, in the port but very close to the intake valve, very short 200 bar injector blast to achieve some portion of the benefits they'd get with GDI.

In a similar vein, the requirement for a conventional spark plug ignition protects the competitors from the need to pur$ue alternatives, or worse yet, being uncompetitive for several years because of one manufacturer's invention that reduces their fuel load by 15%. While such an invention might seem like a great thing for society at first thought, a laser ignited rare metal catalyst lined prechamber (yeah, I made that up... not sure how you'd do something like that without another valve and/or another injecter, but never underestimate the genius of others) that would cost $1000 per cylinder on a production car is in the end irrelevant. Once again, keep in mind F1 is a sporting event... inventions are more economically developed (and better targeted) outside of racing.

The classic route to power increase is, of course, bigger bore (more valve area) and the complimentary (for a given displacement) shorter stroke (more RPM). Absent the 5.4.1 (98mm) maximum bore size rule, billion$ would be spent by the engine developers over the next few years just trying to solve the (combustion, compression, heat loss, etc.) problems encountered at the bleeding edge bore/stroke ratios needed to run a bore 1mm bigger than the next guy. Some probably don't want to spend tons of money on this "irrelevant to production cars" exercise... some simply can't. We'll nickname this rule "Keep Cosworth around as an engine supplier."

5.4.2 (106.5mm bore spacing) is no doubt from feedback regarding engine reliability and block life. Years ago, Cosworth DFVs were rebuilt a zillion times. In 2002, Toyota CART engines were scrapped after one race. This rule stops the engine designers from (being forced to) designing linerless engines with 3mm between cylinders. Another "protect us from ourselves" rule.

The RPM restricted 3L V10 provision is just to fill the field if needed. Would a current engine run half a season without rebuild at 14,000 RPM? Probably, with a few minor changes. Nickname this rule "Keep Minardi alive."

Any other rule that seems puzzling probably DOES have a purpose... most likely, considering the general theme, to discourage massively expensive/complex systems from being developed for small competitive gains. Note the stored energy restrictions. Forget about charging a hydraulic accumulator and/or high voltage battery during engine braking to free the engine from powering the water pump, fuel pump, shifting hydraulics, etc. during acceleration. Simple race cars are cheaper, and require fewer people$ to design, develop, and maintain.

[McGuire]

No material with a density exceeding 19,000kg/m3 may be assembled to the crankshaft.

I thought that one was interesting.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by McGuire
No material with a density exceeding 19,000kg/m3 may be assembled to the crankshaft. I thought that one was interesting.

I guess we won't be seeing any more crankshafts counterbalanced with that osmium/iridium alloy (22,000kg/m3).

18,500kg/m3 is the density of the heaviest of the high-density tungsten based metals (0.67 lb/in^3... more than double the density of steel) traditionally used as heavy metal for crankshaft balancing.


Aluminum ~ 0.1 lb/in^3
Steel ~ 0.3 lb/in^3
Lead ~ 0.4 lb/in^3
97W3Ni ~ 0.67 lb/in^3
F1 limit ~ 0.68 lb/in^3

[McGuire]

Tuballoy: 19.05

[12.9:1]

Originally posted by McGuire
Tuballoy: 19.05

That and a length of aluminum tubing will earn you a vacation at a certain Cuban resort

[McGuire]

Originally posted by 12.9:1
That and a length of aluminum tubing will earn you a vacation at a certain Cuban resort

For anyone wondering, "tuballoy" is a slang term for uranium, typically in its depleted state. DU can be found in the keels of racing and luxury yachts, the crankshaft counterweights of radial aircraft engines, etc. There is said to be three-quarters of a ton of the stuff in a Boeing 747. Since the new rule draws the line at 19,000 kg/m^3, and tuballoy is 19,050...

[Paul Ranson]

Early British atomic bomb research had the code name 'Tube Alloys'.

'Tube Alloy' should, I think, be Plutonium, which is probably not available to Boeing, let alone racing yacht builders...

Paul

[desmo]

I had to Google it The term 'tuballoy' was a Manhattan Project code name for either- depending on the source cited- DU or simply unseperated U.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Early British atomic bomb research had the code name 'Tube Alloys'.

'Tube Alloy' should, I think, be Plutonium, which is probably not available to Boeing, let alone racing yacht builders...

Paul

Here are the cryptonyms: uranium is "tuballoy" while enriched uranium (>U235) is "oralloy." Plutonium is simply known as "product" or "49" (its atomic number is 94).

Due to its high density, depleted uranium (>U238) is used both for military armor and armor-piercing munitions. For the same reason DU has also been used as ballast or countermass in commercial aircraft and helicopters, sailboats, radial aircraft engine crankshafts and...race cars.

[kos]

The primary reason for using of DU in armour-piercing weapons instead of tungsten-nickel-iron alloys (? most probably wrong term, since they aren't alloys, they are a products of powder metallurgy, but I don't know proper English term for that) is the igniting action of DU cores.

[McGuire]

Quite so, pyrophoric as hell. Another interesting thing about DU: in solid form it is relatively harmless to humans in casual contact but when vaporized or particulated, totally different story.

