- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/16/22 at 12:17 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Obtuse1
Do you know of a site or a place where I can get normalized points scoring history / average for all drivers? I don't care if current driver's points are reset to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 scoring or the older drivers' results are reset to the current 25-18-15 etc scale. I just want to know which driver scored the most points on average per race.
My gut feeling says Michael and Lewis will be up there. Michael based on the strength his '94-'95 championship years and of course the 2000-2006 Ferrari stint, and Lewis due to the fact that he has finished on the podium 183 times out of 291 starts (63% of his races).
Posted on 4/16/22 at 12:48 am to euphemus
quote:
Do you know of a site or a place where I can get normalized points scoring history / average for all drivers? I don't care if current driver's points are reset to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 scoring or the older drivers' results are reset to the current 25-18-15 etc scale. I just want to know which driver scored the most points on average per race.
www.formula1points.com is what you seek. In the deep dive area it has average points per GP and you can change it to any of the points systems ever used.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 1:00 am to Obtuse1
quote:
www.formula1points.com is what you seek.
That's perfect. Thanks man!
Posted on 4/16/22 at 1:37 am to euphemus
quote:
Thanks man!
I made a smartass comment to fightin tigers on tOT about Shell and Petronas and it reminded me I have to come clean. Since their entrance into F1 I have always put the emphasis on the second syllable in Petronas. Recently I learned it is on the first syllable which makes sense in retrospect. I could swear I have heard it "my way" before but it is incorrect. I don't feel too bad because Peter Windsor never learned how to say Scuderia correctly and he is the definition of a F1 insider. We were both caught out by the penultimate syllable stress rule.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 1:59 am to Obtuse1
I had never previously come across different fuels brands brought up so much as a potential differentiating factor in car performance between teams until this season. Don't they all have to follow the same formula/recipe?
I am only familiar with the old Bridgestone/Michelin tire rivalry (2005 US GP comes to mind) and how the extra testing that Ferrari was able to do with Bridgestone providing them an advantage, a luxury that no one other team had.
This whole Shell vs Petronas thing is new to me. Is this more of a recent development, of teams using different fuel formulas/mixes that works better for certain engines? Which teams are using Shell fuel and which ones are using Petronas? And has Petronas tried adding some STP® Gas Treatment additive to their gas if they really have a performance gap to Shell?
What brand fuels are the Honda engines running?
I am only familiar with the old Bridgestone/Michelin tire rivalry (2005 US GP comes to mind) and how the extra testing that Ferrari was able to do with Bridgestone providing them an advantage, a luxury that no one other team had.
This whole Shell vs Petronas thing is new to me. Is this more of a recent development, of teams using different fuel formulas/mixes that works better for certain engines? Which teams are using Shell fuel and which ones are using Petronas? And has Petronas tried adding some STP® Gas Treatment additive to their gas if they really have a performance gap to Shell?
What brand fuels are the Honda engines running?This post was edited on 4/16/22 at 2:11 am
Posted on 4/16/22 at 3:15 am to euphemus
quote:
I had never previously come across different fuels brands brought up so much as a potential differentiating factor in car performance between teams until this season. Don't they all have to follow the same formula/recipe?
Fuel has been a performance item in F1 since 1947 (predating the FIA World Championships). Those 1986 1.5L BMW M12s weren't making 1,500 hp in qualy trim on pump gas! Toluene and benzene will give your engine plenty of pep in that suck, squeeze, bang, blow cycle. Prior to '93 they could run just about any exotic mix they liked as long as it met the 102 octane limit. In the early days, it was just a bunch of garagistas like Luigi and Colin mixing up a bunch of highly flammable organic chemicals in a drum like the Guidry or LeBlanc family mixing up a pot of crawfish boil water. By the 60s it became more and more like white coat chemists moving on to today when it is some serious Ph.D. level chemistry.
In 93 the FIA decided they better get a handle on the exotic fuels before the paddock started blowing up at random races so at least the explosions today are from missile attacks instead of self-inflicted wounds. So the rule became F1 fuels have to be "basically" pump gas and conform to EU Health and Safety regulations.
The problem with "gas", as I am sure all the O&G baws and bawettes know, it that it isn't one chemical, though it is mainly heptane and octane just basic 7/8 carbon chain petro-chemicals... but there are additives and now ethanol. The 10% ethanol requirement posed a new "problem" for the teams. Ethanol is great for making hp in a boosted engine BUT sucks when you have fuel flow limits. How true it is that a big part of Ferrari's power gains is fuel-related is hard to tell but I think Shell's work with E10 is certainly part of the strength of their engine's apparent power advantage. The other additives while small in volume can and do make big differences in power, reliability and how the engine deals with hot and cool ambient temps.
As an anecdote to the power of the chemists during the naughts Ferrari had an advantage at one time because Shell formulated a lighter fuel.
quote:
Which teams are using Shell fuel and which ones are using Petronas?
First, each team will have a different fuel/lubricant partner but the actual fuel will be the same one as the engine supplier uses no matter whose logo is on the side of the car.
Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, and Haas use Shell
Mercedes, McLaren, Williams, and Aston use Petronas
Red Bull and AlphaRauri use ExxonMobil
Alpine use BP
So the fuel has to be kinda sorta like pump "gas" but it is soooo much more than that. While I have heard engineers say the engines will run on pump gas the amount of HP and reliability they would lose is significant.
quote:
I am only familiar with the old Bridgestone/Michelin tire rivalry (2005 US GP comes to mind) and how the extra testing that Ferrari was able to do with Bridgestone providing them an advantage, a luxury that no one other team had.
The tire war was mainly 2001 until 2006 and while Bridgestone supplied at least 2 and up to 5 other teams in that time they only supplied another potential WCC winner in 2001 with McLaren. This produced a situation where Bridgestone was comfortable putting the vast majority of their effort into Ferrari. The fact this was the unlimited test time era (outside of summer break and a couple of other restrictions) Michael, Rubens/Felipe, and the test drivers (principally Marc Gene at the time) were able to pound out huge numbers of laps at Ferrari's own test track which no other team had and made for some of the best chassis specific tire development in F1 history.
This post was edited on 4/16/22 at 3:21 am
Posted on 4/16/22 at 9:58 am to Obtuse1
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:07 am to VABuckeye
Looks like Will tied the knot
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:36 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Toluene and benzene will give your engine plenty of pep in that suck, squeeze, bang, blow cycle. Prior to '93 they could run just about any exotic mix they liked as long as it met the 102 octane limit. In the early days, it was just a bunch of garagistas like Luigi and Colin mixing up a bunch of highly flammable organic chemicals in a drum like the Guidry or LeBlanc family mixing up a pot of crawfish boil water.
How were there not more explosions (and cancer)?
Thats amazing.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:47 am to Duke
You want cancer? Beryllium is what you seek.
Banned for cost reasons, but also because a certain team was scared of it.
Banned for cost reasons, but also because a certain team was scared of it.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 4:53 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
You want cancer? Beryllium is what you seek.
As soon as I read cancer I knew we had to have a beryllium discussion!
The FIA moved to ban it during the 99 season and it was in full effect at the beginning of the 01 season.
The move was predicated on two reasons cost and health. The first turned out to be wrong since it just drove costs up more looking for an alternative. Health is somewhat dubious considering the parts were made by other manufacturers, the only real issue was when a piston let go because unlike aluminum pistons beryllium pistons tended to disintegrate so that dust could be inhaled and potentially cause cancer (berylliosis). Years ago I looked at some beryllium cancer studies, they showed a correlation (much weaker than say smoking) but the subjects all worked in beryllium processing in the 40s-60s. F1 two decades ago was capable of good PPE practices on the RARE occasion they would have encountered beryllium dust and given they likely only used pistons produced by a third party and thus never directly dealt with the sintering or milling process they weren't sucking down beryllium on the reg. Some teams MAY have used beryllium cylinder bore sleeves but I have never seen any evidence of this, if that was the case they would have had to deal with the dust in manufacturing the engine.
Given all that why was F1 so keen on banning it, come on you know the answer, Ferrari didn't want it in F1 and that dirty nasty uncouth cheating team from Woking very much did.
So why did that Woking team headed by the terrible cheating hometown boy from Woking named Ron (never trust a man with two first names) like beryllium so much? Well, its a damn near perfect material for pistons.