[12.9:1]

Here a post I writ for another BB


Bunker Busters - slim, quiet, but don't invite one to drop in for dinner


Depleted Uranium
These bombs utilize "depleted" Uranium as an aid in penetrating rock, steel, and reinforced concrete. Uranium metal has an interesting property - when slammed into - say a tank at super high velocity, the collision generates intense heat melting the bullet as well as the tank armor (all this in a tiny fraction of a second) uranium's special talent is - as the tip of the bullet melts (more like vaporised) it melts in such a way as to keep making a sharp point! instead of a rounded blob, as with other metals such as tungsten. This white hot metal-vapor burns fiercely, incinerating anything inside the vehicle, oh and did I mention it's 58 percent heavier than lead and five times denser. All this works the same with these penetrator bombs, but in stead of ounces now it's hundreds or even thousands of pounds! - Big Blue (15000 lbs) contains 4-5 tons.

depleted?
Natural Uranium consists of two different "isotopes"— atoms of the same element that differ only in their numbers of neutrons and thus have slightly different weights. Uranium-235 - it's the part that is able to chain-react (an extremely rare property (I think for obvious reasons)) and accounts for approximately 0.7 percent, with uranium-238, making up the bulk- 99.3 percent. While It's the U-235 that chain-reacts, it can't while it's mixed with so much U-238 and must be much more concentrated - 20 percent for use in electric power reactors, and to at least 90 percent for "weapon-grade". The process of refining or "enriching" is extremely difficult and expensive, requiring large industrial facilitys.

So long as it stays out side of the body
Strangely enough this most fearsome of natural elements is but mildly radioactive, while bomb-grade U-235 isn't something you'd want to curl up with on a cold night, though you could!?! The U-238 when 'depleted' loses about 40% of it's radioactivity and is almost harmless, as the predominant type of radiation Uranium emits is of low energy Alpha particles (helium atoms) which are blocked by a few inches of air or a piece of paper or your skin, many fewer beta particles (fast moving electrons) can travel a few feet in air and pass through several sheets of paper but do little harm, and still more rare - gamma rays yes they can damage but Uranium is a poor source for them. You know that Blue glow! seen around really 'Hot' materials that's gamma rays ripping Oxygen molecules apart! run run away.

Don't get me wrong, "it's a blowin in the wind"
When used according to directions a Bunker Buster Bomb vaporizes/burns - hundreds/thousands of pounds of depleted Uranium which becomes a very fine dust of uranium oxide - (less than 1.5 microns, small enough to lodge deep in the lung), now, uranium is a 'Heavy metal' and just like every body else in the family - arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, tungsten, etc - It's very toxic - effecting/disrupting many cellular functions, most obviously in the central nervous system. Most horrifically, disruptive in developing organisms such as a fetus, infant, or a five year old struggling to say - something?

“cave-busting” bombs deliver hundreds of tons of DU to Afghanistan

Afghans' uranium levels astonishing
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3050317.stm

[kos]

Minor observation: there's no melting or vaporizing of considerable volume during the armour penetration (if we're talking about armour-piercing weapons such as sub-caliber projectiles, initial speed of impact is about 2-2.5 km/s, if we're talking about cumulative weapons, initial speeds of impact are in the region of 10-15 km/s). There's no time for those processes to take place. It's just that the pressure on the projectile/target interface is so big that even most tough materials behave like liquids in those situations. But they aren't melted. The material is mashed, you can see that if you analyze crystall lattice after the penetration.

[Engineguy]

BAR Tested Honda V8 Engine Last Week... BAR-Honda were the first Formula One team to test their V8 engine ahead of the 2006 season last week at the Mugello circuit, Autosport-Atlas has learned. The engine rules are changing next year to a V8 2.4 liter format from the current V10s. BAR's test drivers Anthony Davidson and Enrique Bernoldi tested the first prototype of Honda's V8 engine at the Mugello circuit last week, reportedly lapping around four seconds slower than with the current power unit.

"It wasn't at any time a question of catching quick lap times," BAR's technical director Geoff Willis said after the test. "Davidson before, and Bernoldi later, just ran to help us learn how this engine works and to control several parameters and technical details, and collect a lot of data in view of future, more complete tests. It is a very strange engine. Really low. Really, really low and shorter than usual, with a lack of power and a lower stroke curve compared to the actual V10, as logical. But it will still be a very interesting engine, in some ways more similar to a MotoGP engine than an actual F1 V10." Autosport-Atlas

With the 98mm maximum bore rule (preventing stroke reduction), and the minimum crank height and minimum CofG rules, and the same 90° vee angle the Honda V10 uses, why would he say this engine is really low, really, really low?

And what does the term "a lower stroke curve" mean?

[Paul Ranson]

Perhaps somebody transcribed 'torque curve' incorrectly? It would make sense in context.

Paul

[J. Edlund]

It seems strange that the engine is said to be low, the engine should however be around 11 cm shorter.

[JLH]

The inclusion of the single conventional sparkplug rule is specifically aimed at preventing a certain engine manufacturer from using a development that they were very close to bringing onto their V10's, and that is rotary valves.

This particularly rule was included, thanks to a rival team (who knew about it) that lobbied very hard for it to be included, because it was known that the valve doesn't effectively work with a single spark plug due to it's geometry. The other rules about round valves and them been reciprocating poppet valves kills it also of course, but were apparently added much later.

J

[dc21]

What are the supposed advantages of rotary valves? We have them in karts, where they give higher power over a smaller range (compared to reed valves).

Dave