First, we are actually talking about an alloy not pure beryllium. The type of alloy (technically a metal matrix composite) was AlBeMet produced by Materion AKA Brush Wellman and provided to Mahle to make pistons. I have never been clear if Mahle did the actual sintering or if Brush Wellman did that and Mahle only did the final machining. As an aside Mahle became the main supplier of F1 pistons due to their expertise in high performance diesel pistons and the modern super high compression F1 engines are actually run very near compression ignition ranges and actually did before the compression was limited to 18:1. Think about that: a "gas" engine running at 18:1 with 58 pounds of boost with 102 RON fuel. That is like the Johhny Knoxville throwing a lit stick of dynamite into a trash can and saying that will hold and doing it up to 7500 times per minute in each of your 6 little aluminum trash cans.*
So with all that non-sequitur out of the way what is so magical about this aluminum beryllium metal matrix composite? Mainly three things: 1. remarkable tolerance in high temp applications (combustion chamber temps in an F1 engine reach about half the temperature of the sun's surface) 2. incredibly high thermal conductivity (moves the heat from the top of the piston to the bottom where the heat is transferred to the oil from the oil jet system) and excellent stiffness to density. Regarding the stiffness to mass index the Young's Modulus over density of Ti, steel and Al all sits between 24 E^6 and 27 E^6 where Beryllium is 157 E^6.
So what did McLaren lose by having to give up beryllium in its pistons? Neway said in 2001 it dropped them back to pre-1998 levels of horsepower.
* prior to the limits on strat mode switching via Technical Directive 37 when engines were in qualy settings (Strat mode 2/Party Mode) the drivers could actually hear and feel the knocking (pre-ignition) the drivers loved it because they knew the engine was at peak power output, the engineers conversely hated it because they knew the engine was at peak destruction level. Over the course of a lap that is ~50,000 pre ignitions (dieseling/knocking events) and the resulting errant (wrong vector wrong time) pressure waves have to be contained by that lightweight aluminum block and con rods that weigh only 300 grams. Can you say broken wrist pin (gudgeon pin for you Anglophiles) or smushed bearings? The engineers in the paddock don't have sweaty brows and bouncing knees worried about their driver doing a good qualy lap, they are just hoping their 1.6-liter baby comes home with all its pieces and parts still attached to one another.
Sorry about the wall of stream of consciousness text, hopefully, someone finds at least a kernel of information they find interesting.
TL:DR
McLaren likes beryllium
Ferrari points out the boys from Woking like it because it literally kills people
FIA agrees with Ferrari as they should
Therefore Ron Dennis had to find other ways to kill mechanics and club baby seals... of course he did but those are stories for other days
This post was edited on 4/17/22 at 4:09 am
Posted on 4/16/22 at 4:59 pm to Obtuse1
*no bias is shown in the writing of the above
Italians stuck to the much more safe practice of dragging on cigarettes while building their engines.
Italians stuck to the much more safe practice of dragging on cigarettes while building their engines.
This post was edited on 4/16/22 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 4/16/22 at 6:57 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Think about that: a "gas" engine running at 18:1 with 58 pounds of boost with 102 RON fuel. That is like the Johhny Knoxville throwing a lit stick of dynamite into a trash can and saying that will hold and doing it up to 7500 times per second in each of your 6 little aluminum trash cans.
quote:
Regarding the stiffness to mass index the Young's Modulus over density of Ti, steel and Al all sits between 24 E^6 and 27 E^6 where Beryllium is 157 E^6.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 9:52 pm to whiskey over ice
After writing this and wanted to write about 5 times as much I realized I was WAY into the weeds.
So TLDR beryllium (ceramics) is/are very light and very stiff better for pistons than Al, steel, or Ti. The numbers were just a way to express the difference.
18:1 with 58 pounds of boost with 102 RON fuel is just a way to say the current F1 engines are amazing, especially that they last more than 10 minutes on a test stand. The rest was just to say that if there was a nerdy Jackass crew a great way to blow up an engine would be to increase the compression ratio, increase the boost and use a lower octane fuel. F1 engineers are always 1 scintilla away from blowing shite up.
Read on if you are a masochist.
Not sure if you are mocking me for going overboard or sincerely wasn't to understand my gibberish better. I will assume it is a little of both.
Let's deal with the less complex stuff first. Young's modulus is just a single number representation of how easy it is to stretch and deform under tensile stress/strain simply how rigid/stiff it is. All a mass/stiffness index is doing is showing in one number a material's balance between lightness and stiffness. Al, Ti, and steel are the main construction materials in an engine. While they vary in stiffness and lightness (density) they all have roughly the same overall stiffness to mass index. Beryllium is remarkably higher. This is an excellent property for a piston. That being said you can't just use those two characteristics to decide on a piston since you might settle on magnesium which has a mass stiffness index maybe 4 times that of beryllium but still makes a horrible piston since it has an autoignition temperature of under 900 F.
Beryllium aluminum ceramics make light and rigid pistons.
I think it is clear why you want a rigid piston. If I am doing my calculation right at WOT (wide open throttle) the pressure on the top of a current F1 piston is in the neighborhood of 8-10 tons. That is distributed over only about 50 cm^2.
Obviously, you want everything on an engine to be light but the pistons are much more important because they are part of the high speed reciprocating mass. An F1 piston will be moving at over 4,000 fps at the normal shift point and changing direction around 200 times per second. This is part of the reason F1 engines are "oversquare". This means the piston diameter is LARGER than the stroke (distance from the center of the con rod journal to the center of the main journal on the crank ie how much the piston goes up and down in the cylinder). Oversquare engines with their short strokes can rev higher than a similar undersquare engine with a longer stroke. We could get into how the diameter/stroke relationship is important in building an engine for HP or torque but it isn't really useful talking about current F1 engines since they are all going to be almost the same.
I probably muddied the water more than I cleared it. :(
18:1 is the compression ratio of current F1 engines. That represents the reduction in volume of the air/fuel mixture when the piston moves up in the compression stroke. So in an engine with 18:1 compression ratio the volume between TDC (top dead center when the piston is at the highest point in the cylinder bore) and BDC (bottom dead center or when the piston is at its lowest point in the cylinder bore) is 18 times smaller (at TDC vs BDC). This is a very high compression ratio for a gasoline engine. The higher the compression ratio the higher the tendency for pre-ignition (knocking). Knocking is caused by the heat of compression and localized hot spots on pistons or the combustion chamber of the head, this usually happens at the edges of contours like the valve eyebrow relief cuts on the piston. This is why you want the piston, bore, and head to be made from a material with high thermal conductivity so that it moves the heat away from the combustion chamber quickly.
Knocking is bad for engine longevity because the explosion starts before the piston reaches TDC and starts moving down which throws a massive pressure wave through the piston/wrist pin/con rod/bearings/crank and ultimately the block which is tough on them all including the rings as the piston tries to rattle around in the bore.
Uncontrolled knocking is almost always bad but some amount is almost universal in something like an F1 engine set on kill. This might lead you to believe the best time for the spark of the spark plug to start ignition is at TDC but that isn't the case if you want maximum power. This is when you start down the road of ignition timing.
When ignition in an ICE happens it isn't one large explosion, the "explosion" is really a flame front moving through the compressed fuel-air mixture and this takes TIME. So for maximum power, you need to "advance" the timing so the spark occurs prior to the piston reaching TDC so the flame has time to burn "all" of the fuel and produce the highest cylinder pressure. Higher cylinder pressure equals higher power. So in a disposable race car engine when you need maximum power you will advance the spark as much as possible to get it right on the edge of knocking. When you want to back off you retard the ignition timing, less power, and less stress on the engine.
Now is the time to talk about the pre-chamber ignition used in F1 engines now. F1 engines don't have a single flame front propagating out from the sparkplug but start the ignition in a pre chamber and then "sprays" this flame out into the combustion chamber through multiple jets. This reduces the time for combustion and increases the total fuel burn, increasing power, and efficiency. This process allows them to start the ignition father ahead of TDC (significantly advancing the ignition timing). This topic deserves a long-winded discussion on its own but alas I have probably lost 99% of people by now. Pre chamber ignition is another tech brought over from diesels.
Turbocharging just exacerbates the potential knocking issue. In an F1 engine you can see the intake air compressed up to 4 ATM or ~58psi so that effectively significantly increases the effective compression ratio. This produces more heat and pushes you closer to pre ignition. In production cars, you see turbo engines with lower compression ratios than similar normally aspirated engines. As an example the 911 Carrera S is N/A and has a compression ratio of 12.5:1 whereas the Turbo S has a compression ratio of 8.7.
102 RON is the European version of the octane rating you see at the pump. 102 RON is about 98 octane on the US (RON+MON/2) scale. So like uber-premium and a little less than the most common aviation gas which is about 100. Octane is just a number to represent how knock-resistant a fuel is.
So TLDR beryllium (ceramics) is/are very light and very stiff better for pistons than Al, steel, or Ti. The numbers were just a way to express the difference.
18:1 with 58 pounds of boost with 102 RON fuel is just a way to say the current F1 engines are amazing, especially that they last more than 10 minutes on a test stand. The rest was just to say that if there was a nerdy Jackass crew a great way to blow up an engine would be to increase the compression ratio, increase the boost and use a lower octane fuel. F1 engineers are always 1 scintilla away from blowing shite up.
Read on if you are a masochist.
Not sure if you are mocking me for going overboard or sincerely wasn't to understand my gibberish better. I will assume it is a little of both.
quote:
Regarding the stiffness to mass index the Young's Modulus over density of Ti, steel, and Al all sits between 24 E^6 and 27 E^6 where Beryllium is 157 E^6.
Let's deal with the less complex stuff first. Young's modulus is just a single number representation of how easy it is to stretch and deform under tensile stress/strain simply how rigid/stiff it is. All a mass/stiffness index is doing is showing in one number a material's balance between lightness and stiffness. Al, Ti, and steel are the main construction materials in an engine. While they vary in stiffness and lightness (density) they all have roughly the same overall stiffness to mass index. Beryllium is remarkably higher. This is an excellent property for a piston. That being said you can't just use those two characteristics to decide on a piston since you might settle on magnesium which has a mass stiffness index maybe 4 times that of beryllium but still makes a horrible piston since it has an autoignition temperature of under 900 F.
Beryllium aluminum ceramics make light and rigid pistons.
I think it is clear why you want a rigid piston. If I am doing my calculation right at WOT (wide open throttle) the pressure on the top of a current F1 piston is in the neighborhood of 8-10 tons. That is distributed over only about 50 cm^2.
Obviously, you want everything on an engine to be light but the pistons are much more important because they are part of the high speed reciprocating mass. An F1 piston will be moving at over 4,000 fps at the normal shift point and changing direction around 200 times per second. This is part of the reason F1 engines are "oversquare". This means the piston diameter is LARGER than the stroke (distance from the center of the con rod journal to the center of the main journal on the crank ie how much the piston goes up and down in the cylinder). Oversquare engines with their short strokes can rev higher than a similar undersquare engine with a longer stroke. We could get into how the diameter/stroke relationship is important in building an engine for HP or torque but it isn't really useful talking about current F1 engines since they are all going to be almost the same.
I probably muddied the water more than I cleared it. :(
quote:
Think about that: a "gas" engine running at 18:1 with 58 pounds of boost with 102 RON fuel. That is like the Johhny Knoxville throwing a lit stick of dynamite into a trash can and saying that will hold and doing it up to 7500 times per second in each of your 6 little aluminum trash cans.
18:1 is the compression ratio of current F1 engines. That represents the reduction in volume of the air/fuel mixture when the piston moves up in the compression stroke. So in an engine with 18:1 compression ratio the volume between TDC (top dead center when the piston is at the highest point in the cylinder bore) and BDC (bottom dead center or when the piston is at its lowest point in the cylinder bore) is 18 times smaller (at TDC vs BDC). This is a very high compression ratio for a gasoline engine. The higher the compression ratio the higher the tendency for pre-ignition (knocking). Knocking is caused by the heat of compression and localized hot spots on pistons or the combustion chamber of the head, this usually happens at the edges of contours like the valve eyebrow relief cuts on the piston. This is why you want the piston, bore, and head to be made from a material with high thermal conductivity so that it moves the heat away from the combustion chamber quickly.
Knocking is bad for engine longevity because the explosion starts before the piston reaches TDC and starts moving down which throws a massive pressure wave through the piston/wrist pin/con rod/bearings/crank and ultimately the block which is tough on them all including the rings as the piston tries to rattle around in the bore.
Uncontrolled knocking is almost always bad but some amount is almost universal in something like an F1 engine set on kill. This might lead you to believe the best time for the spark of the spark plug to start ignition is at TDC but that isn't the case if you want maximum power. This is when you start down the road of ignition timing.
When ignition in an ICE happens it isn't one large explosion, the "explosion" is really a flame front moving through the compressed fuel-air mixture and this takes TIME. So for maximum power, you need to "advance" the timing so the spark occurs prior to the piston reaching TDC so the flame has time to burn "all" of the fuel and produce the highest cylinder pressure. Higher cylinder pressure equals higher power. So in a disposable race car engine when you need maximum power you will advance the spark as much as possible to get it right on the edge of knocking. When you want to back off you retard the ignition timing, less power, and less stress on the engine.
Now is the time to talk about the pre-chamber ignition used in F1 engines now. F1 engines don't have a single flame front propagating out from the sparkplug but start the ignition in a pre chamber and then "sprays" this flame out into the combustion chamber through multiple jets. This reduces the time for combustion and increases the total fuel burn, increasing power, and efficiency. This process allows them to start the ignition father ahead of TDC (significantly advancing the ignition timing). This topic deserves a long-winded discussion on its own but alas I have probably lost 99% of people by now. Pre chamber ignition is another tech brought over from diesels.
Turbocharging just exacerbates the potential knocking issue. In an F1 engine you can see the intake air compressed up to 4 ATM or ~58psi so that effectively significantly increases the effective compression ratio. This produces more heat and pushes you closer to pre ignition. In production cars, you see turbo engines with lower compression ratios than similar normally aspirated engines. As an example the 911 Carrera S is N/A and has a compression ratio of 12.5:1 whereas the Turbo S has a compression ratio of 8.7.
102 RON is the European version of the octane rating you see at the pump. 102 RON is about 98 octane on the US (RON+MON/2) scale. So like uber-premium and a little less than the most common aviation gas which is about 100. Octane is just a number to represent how knock-resistant a fuel is.
This post was edited on 4/17/22 at 4:16 am
Posted on 4/16/22 at 9:57 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
This means the piston diameter is smaller than the stroke (distance from the center of the con rod journal to the center of the main journal on the crank ie how much the piston goes up and down in the cylinder).
That's backwards. The bore is larger than the stroke in an oversquare engine.
I'm guessing you just typed that wrong as you are correct on the short stroke being better for high RPM as it keeps the piston speed down.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:00 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
That's backwards. The bore is larger than the stroke in an oversquare engine.
I'm guessing you just typed that wrong as you are correct on the short stroke being better for high RPM as it keeps the piston speed down.
Yep, will correct.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:04 pm to euphemus
quote:
And has Petronas tried adding some STP® Gas Treatment additive to their gas if they really have a performance gap to Shell? What brand fuels are the Honda engines running
Need some Pennzoil or Quaker State products if want to get that Shell performance.
STP is made by ENergizer. This post was edited on 4/16/22 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:09 pm to Obtuse1
quote:Just wanted to say you're an encyclopedia of knowledge and your posts are educational and entertaining. Glad to be in this thread to read and learn more about current and past F1 tech.
Obtuse1
I'm an engineer and oil baw, but on the power and controls side. TIL I should stay away from Beryllium.
Posted on 4/16/22 at 10:23 pm to busbeepbeep
I haven't read up much on the current ICE portion of the PU's since they went to the hybrid setup. Will have to delve into whatever is out there. It sounds like they have to be using HCCI tech of some sort.
The piston speeds shouldn't be an issue at all for these engines as they don't turn nearly the RPM the old V10's did, so they could lengthen the stroke if desired as the cubes per cylinder is similar.
Interesting fact from the V10 era is that they and Nascar V8's had about the same piston speed. Around 5200 fps. While the V10's were spinning 19k+ the much larger Nascar V8's were around 9500 rpm.
Drag engines commonly go well beyond the piston speeds seen in F1 engines but they don't have much longevity generally.
The piston speeds shouldn't be an issue at all for these engines as they don't turn nearly the RPM the old V10's did, so they could lengthen the stroke if desired as the cubes per cylinder is similar.
Interesting fact from the V10 era is that they and Nascar V8's had about the same piston speed. Around 5200 fps. While the V10's were spinning 19k+ the much larger Nascar V8's were around 9500 rpm.
Drag engines commonly go well beyond the piston speeds seen in F1 engines but they don't have much longevity generally.
Page 144 of 628
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News